Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #646926 > unrolled thread
| Started by | alal65536@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-23 08:26 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-08-28 14:16 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 105 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Are space and time infinitely divisible? alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-08-23 08:26 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 10:34 -0500
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-08-23 13:16 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 16:30 -0500
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-08-23 20:48 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 06:55 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 10:21 -0500
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-08-25 08:58 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 12:57 -0500
Re: Nature is infinitely large/small; our knowledge is infinitely small. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-24 17:56 -0400
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 16:37 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-23 20:20 -0400
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 19:18 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 06:17 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 08:32 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 08:49 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 09:50 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 06:16 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 10:10 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-24 17:58 -0400
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 06:11 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 06:05 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 05:15 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-24 17:49 -0400
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 16:13 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-24 19:28 -0400
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 04:51 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-25 18:16 -0400
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 21:50 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <nobody@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-26 01:55 -0400
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 05:31 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 06:35 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-24 17:54 -0400
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 16:39 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-24 20:20 -0400
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 04:14 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-25 18:08 -0400
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 11:26 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 12:32 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 14:45 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 17:43 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 16:46 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 13:21 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 14:57 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 17:25 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 08:21 -0500
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 15:40 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 21:45 -0400
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 00:14 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 08:23 -0500
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 16:36 -0400
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 15:41 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 21:48 -0400
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 15:59 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-29 16:08 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 18:14 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 08:43 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 16:52 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-09-01 12:53 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 20:16 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 21:08 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-09-01 23:46 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 00:13 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-09-02 00:28 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 01:39 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-09-02 07:51 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 00:29 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-09-03 11:18 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 11:15 -0500
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-09-01 23:47 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-02 18:09 -0400
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 10:15 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:03 +0000
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-31 12:09 -0500
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-31 17:24 -0400
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:54 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-31 20:25 -0400
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 07:02 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-09-01 12:27 -0500
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-09-01 12:29 -0500
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 19:45 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 23:39 -0400
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 21:21 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 17:50 -0400
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:51 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-31 17:07 -0400
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 09:52 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 14:06 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 16:38 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 10:28 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 18:11 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 21:33 -0500
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-23 17:21 -0400
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 14:28 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 16:45 -0500
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-23 10:34 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-23 22:42 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 14:02 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-23 17:19 -0400
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 21:08 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-24 17:40 -0400
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 10:34 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-25 10:52 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 13:30 -0700
Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-28 14:16 -0700
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 06:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8c3ecbd3-0521-4f7b-a2f3-e20e63102d10@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647102 |
On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 7:58:43 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > On 8/24/2017 1:10 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 9:17:36 AM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > [] > >> > >> Small atoms/molecules will move faster, and if used for curing disease, this > >> high speed may well be useful. > >> > >> Take as an assumption that the kinetic energy of the medicinal molecule will > >> cure the disease, the more the kinetic energy the better as in the photo- > >> electric effect where only the frequency decides the emission of electrons. > > > > > > You can assume that, but I think if you test that, > > it will be wrong. Boiling water can kill germs, but > > trying to boil the water in your body is not going to > > turn out well. > > > >>> > >> The momentum of a medical molecule is mv and its energy is 0.5mvv > > > > Where did you get this nonsense? > > > >> > >> If we dilute the medicine by one thousand and assume that the mass goes > >> down by 1000 times in order to keep the concentration constant, then > >> m1=m/1000 > >> and v1=v*1000 to maintain the law of conservation of momentum. > > > > You are speaking terms that you do not understand. > >> > >> Then the new kinetic energy will be 0.5m/1000*1000000vv or 500mvv which is > >> 1000 times the kinetic energy of the undiluted molecule/atom in solution. > >> > >> So in homeopathy we use this process to make powerful medicines, but it does > >> not follow that the curative process will be linear. It could be a log > >> function of the dilution factor. > >> > > > > You are reading pseudo-science. You include scient terms, but > > none of the ideas make any sense, and some violate known laws > > of physics and medicine. > > > >> Anyway, point is that matter as atoms or molecules can become very small > >> depending upon the dilution process. This is a theory, that atoms may well > >> exist but there could be big atoms and small atoms for the same element. > > > > It is a theory that is wrong. > > > >> What we consider atomic weight could well be an average. > > > > Not in the sense that you are proposing. Atomic weight is very well > > defined and confirmed by experiment. It does not change with > > concentration. > > > >> > >> When we hold that atoms could be big or small, then the anomalous situation > >> about elements having non-integer values for atomic mass (such as Chlorine or > >> Nitrogen) is easily explained. > > > > This atoms changing size theory is nonsense. > > Non-integer mass is given to represent the average due to > > isotopes present in nature. So it does NOT need a new > > explanation. Atomic mass is very well defined, thank you. > > > > > >> The atomic mass in terms of mass of the > >> hydrogen atom is just an average. While the value of atomic mass of the proton, > >> taken as 1, is also an average. > > > > Nonsense. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Arindam Banerjee > > > > Sorry, Ari, but you are listening to some very non-scientific > > ideas from somebody. Whoever gave you these ideas is likely > > trying to sell you something. Don't buy it. > > > > Ed. > > > Dumb-ass strategic writer. Flunked every science course they ever took > but still in their minds they imagine themselves as smarter than Einstein! Any moron is smarter than the great disaster that was Einstein. Even you, benj. For Einstein's smartness was of the negative kind.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 06:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <92543f2c-071c-4854-9f49-7c128b04399b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647071 |
On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 3:10:17 AM UTC+10, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 9:17:36 AM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > [] > > > > Small atoms/molecules will move faster, and if used for curing disease, this > > high speed may well be useful. > > > > Take as an assumption that the kinetic energy of the medicinal molecule will > > cure the disease, the more the kinetic energy the better as in the photo- > > electric effect where only the frequency decides the emission of electrons. > > > You can assume that, but I think if you test that, > it will be wrong. Boiling water can kill germs, but > trying to boil the water in your body is not going to > turn out well. Wrong analogy. Homeopathy does not boil water in your body. Only some molecules in the body are moving very fast in the body as the mass of the molecule is very low in the solution. Homeopathy medicine is like a sniper bullet. Allopathy medicine is like a tank. Both are useful in their way. In India very fortunately people are allowed both, unlike some other countries Some doctors with medical degrees take up homeopathy and call themselves allo-homeopaths. > > > > > > The momentum of a medical molecule is mv and its energy is 0.5mvv > > Where did you get this nonsense? Why is it nonsense? If we take medicine it has molecules. These molecules must impact with whatever is causing the ailment to cause some situational change. The molecules are moving, otherwise they cannot make the impact. So they must have a velocity. To make an impact with whatever causing the disease, they must strike it somehow. The assumption here is that the velocity of the strike relates to the efficacy of the cure. I don't think this is an unreasonable assumption. It could be original though, in the field of medicine. I don't know. That you think it nonsense could mean that this is an original thought. > > > > > If we dilute the medicine by one thousand and assume that the mass goes > > down by 1000 times in order to keep the concentration constant, then > > m1=m/1000 > > and v1=v*1000 to maintain the law of conservation of momentum. > > You are speaking terms that you do not understand. Well, maybe I am wrong here somehow, for this is speculation and when I wrote the above I wasn't at my best. Let us see once again. What I was trying to say is that the molecule divides by a 1000, so the mass of the molecule is 0.001 times the original molecule, but there are now 1000 of them as a result of division. It seemed to me, in my earlier state, that each would get an increase in velocity of 1000 as they split up. However, as there are a 1000 of them, this may not happen. My bad! On the other hand, as the mass is smaller, it will get hit around by the heavier molecules in the solution harder and it will move faster, getting that energy from the heavy molecules and thus slowing them down. Like a football getting hit with a snooker rod will move only so fast, but a billiard ball will move faster. So while my maths was off, I admit, I think my original theory that the small medical molecules move faster in the solution is still valid. > > > > Then the new kinetic energy will be 0.5m/1000*1000000vv or 500mvv which is > > 1000 times the kinetic energy of the undiluted molecule/atom in solution. > > > > So in homeopathy we use this process to make powerful medicines, but it does > > not follow that the curative process will be linear. It could be a log > > function of the dilution factor. > > > > You are reading pseudo-science. You include scient terms, but > none of the ideas make any sense, and some violate known laws > of physics and medicine. Well, we need not all think alike. The point is that homeopathy works for me and those who don't like it say so on the grounds that it violates the laws of science, relating to atomicity. I am suggesting that our ideas of atomicity may need an upgrade, by thinking of variable size atoms and their constituents. > > > Anyway, point is that matter as atoms or molecules can become very small > > depending upon the dilution process. This is a theory, that atoms may well > > exist but there could be big atoms and small atoms for the same element. > > It is a theory that is wrong. Why do you think so? How can anyone know that a certain blob seen with an electron microscope cannot be broken up into smaller blobs when put into a solution? In a solution or in gas, has anyone compared the sizes of individual atoms? It may well be that for a certain temp and pressure the atoms form a given size, all same, which we think is one atom. Let us not forget that atomic theory is still a theory. Still we think of it as theory. Just as we think of kinetic theory of gases. The atomic theory is good for many practical purposes but still does not explain the atomic weight of Chlorine. Which could well be explained in terms of variable size atoms in that gas. > > > What we consider atomic weight could well be an average. > > Not in the sense that you are proposing. Atomic weight is very well > defined and confirmed by experiment. It does not change with > concentration. Have the found out the atomic weight of say oxygen in water? Why is the atomic weight of nitrogen 14.4? It should be 14 and a very little over. > > > > > When we hold that atoms could be big or small, then the anomalous situation > > about elements having non-integer values for atomic mass (such as Chlorine or > > Nitrogen) is easily explained. > > This atoms changing size theory is nonsense. It is not nonsense if matter is infinitely divisible, as per a new version of atomic theory. Just as it is not nonsense to say that a line is an infinity of points. And a surface is an infinity of lines. And a volune is an infinity of surfaces. Basic geometry, that, learnt in school. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > Non-integer mass is given to represent the average due to > isotopes present in nature. So it does NOT need a new > explanation. Atomic mass is very well defined, thank you. Isotopes do not account for the atomic mass. > > > > The atomic mass in terms of mass of the > > hydrogen atom is just an average. While the value of atomic mass of the proton, > > taken as 1, is also an average. > > Nonsense. > > > > Cheers, > > Arindam Banerjee > > Sorry, Ari, but you are listening to some very non-scientific > ideas from somebody. Whoever gave you these ideas is likely > trying to sell you something. Don't buy it. > > Ed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-24 05:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <88b171df-c4d4-4525-b98f-60474c681e03@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647021 |
On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 10:20:16 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > On 8/23/2017 7:37 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 6:16:58 AM UTC+10, alal...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 9:04:58 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> On 8/23/17 10:26 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> I believe that space and time are not infinitely divisible. That means that we will find fundamental particles, which cannot be divided any further, if we haven't already. How do we discover if space (and time) is infinitely divisible or not? > >>>> > >>>> Abhinav Lal > >>>> Writer & Investor > >>>> > >>> > >>> Well, first of all, let's talk about what you mean by a particle, and > >>> what the relationship then would be to an indivisible chuck of spacetime. > >> > >> A particle is an extremely small piece of matter. > >> > >>> > >>> If all you mean by "particle" is "a thing that is not further > >>> divisible", then that's not really what physicists mean by that term. > >>> > >> > >> A fundamental or elementary particle initially described a particle as not being further divisible. I used the term "fundamental particle" with its initial meaning. > >> > >> Abhinav Lal > >> Writer & Investor > >> > >>> -- > >>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > Apart from Millikan's oil drop experiment, there is little to show from > > experimental evidence about the atomicity of matter. > > As for that experiment, well, some say it is dodgy. > > What is seen as an atom with an electron microscope could well be a blob > > of many atoms. > > Homeopathy suggests that effectively atoms get smaller and smaller with > > increased dilution. > > It could well be, that matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the > > soup filling the infinite universe. > > That is, there is no aether within electrons and protons, but outside them. > > Points to ponder... > > Cheers, > > Arindam Banerjee > > > Absolute journalist blather. Banjo like all strategic writers has no > clue about science, but that's ok because he can make up for that with > imagination and self-aggrandizement of what a genius he is. Stupid ostrich benj, never had a single moment of inspiration in his miserable pseudo-scientific waste of an existence. In the presence of my genius, this poor devil exudes smelly matter from all his orifices. > > He is a fucking moron. The above post is proof positive that he not only > has no clue about science including how the Millikan-Fletcher experiment > actually works and what it measured, but then proves he does not even > make a credible kook since he has no idea what Homeopathic medicine is > all about. > > It could well be that Banjo's brain is like knots in hair in particular > the dreadlocks (Jata to you Banjo) of some rastafarian stoner. > > Ponder what a moron he is. Explains a lot about both India and Oz.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-24 17:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <599f49e6$0$12504$b1db1813$145976f0@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647054 |
On 8/24/2017 8:15 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 10:20:16 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >> On 8/23/2017 7:37 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 6:16:58 AM UTC+10, alal...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 9:04:58 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> On 8/23/17 10:26 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> I believe that space and time are not infinitely divisible. That means that we will find fundamental particles, which cannot be divided any further, if we haven't already. How do we discover if space (and time) is infinitely divisible or not? >>>>>> >>>>>> Abhinav Lal >>>>>> Writer & Investor >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Well, first of all, let's talk about what you mean by a particle, and >>>>> what the relationship then would be to an indivisible chuck of spacetime. >>>> >>>> A particle is an extremely small piece of matter. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> If all you mean by "particle" is "a thing that is not further >>>>> divisible", then that's not really what physicists mean by that term. >>>>> >>>> >>>> A fundamental or elementary particle initially described a particle as not being further divisible. I used the term "fundamental particle" with its initial meaning. >>>> >>>> Abhinav Lal >>>> Writer & Investor >>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> Apart from Millikan's oil drop experiment, there is little to show from >>> experimental evidence about the atomicity of matter. >>> As for that experiment, well, some say it is dodgy. >>> What is seen as an atom with an electron microscope could well be a blob >>> of many atoms. >>> Homeopathy suggests that effectively atoms get smaller and smaller with >>> increased dilution. >>> It could well be, that matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the >>> soup filling the infinite universe. >>> That is, there is no aether within electrons and protons, but outside them. >>> Points to ponder... >>> Cheers, >>> Arindam Banerjee >>> >> Absolute journalist blather. Banjo like all strategic writers has no >> clue about science, but that's ok because he can make up for that with >> imagination and self-aggrandizement of what a genius he is. > > Stupid ostrich benj, never had a single moment of inspiration in his > miserable pseudo-scientific waste of an existence. In the presence of my > genius, this poor devil exudes smelly matter from all his orifices. Well, folks, there you go. This is Banjo's idea of what a scientific debate is about. CNN science. Guy's a moron like all journalists. >> He is a fucking moron. The above post is proof positive that he not only >> has no clue about science including how the Millikan-Fletcher experiment >> actually works and what it measured, but then proves he does not even >> make a credible kook since he has no idea what Homeopathic medicine is >> all about. >> >> It could well be that Banjo's brain is like knots in hair in particular >> the dreadlocks (Jata to you Banjo) of some rastafarian stoner. >> >> Ponder what a moron he is. Explains a lot about both India and Oz. > Yup. worth repeating, no?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-24 16:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <103f7b9b-f9d8-4a86-b939-5cc6cf82f324@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647098 |
On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 7:49:30 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > On 8/24/2017 8:15 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 10:20:16 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > >> On 8/23/2017 7:37 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 6:16:58 AM UTC+10, alal...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 9:04:58 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>> On 8/23/17 10:26 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> I believe that space and time are not infinitely divisible. That means that we will find fundamental particles, which cannot be divided any further, if we haven't already. How do we discover if space (and time) is infinitely divisible or not? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Abhinav Lal > >>>>>> Writer & Investor > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Well, first of all, let's talk about what you mean by a particle, and > >>>>> what the relationship then would be to an indivisible chuck of spacetime. > >>>> > >>>> A particle is an extremely small piece of matter. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> If all you mean by "particle" is "a thing that is not further > >>>>> divisible", then that's not really what physicists mean by that term. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> A fundamental or elementary particle initially described a particle as not being further divisible. I used the term "fundamental particle" with its initial meaning. > >>>> > >>>> Abhinav Lal > >>>> Writer & Investor > >>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >>> Apart from Millikan's oil drop experiment, there is little to show from > >>> experimental evidence about the atomicity of matter. > >>> As for that experiment, well, some say it is dodgy. > >>> What is seen as an atom with an electron microscope could well be a blob > >>> of many atoms. > >>> Homeopathy suggests that effectively atoms get smaller and smaller with > >>> increased dilution. > >>> It could well be, that matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the > >>> soup filling the infinite universe. > >>> That is, there is no aether within electrons and protons, but outside them. > >>> Points to ponder... > >>> Cheers, > >>> Arindam Banerjee > >>> > >> Absolute journalist blather. Banjo like all strategic writers has no > >> clue about science, but that's ok because he can make up for that with > >> imagination and self-aggrandizement of what a genius he is. > > > > Stupid ostrich benj, never had a single moment of inspiration in his > > miserable pseudo-scientific waste of an existence. In the presence of my > > genius, this poor devil exudes smelly matter from all his orifices. > > Well, folks, there you go. This is Banjo's idea of what a scientific > debate is about. CNN science. Guy's a moron like all journalists. Benj, you are worse than all journalists, for you are a pseudo-scientific name-caller. What else can parasitic Einsteinian frauds be? Journalists are okay for in 2003 they published my work on Internal Force in the media so the thieves posing as scientists cannot steal my credit. Heh-heh. > >> He is a fucking moron. The above post is proof positive that he not only > >> has no clue about science including how the Millikan-Fletcher experiment > >> actually works and what it measured, but then proves he does not even > >> make a credible kook since he has no idea what Homeopathic medicine is > >> all about. Heh, all the above name-calling is the highest "scientific" thingy of which benj is capable. What a liar and twister! Poor devil benj, it must suck for him to drown in his own bile. > >> It could well be that Banjo's brain is like knots in hair in particular > >> the dreadlocks (Jata to you Banjo) of some rastafarian stoner. Idiot benj is as ignorant as he is abusive. > >> Ponder what a moron he is. Explains a lot about both India and Oz. > > > Yup. worth repeating, no? Miserable wretch benj, benjonee to India and Oz: far better countries these are than whatever stinking avaricious hole you are in. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-24 19:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <599f610b$0$20877$b1db1813$15bdbe48@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647120 |
On 8/24/2017 7:13 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 7:49:30 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >> On 8/24/2017 8:15 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 10:20:16 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >>>> On 8/23/2017 7:37 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 6:16:58 AM UTC+10, alal...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 9:04:58 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/23/17 10:26 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> I believe that space and time are not infinitely divisible. That means that we will find fundamental particles, which cannot be divided any further, if we haven't already. How do we discover if space (and time) is infinitely divisible or not? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Abhinav Lal >>>>>>>> Writer & Investor >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, first of all, let's talk about what you mean by a particle, and >>>>>>> what the relationship then would be to an indivisible chuck of spacetime. >>>>>> >>>>>> A particle is an extremely small piece of matter. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If all you mean by "particle" is "a thing that is not further >>>>>>> divisible", then that's not really what physicists mean by that term. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A fundamental or elementary particle initially described a particle as not being further divisible. I used the term "fundamental particle" with its initial meaning. >>>>>> >>>>>> Abhinav Lal >>>>>> Writer & Investor >>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>>> Apart from Millikan's oil drop experiment, there is little to show from >>>>> experimental evidence about the atomicity of matter. >>>>> As for that experiment, well, some say it is dodgy. >>>>> What is seen as an atom with an electron microscope could well be a blob >>>>> of many atoms. >>>>> Homeopathy suggests that effectively atoms get smaller and smaller with >>>>> increased dilution. >>>>> It could well be, that matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the >>>>> soup filling the infinite universe. >>>>> That is, there is no aether within electrons and protons, but outside them. >>>>> Points to ponder... >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Arindam Banerjee >>>>> >>>> Absolute journalist blather. Banjo like all strategic writers has no >>>> clue about science, but that's ok because he can make up for that with >>>> imagination and self-aggrandizement of what a genius he is. >>> >>> Stupid ostrich benj, never had a single moment of inspiration in his >>> miserable pseudo-scientific waste of an existence. In the presence of my >>> genius, this poor devil exudes smelly matter from all his orifices. >> >> Well, folks, there you go. This is Banjo's idea of what a scientific >> debate is about. CNN science. Guy's a moron like all journalists. > > Benj, you are worse than all journalists, for you are a pseudo-scientific > name-caller. What else can parasitic Einsteinian frauds be? > > Journalists are okay for in 2003 they published my work on Internal Force in > the media so the thieves posing as scientists cannot steal my credit. > > Heh-heh. > >>>> He is a fucking moron. The above post is proof positive that he not only >>>> has no clue about science including how the Millikan-Fletcher experiment >>>> actually works and what it measured, but then proves he does not even >>>> make a credible kook since he has no idea what Homeopathic medicine is >>>> all about. > > Heh, all the above name-calling is the highest "scientific" thingy of which > benj is capable. What a liar and twister! Poor devil benj, it must suck for > him to drown in his own bile. Folks, note that there is not even a GLIMMER of understanding here of what homeopathic medicine is! Obviously knowledge is inversely proportional to the size of one's yap. >>>> It could well be that Banjo's brain is like knots in hair in particular >>>> the dreadlocks (Jata to you Banjo) of some rastafarian stoner. > > Idiot benj is as ignorant as he is abusive. Banjo says: "Gimme Ganja! " (No that not "Ganga" you ignorant Indian) >>>> Ponder what a moron he is. Explains a lot about both India and Oz. >>> >> Yup. worth repeating, no? > > Miserable wretch benj, benjonee to India and Oz: far better countries these are > than whatever stinking avaricious hole you are in. Funny. Anyone here NOT familiar enough with India to NOT know that it is one of the major hell-holes of the planet?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 04:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7b45c000-4f7b-4503-9743-1a1bb3b0232a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647123 |
On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 9:28:14 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > On 8/24/2017 7:13 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 7:49:30 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > >> On 8/24/2017 8:15 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 10:20:16 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > >>>> On 8/23/2017 7:37 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 6:16:58 AM UTC+10, alal...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 9:04:58 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>> On 8/23/17 10:26 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>> I believe that space and time are not infinitely divisible. That means that we will find fundamental particles, which cannot be divided any further, if we haven't already. How do we discover if space (and time) is infinitely divisible or not? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Abhinav Lal > >>>>>>>> Writer & Investor > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Well, first of all, let's talk about what you mean by a particle, and > >>>>>>> what the relationship then would be to an indivisible chuck of spacetime. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> A particle is an extremely small piece of matter. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If all you mean by "particle" is "a thing that is not further > >>>>>>> divisible", then that's not really what physicists mean by that term. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> A fundamental or elementary particle initially described a particle as not being further divisible. I used the term "fundamental particle" with its initial meaning. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Abhinav Lal > >>>>>> Writer & Investor > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>>> Apart from Millikan's oil drop experiment, there is little to show from > >>>>> experimental evidence about the atomicity of matter. > >>>>> As for that experiment, well, some say it is dodgy. > >>>>> What is seen as an atom with an electron microscope could well be a blob > >>>>> of many atoms. > >>>>> Homeopathy suggests that effectively atoms get smaller and smaller with > >>>>> increased dilution. > >>>>> It could well be, that matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the > >>>>> soup filling the infinite universe. > >>>>> That is, there is no aether within electrons and protons, but outside them. > >>>>> Points to ponder... > >>>>> Cheers, > >>>>> Arindam Banerjee > >>>>> > >>>> Absolute journalist blather. Banjo like all strategic writers has no > >>>> clue about science, but that's ok because he can make up for that with > >>>> imagination and self-aggrandizement of what a genius he is. > >>> > >>> Stupid ostrich benj, never had a single moment of inspiration in his > >>> miserable pseudo-scientific waste of an existence. In the presence of my > >>> genius, this poor devil exudes smelly matter from all his orifices. > >> > >> Well, folks, there you go. This is Banjo's idea of what a scientific > >> debate is about. CNN science. Guy's a moron like all journalists. > > > > Benj, you are worse than all journalists, for you are a pseudo-scientific > > name-caller. What else can parasitic Einsteinian frauds be? > > > > Journalists are okay for in 2003 they published my work on Internal Force in > > the media so the thieves posing as scientists cannot steal my credit. > > > > Heh-heh. > > > >>>> He is a fucking moron. The above post is proof positive that he not only > >>>> has no clue about science including how the Millikan-Fletcher experiment > >>>> actually works and what it measured, but then proves he does not even > >>>> make a credible kook since he has no idea what Homeopathic medicine is > >>>> all about. > > > > Heh, all the above name-calling is the highest "scientific" thingy of which > > benj is capable. What a liar and twister! Poor devil benj, it must suck for > > him to drown in his own bile. > > Folks, note that there is not even a GLIMMER of understanding here of > what homeopathic medicine is! Obviously knowledge is inversely > proportional to the size of one's yap. > > >>>> It could well be that Banjo's brain is like knots in hair in particular > >>>> the dreadlocks (Jata to you Banjo) of some rastafarian stoner. > > > > Idiot benj is as ignorant as he is abusive. > > Banjo says: "Gimme Ganja! " (No that not "Ganga" you ignorant Indian) > > >>>> Ponder what a moron he is. Explains a lot about both India and Oz. > >>> > >> Yup. worth repeating, no? > > > > Miserable wretch benj, benjonee to India and Oz: far better countries these are > > than whatever stinking avaricious hole you are in. > > Funny. Anyone here NOT familiar enough with India to NOT know that it is > one of the major hell-holes of the planet? Racist-bigot benj, I don't know what latrine you inhabit, but it must really stink!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 18:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a0a1bd$0$41935$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647152 |
On 8/25/2017 7:51 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 9:28:14 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >> On 8/24/2017 7:13 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 7:49:30 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >>>> On 8/24/2017 8:15 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 10:20:16 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >>>>>> On 8/23/2017 7:37 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 6:16:58 AM UTC+10, alal...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 9:04:58 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/23/17 10:26 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I believe that space and time are not infinitely divisible. That means that we will find fundamental particles, which cannot be divided any further, if we haven't already. How do we discover if space (and time) is infinitely divisible or not? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Abhinav Lal >>>>>>>>>> Writer & Investor >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, first of all, let's talk about what you mean by a particle, and >>>>>>>>> what the relationship then would be to an indivisible chuck of spacetime. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A particle is an extremely small piece of matter. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If all you mean by "particle" is "a thing that is not further >>>>>>>>> divisible", then that's not really what physicists mean by that term. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A fundamental or elementary particle initially described a particle as not being further divisible. I used the term "fundamental particle" with its initial meaning. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Abhinav Lal >>>>>>>> Writer & Investor >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Apart from Millikan's oil drop experiment, there is little to show from >>>>>>> experimental evidence about the atomicity of matter. >>>>>>> As for that experiment, well, some say it is dodgy. >>>>>>> What is seen as an atom with an electron microscope could well be a blob >>>>>>> of many atoms. >>>>>>> Homeopathy suggests that effectively atoms get smaller and smaller with >>>>>>> increased dilution. >>>>>>> It could well be, that matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the >>>>>>> soup filling the infinite universe. >>>>>>> That is, there is no aether within electrons and protons, but outside them. >>>>>>> Points to ponder... >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee >>>>>>> >>>>>> Absolute journalist blather. Banjo like all strategic writers has no >>>>>> clue about science, but that's ok because he can make up for that with >>>>>> imagination and self-aggrandizement of what a genius he is. >>>>> >>>>> Stupid ostrich benj, never had a single moment of inspiration in his >>>>> miserable pseudo-scientific waste of an existence. In the presence of my >>>>> genius, this poor devil exudes smelly matter from all his orifices. >>>> >>>> Well, folks, there you go. This is Banjo's idea of what a scientific >>>> debate is about. CNN science. Guy's a moron like all journalists. >>> >>> Benj, you are worse than all journalists, for you are a pseudo-scientific >>> name-caller. What else can parasitic Einsteinian frauds be? >>> >>> Journalists are okay for in 2003 they published my work on Internal Force in >>> the media so the thieves posing as scientists cannot steal my credit. >>> >>> Heh-heh. >>> >>>>>> He is a fucking moron. The above post is proof positive that he not only >>>>>> has no clue about science including how the Millikan-Fletcher experiment >>>>>> actually works and what it measured, but then proves he does not even >>>>>> make a credible kook since he has no idea what Homeopathic medicine is >>>>>> all about. >>> >>> Heh, all the above name-calling is the highest "scientific" thingy of which >>> benj is capable. What a liar and twister! Poor devil benj, it must suck for >>> him to drown in his own bile. >> >> Folks, note that there is not even a GLIMMER of understanding here of >> what homeopathic medicine is! Obviously knowledge is inversely >> proportional to the size of one's yap. >> >>>>>> It could well be that Banjo's brain is like knots in hair in particular >>>>>> the dreadlocks (Jata to you Banjo) of some rastafarian stoner. >>> >>> Idiot benj is as ignorant as he is abusive. >> >> Banjo says: "Gimme Ganja! " (No that not "Ganga" you ignorant Indian) >> >>>>>> Ponder what a moron he is. Explains a lot about both India and Oz. >>>>> >>>> Yup. worth repeating, no? >>> >>> Miserable wretch benj, benjonee to India and Oz: far better countries these are >>> than whatever stinking avaricious hole you are in. >> >> Funny. Anyone here NOT familiar enough with India to NOT know that it is >> one of the major hell-holes of the planet? > > Racist-bigot benj, I don't know what latrine you inhabit, but it must really > stink! > Smells just like the streets of India where you used to live, Banjo!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 21:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2ffa8495-faf2-4a91-aee9-56022066cca8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647230 |
On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 8:16:33 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > On 8/25/2017 7:51 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 9:28:14 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > >> On 8/24/2017 7:13 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 7:49:30 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > >>>> On 8/24/2017 8:15 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 10:20:16 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/23/2017 7:37 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 6:16:58 AM UTC+10, alal...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 9:04:58 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 8/23/17 10:26 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> I believe that space and time are not infinitely divisible. That means that we will find fundamental particles, which cannot be divided any further, if we haven't already. How do we discover if space (and time) is infinitely divisible or not? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Abhinav Lal > >>>>>>>>>> Writer & Investor > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Well, first of all, let's talk about what you mean by a particle, and > >>>>>>>>> what the relationship then would be to an indivisible chuck of spacetime. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> A particle is an extremely small piece of matter. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> If all you mean by "particle" is "a thing that is not further > >>>>>>>>> divisible", then that's not really what physicists mean by that term. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> A fundamental or elementary particle initially described a particle as not being further divisible. I used the term "fundamental particle" with its initial meaning. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Abhinav Lal > >>>>>>>> Writer & Investor > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Apart from Millikan's oil drop experiment, there is little to show from > >>>>>>> experimental evidence about the atomicity of matter. > >>>>>>> As for that experiment, well, some say it is dodgy. > >>>>>>> What is seen as an atom with an electron microscope could well be a blob > >>>>>>> of many atoms. > >>>>>>> Homeopathy suggests that effectively atoms get smaller and smaller with > >>>>>>> increased dilution. > >>>>>>> It could well be, that matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the > >>>>>>> soup filling the infinite universe. > >>>>>>> That is, there is no aether within electrons and protons, but outside them. > >>>>>>> Points to ponder... > >>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Absolute journalist blather. Banjo like all strategic writers has no > >>>>>> clue about science, but that's ok because he can make up for that with > >>>>>> imagination and self-aggrandizement of what a genius he is. > >>>>> > >>>>> Stupid ostrich benj, never had a single moment of inspiration in his > >>>>> miserable pseudo-scientific waste of an existence. In the presence of my > >>>>> genius, this poor devil exudes smelly matter from all his orifices. > >>>> > >>>> Well, folks, there you go. This is Banjo's idea of what a scientific > >>>> debate is about. CNN science. Guy's a moron like all journalists. > >>> > >>> Benj, you are worse than all journalists, for you are a pseudo-scientific > >>> name-caller. What else can parasitic Einsteinian frauds be? > >>> > >>> Journalists are okay for in 2003 they published my work on Internal Force in > >>> the media so the thieves posing as scientists cannot steal my credit. > >>> > >>> Heh-heh. > >>> > >>>>>> He is a fucking moron. The above post is proof positive that he not only > >>>>>> has no clue about science including how the Millikan-Fletcher experiment > >>>>>> actually works and what it measured, but then proves he does not even > >>>>>> make a credible kook since he has no idea what Homeopathic medicine is > >>>>>> all about. > >>> > >>> Heh, all the above name-calling is the highest "scientific" thingy of which > >>> benj is capable. What a liar and twister! Poor devil benj, it must suck for > >>> him to drown in his own bile. > >> > >> Folks, note that there is not even a GLIMMER of understanding here of > >> what homeopathic medicine is! Obviously knowledge is inversely > >> proportional to the size of one's yap. > >> > >>>>>> It could well be that Banjo's brain is like knots in hair in particular > >>>>>> the dreadlocks (Jata to you Banjo) of some rastafarian stoner. > >>> > >>> Idiot benj is as ignorant as he is abusive. > >> > >> Banjo says: "Gimme Ganja! " (No that not "Ganga" you ignorant Indian) > >> > >>>>>> Ponder what a moron he is. Explains a lot about both India and Oz. > >>>>> > >>>> Yup. worth repeating, no? > >>> > >>> Miserable wretch benj, benjonee to India and Oz: far better countries these are > >>> than whatever stinking avaricious hole you are in. > >> > >> Funny. Anyone here NOT familiar enough with India to NOT know that it is > >> one of the major hell-holes of the planet? > > > > Racist-bigot benj, I don't know what latrine you inhabit, but it must really > > stink! > > > Smells just like the streets of India where you used to live, > Banjo! I don't think so. The streets of India that I did inhabit are full of the scents of tube rose and cinnamon, that is to say, flowers and spices. "amon deshti kothao khunje paabe nako tumi shokol desher rani she je amar jonmobhumo" "Such a land of loveliness nowhere shall you find Of all countries she is the queen, this land of my birth." That is why crims like you, benj, came from beggarly and violent lands to rob India, for the past few hundred years. Australia, my new country, is also very good, just great, terrific. Now, go rot in your horrid stinkhole, benj.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 01:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a10d39$0$61793$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647281 |
On 08/26/2017 12:50 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 8:16:33 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >> On 8/25/2017 7:51 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 9:28:14 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >>>> On 8/24/2017 7:13 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 7:49:30 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >>>>>> On 8/24/2017 8:15 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 10:20:16 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/23/2017 7:37 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 6:16:58 AM UTC+10, alal...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 9:04:58 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/23/17 10:26 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that space and time are not infinitely divisible. That means that we will find fundamental particles, which cannot be divided any further, if we haven't already. How do we discover if space (and time) is infinitely divisible or not? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Abhinav Lal >>>>>>>>>>>> Writer & Investor >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Well, first of all, let's talk about what you mean by a particle, and >>>>>>>>>>> what the relationship then would be to an indivisible chuck of spacetime. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A particle is an extremely small piece of matter. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If all you mean by "particle" is "a thing that is not further >>>>>>>>>>> divisible", then that's not really what physicists mean by that term. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A fundamental or elementary particle initially described a particle as not being further divisible. I used the term "fundamental particle" with its initial meaning. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Abhinav Lal >>>>>>>>>> Writer & Investor >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Apart from Millikan's oil drop experiment, there is little to show from >>>>>>>>> experimental evidence about the atomicity of matter. >>>>>>>>> As for that experiment, well, some say it is dodgy. >>>>>>>>> What is seen as an atom with an electron microscope could well be a blob >>>>>>>>> of many atoms. >>>>>>>>> Homeopathy suggests that effectively atoms get smaller and smaller with >>>>>>>>> increased dilution. >>>>>>>>> It could well be, that matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the >>>>>>>>> soup filling the infinite universe. >>>>>>>>> That is, there is no aether within electrons and protons, but outside them. >>>>>>>>> Points to ponder... >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Absolute journalist blather. Banjo like all strategic writers has no >>>>>>>> clue about science, but that's ok because he can make up for that with >>>>>>>> imagination and self-aggrandizement of what a genius he is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Stupid ostrich benj, never had a single moment of inspiration in his >>>>>>> miserable pseudo-scientific waste of an existence. In the presence of my >>>>>>> genius, this poor devil exudes smelly matter from all his orifices. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, folks, there you go. This is Banjo's idea of what a scientific >>>>>> debate is about. CNN science. Guy's a moron like all journalists. >>>>> >>>>> Benj, you are worse than all journalists, for you are a pseudo-scientific >>>>> name-caller. What else can parasitic Einsteinian frauds be? >>>>> >>>>> Journalists are okay for in 2003 they published my work on Internal Force in >>>>> the media so the thieves posing as scientists cannot steal my credit. >>>>> >>>>> Heh-heh. >>>>> >>>>>>>> He is a fucking moron. The above post is proof positive that he not only >>>>>>>> has no clue about science including how the Millikan-Fletcher experiment >>>>>>>> actually works and what it measured, but then proves he does not even >>>>>>>> make a credible kook since he has no idea what Homeopathic medicine is >>>>>>>> all about. >>>>> >>>>> Heh, all the above name-calling is the highest "scientific" thingy of which >>>>> benj is capable. What a liar and twister! Poor devil benj, it must suck for >>>>> him to drown in his own bile. >>>> >>>> Folks, note that there is not even a GLIMMER of understanding here of >>>> what homeopathic medicine is! Obviously knowledge is inversely >>>> proportional to the size of one's yap. >>>> >>>>>>>> It could well be that Banjo's brain is like knots in hair in particular >>>>>>>> the dreadlocks (Jata to you Banjo) of some rastafarian stoner. >>>>> >>>>> Idiot benj is as ignorant as he is abusive. >>>> >>>> Banjo says: "Gimme Ganja! " (No that not "Ganga" you ignorant Indian) >>>> >>>>>>>> Ponder what a moron he is. Explains a lot about both India and Oz. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Yup. worth repeating, no? >>>>> >>>>> Miserable wretch benj, benjonee to India and Oz: far better countries these are >>>>> than whatever stinking avaricious hole you are in. >>>> >>>> Funny. Anyone here NOT familiar enough with India to NOT know that it is >>>> one of the major hell-holes of the planet? >>> >>> Racist-bigot benj, I don't know what latrine you inhabit, but it must really >>> stink! >>> >> Smells just like the streets of India where you used to live, >> Banjo! > > I don't think so. The streets of India that I did inhabit are full of the scents of tube rose and cinnamon, that is to say, flowers and spices. > > "amon deshti kothao khunje paabe nako tumi > shokol desher rani she je amar jonmobhumo" > > "Such a land of loveliness nowhere shall you find > Of all countries she is the queen, this land of my birth." > > That is why crims like you, benj, came from beggarly and violent lands to > rob India, for the past few hundred years. > > Australia, my new country, is also very good, just great, terrific. > > Now, go rot in your horrid stinkhole, benj. > Hey Banjo, I see your Guru just got convicted of rape. People rioting in protest that this "saint" got busted! I notice you bailed out of that "queen of hell-holes". Even the desert of Oz beats that stinkhole you were born in. Right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 05:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59c7070e-ca1f-46f2-99b8-e2f2f677ea71@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647287 |
On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 3:55:10 PM UTC+10, benj wrote: > On 08/26/2017 12:50 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 8:16:33 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > >> On 8/25/2017 7:51 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 9:28:14 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > >>>> On 8/24/2017 7:13 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 7:49:30 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/24/2017 8:15 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 10:20:16 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 8/23/2017 7:37 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 6:16:58 AM UTC+10, alal...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 9:04:58 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/23/17 10:26 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that space and time are not infinitely divisible. That means that we will find fundamental particles, which cannot be divided any further, if we haven't already. How do we discover if space (and time) is infinitely divisible or not? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Abhinav Lal > >>>>>>>>>>>> Writer & Investor > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Well, first of all, let's talk about what you mean by a particle, and > >>>>>>>>>>> what the relationship then would be to an indivisible chuck of spacetime. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> A particle is an extremely small piece of matter. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> If all you mean by "particle" is "a thing that is not further > >>>>>>>>>>> divisible", then that's not really what physicists mean by that term. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> A fundamental or elementary particle initially described a particle as not being further divisible. I used the term "fundamental particle" with its initial meaning. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Abhinav Lal > >>>>>>>>>> Writer & Investor > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Apart from Millikan's oil drop experiment, there is little to show from > >>>>>>>>> experimental evidence about the atomicity of matter. > >>>>>>>>> As for that experiment, well, some say it is dodgy. > >>>>>>>>> What is seen as an atom with an electron microscope could well be a blob > >>>>>>>>> of many atoms. > >>>>>>>>> Homeopathy suggests that effectively atoms get smaller and smaller with > >>>>>>>>> increased dilution. > >>>>>>>>> It could well be, that matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the > >>>>>>>>> soup filling the infinite universe. > >>>>>>>>> That is, there is no aether within electrons and protons, but outside them. > >>>>>>>>> Points to ponder... > >>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Absolute journalist blather. Banjo like all strategic writers has no > >>>>>>>> clue about science, but that's ok because he can make up for that with > >>>>>>>> imagination and self-aggrandizement of what a genius he is. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Stupid ostrich benj, never had a single moment of inspiration in his > >>>>>>> miserable pseudo-scientific waste of an existence. In the presence of my > >>>>>>> genius, this poor devil exudes smelly matter from all his orifices. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Well, folks, there you go. This is Banjo's idea of what a scientific > >>>>>> debate is about. CNN science. Guy's a moron like all journalists. > >>>>> > >>>>> Benj, you are worse than all journalists, for you are a pseudo-scientific > >>>>> name-caller. What else can parasitic Einsteinian frauds be? > >>>>> > >>>>> Journalists are okay for in 2003 they published my work on Internal Force in > >>>>> the media so the thieves posing as scientists cannot steal my credit. > >>>>> > >>>>> Heh-heh. > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> He is a fucking moron. The above post is proof positive that he not only > >>>>>>>> has no clue about science including how the Millikan-Fletcher experiment > >>>>>>>> actually works and what it measured, but then proves he does not even > >>>>>>>> make a credible kook since he has no idea what Homeopathic medicine is > >>>>>>>> all about. > >>>>> > >>>>> Heh, all the above name-calling is the highest "scientific" thingy of which > >>>>> benj is capable. What a liar and twister! Poor devil benj, it must suck for > >>>>> him to drown in his own bile. > >>>> > >>>> Folks, note that there is not even a GLIMMER of understanding here of > >>>> what homeopathic medicine is! Obviously knowledge is inversely > >>>> proportional to the size of one's yap. > >>>> > >>>>>>>> It could well be that Banjo's brain is like knots in hair in particular > >>>>>>>> the dreadlocks (Jata to you Banjo) of some rastafarian stoner. > >>>>> > >>>>> Idiot benj is as ignorant as he is abusive. > >>>> > >>>> Banjo says: "Gimme Ganja! " (No that not "Ganga" you ignorant Indian) > >>>> > >>>>>>>> Ponder what a moron he is. Explains a lot about both India and Oz. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Yup. worth repeating, no? > >>>>> > >>>>> Miserable wretch benj, benjonee to India and Oz: far better countries these are > >>>>> than whatever stinking avaricious hole you are in. > >>>> > >>>> Funny. Anyone here NOT familiar enough with India to NOT know that it is > >>>> one of the major hell-holes of the planet? > >>> > >>> Racist-bigot benj, I don't know what latrine you inhabit, but it must really > >>> stink! > >>> > >> Smells just like the streets of India where you used to live, > >> Banjo! > > > > I don't think so. The streets of India that I did inhabit are full of the scents of tube rose and cinnamon, that is to say, flowers and spices. > > > > "amon deshti kothao khunje paabe nako tumi > > shokol desher rani she je amar jonmobhumo" > > > > "Such a land of loveliness nowhere shall you find > > Of all countries she is the queen, this land of my birth." > > > > That is why crims like you, benj, came from beggarly and violent lands to > > rob India, for the past few hundred years. > > > > Australia, my new country, is also very good, just great, terrific. > > > > Now, go rot in your horrid stinkhole, benj. > > > > Hey Banjo, I see your Guru just got convicted of rape. Certainly not. My Guru ceased his mortal existence some decades ago. He has mingled with the Divine in the Divine plane, and from there casts his blessings upon this his humble devotee. People rioting in > protest that this "saint" got busted! I notice you bailed out of that > "queen of hell-holes". Queen of all lands, such is India, stupid ostrich. > Even the desert of Oz beats that stinkhole you > were born in. Right? Wrong. The deserts of Oz are great, as they make the inhabitants of Oz great in thought and action by their vastness. But India is the oldest and the richest country in the mind and spirit. Nothing mean and mendacious about India and Oz, so I have lived very happily in both countries.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-24 06:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8f851443-3346-4518-98da-8a07a67d3c59@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647010 |
On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 7:37:19 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: [] > Apart from Millikan's oil drop experiment, there is little to show from > experimental evidence about the atomicity of matter. The Millikan drop experiment is a measure of the fundamental constant ratio of electron charge to electron mass. > As for that experiment, well, some say it is dodgy. > What is seen as an atom with an electron microscope could well be a blob > of many atoms. Brownian motion was shown by Einstein as proof of atomicity of matter. MANY particle experiments demonstrate atomic nature of matter. And as a final example, many years ago, IBM was able to arrange individual atoms to spell IBM at the atomic level. So it has gone well beyond proof, to being practical engineering knowledge and techniques. > Homeopathy suggests that effectively atoms get smaller and smaller with > increased dilution. Pointers to any experimental data/publications? The effects of medical compounds may not be linear with their concentration, but that says nothing about the molecular size. You are misunderstanding Homeopathy. > It could well be, that matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the > soup filling the infinite universe. Now you are leading to the idea of string theory. IOW, there are no particles, only waves. > That is, there is no aether within electrons and protons, but outside them. > Points to ponder... > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee Given that protons consist of quarks, You may want to rephrase that "point to ponder". HTH, ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-24 17:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <599f4b18$0$34594$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647057 |
On 8/24/2017 9:35 AM, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 7:37:19 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > [] >> Apart from Millikan's oil drop experiment, there is little to show from >> experimental evidence about the atomicity of matter. > > The Millikan drop experiment is a measure of the fundamental > constant ratio of electron charge to electron mass. > >> As for that experiment, well, some say it is dodgy. >> What is seen as an atom with an electron microscope could well be a blob >> of many atoms. > > Brownian motion was shown by Einstein as proof of atomicity of matter. > MANY particle experiments demonstrate atomic nature of matter. > > And as a final example, many years ago, IBM was able to arrange > individual atoms to spell IBM at the atomic level. So it has gone > well beyond proof, to being practical engineering knowledge > and techniques. Don't bother to try to explain science to Banjo, Ed. He's a journalist and will never understand any of it. You are simply wasting your time. But then is it your time to waste. >> Homeopathy suggests that effectively atoms get smaller and smaller with >> increased dilution. > > Pointers to any experimental data/publications? > The effects of medical compounds may not be linear with > their concentration, but that says nothing about > the molecular size. You are misunderstanding Homeopathy. I already pointed this out. He just flings words about hoping that will impress anyone actually dumber than he is. He hasn't a clue about what Homeopathy is about. >> It could well be, that matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the >> soup filling the infinite universe. > > Now you are leading to the idea of string theory. > IOW, there are no particles, only waves. > >> That is, there is no aether within electrons and protons, but outside them. >> Points to ponder... >> Cheers, >> Arindam Banerjee > > Given that protons consist of quarks, You may want to > rephrase that "point to ponder". Good one, Ed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-24 16:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <af9524a4-0954-4c80-9f74-d4f47f8393a1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647100 |
On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 7:54:36 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > On 8/24/2017 9:35 AM, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 7:37:19 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > [] > >> Apart from Millikan's oil drop experiment, there is little to show from > >> experimental evidence about the atomicity of matter. > > > > The Millikan drop experiment is a measure of the fundamental > > constant ratio of electron charge to electron mass. Which does not mean that the electron can be bigger or smaller than what it is held to be, mass and charge wise. All it means is that if ten electrons joined up to form one electron, then it will have ten times the mass and charge. All we have found is an average which is held to be the only size/charge. That is an ASSUMPTION held to be FACT. And we know what assumptions can lead us to. > >> As for that experiment, well, some say it is dodgy. > >> What is seen as an atom with an electron microscope could well be a blob > >> of many atoms. > > > > Brownian motion was shown by Einstein as proof of atomicity of matter. > > MANY particle experiments demonstrate atomic nature of matter. Hand-waving and throwing names does not prove anything to the scientific mind. Einstein was the biggest bungler in physics - his bungling in SR and GR are stupendous. Probably the biggest bungler in the history of science, with the most disastrous effects. No one has seen a gas molecule or atom. As solid or in solution, an atom could be a group of smaller atoms depending upon external conditions. In other words, in gaseous form the atom could become smaller being divided as per external conditions. Maybe, reach the smallest possible atomic state. This may not be the case when it is solid. > > And as a final example, many years ago, IBM was able to arrange > > individual atoms to spell IBM at the atomic level. So it has gone > > well beyond proof, to being practical engineering knowledge > > and techniques. They did not do it with gas atoms. They did it at the solid level. The same IBM atom in solution could break up into smaller atoms. What they got was a clump of atoms the clumped at that set of external conditions. > Don't bother to try to explain science to Banjo, Ed. He's a journalist > and will never understand any of it. You are simply wasting your time. > But then is it your time to waste. And yours too, benj, but then your whole life is a waste. > >> Homeopathy suggests that effectively atoms get smaller and smaller with > >> increased dilution. > > > > Pointers to any experimental data/publications? Homeopaths tell me that the more you dilute the medicine the more potent it is. This was well-known to me from my childhood. Believe it or not. One relative said that this was the reason he thought homeopathy had to be fake. For when you dilute it more and more there will be not a single atom left in the solution so there will be no medicine at all. Which is true, mathematically and if you take Avogadro's Number. But if in solution, atoms become smaller and smaller then we have more energetic atoms with greater dilutions. And these energetic atoms could be very potent, as indeed homeopathy shows and has shown for generations. I am assuming here that the concentration of medical atoms as numbers/cc remains constant with the dilutions. > > The effects of medical compounds may not be linear with > > their concentration, but that says nothing about > > the molecular size. You are misunderstanding Homeopathy. I am explaining what I have extrapolated from the workings of homeopathy, and how homeopathic medicines are made. It is only natural for me to do so as an original genius, and that too, the greatest of all time. > I already pointed this out. He just flings words about hoping that will > impress anyone actually dumber than he is. He hasn't a clue about what > Homeopathy is about. Homeopathy is a cheap and effective alternative for the thirdworld, and so the parasites of the firstworld hate it as it cuts into their pharma profits. It has been very useful to me recently in curing my plantar fasciitis. I was asked to take cortisone injections, but no need thanks to Homeopathy. heh-heh. Stupid benj, keep on making a sad fool of yourself. > >> It could well be, that matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the > >> soup filling the infinite universe. > > > > Now you are leading to the idea of string theory. > > IOW, there are no particles, only waves. No, I am not into that kind of pseudo-scientific rubbish. There is aether throughout the infinite universe, and that aether knots up to form positive and negative charges in the form of matter. Very simple, really. Will have to write more aphorisms, to get it all clear. Still, those with wits better than yours, will have grasped what I mean from such normal brilliant posts from mine, as this one. > > > >> That is, there is no aether within electrons and protons, but outside them. > >> Points to ponder... > >> Cheers, > >> Arindam Banerjee > > > > Given that protons consist of quarks, You may want to > > rephrase that "point to ponder". Protons consist of smaller protons, like electrons consist of smaller electrons. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > Good one, Ed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-24 20:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <599f6d5d$0$17480$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647127 |
On 8/24/2017 7:39 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 7:54:36 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >> On 8/24/2017 9:35 AM, Edward Prochak wrote: >>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 7:37:19 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> [] >>>> Apart from Millikan's oil drop experiment, there is little to show from >>>> experimental evidence about the atomicity of matter. >>> >>> The Millikan drop experiment is a measure of the fundamental >>> constant ratio of electron charge to electron mass. > > Which does not mean that the electron can be bigger or smaller than what it > is held to be, mass and charge wise. > All it means is that if ten electrons joined up to form one electron, then > it will have ten times the mass and charge. > All we have found is an average which is held to be the only size/charge. > That is an ASSUMPTION held to be FACT. > And we know what assumptions can lead us to. > >>>> As for that experiment, well, some say it is dodgy. >>>> What is seen as an atom with an electron microscope could well be a blob >>>> of many atoms. >>> >>> Brownian motion was shown by Einstein as proof of atomicity of matter. >>> MANY particle experiments demonstrate atomic nature of matter. > > Hand-waving and throwing names does not prove anything to the scientific mind. > > Einstein was the biggest bungler in physics - his bungling in SR and GR are > stupendous. Probably the biggest bungler in the history of science, with the > most disastrous effects. > > No one has seen a gas molecule or atom. As solid or in solution, an atom could > be a group of smaller atoms depending upon external conditions. > > In other words, in gaseous form the atom could become smaller being divided > as per external conditions. Maybe, reach the smallest possible atomic state. > This may not be the case when it is solid. > >>> And as a final example, many years ago, IBM was able to arrange >>> individual atoms to spell IBM at the atomic level. So it has gone >>> well beyond proof, to being practical engineering knowledge >>> and techniques. > > They did not do it with gas atoms. They did it at the solid level. The same > IBM atom in solution could break up into smaller atoms. What they got was a > clump of atoms the clumped at that set of external conditions. > >> Don't bother to try to explain science to Banjo, Ed. He's a journalist >> and will never understand any of it. You are simply wasting your time. >> But then is it your time to waste. > > And yours too, benj, but then your whole life is a waste. > >>>> Homeopathy suggests that effectively atoms get smaller and smaller with >>>> increased dilution. >>> >>> Pointers to any experimental data/publications? > > Homeopaths tell me that the more you dilute the medicine the more potent it is. > This was well-known to me from my childhood. > Believe it or not. > > One relative said that this was the reason he thought homeopathy had to be fake. > For when you dilute it more and more there will be not a single atom left in > the solution so there will be no medicine at all. > Which is true, mathematically and if you take Avogadro's Number. > > But if in solution, atoms become smaller and smaller then we have more > energetic atoms with greater dilutions. > > And these energetic atoms could be very potent, as indeed homeopathy shows and > has shown for generations. > > I am assuming here that the concentration of medical atoms as numbers/cc > remains constant with the dilutions. > >>> The effects of medical compounds may not be linear with >>> their concentration, but that says nothing about >>> the molecular size. You are misunderstanding Homeopathy. > > I am explaining what I have extrapolated from the workings of homeopathy, and > how homeopathic medicines are made. It is only natural for me to do so as an > original genius, and that too, the greatest of all time. > > >> I already pointed this out. He just flings words about hoping that will >> impress anyone actually dumber than he is. He hasn't a clue about what >> Homeopathy is about. > > Homeopathy is a cheap and effective alternative for the thirdworld, and so > the parasites of the firstworld hate it as it cuts into their pharma profits. > It has been very useful to me recently in curing my plantar fasciitis. I was > asked to take cortisone injections, but no need thanks to Homeopathy. > > heh-heh. > > Stupid benj, keep on making a sad fool of yourself. Right Banjo. I"m such a fool I actually believe that when you take chemicals and dilute them into more and more water that the number of those atoms in any ounce of that water is not always the same. I mean I'ms such a fool I don't believe in atoms that multiply themselves. No wonder you are unemployed and have to take work as an internet discussion disrupter. >>>> It could well be, that matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the >>>> soup filling the infinite universe. >>> >>> Now you are leading to the idea of string theory. >>> IOW, there are no particles, only waves. > > No, I am not into that kind of pseudo-scientific rubbish. Anything Banjo isn't able to understand (means most science) is "rubbish" to him. > There is aether throughout the infinite universe, and that aether knots up > to form positive and negative charges in the form of matter. And the way you know this is? Oh yeah, used your genius superpowers to look at this aether nobody else has been able to see. Got it. > Very simple, really. Very insane, really. > Will have to write more aphorisms, to get it all clear. > > Still, those with wits better than yours, will have grasped what I mean from > such normal brilliant posts from mine, as this one. >>> >>>> That is, there is no aether within electrons and protons, but outside them. >>>> Points to ponder... >>>> Cheers, >>>> Arindam Banerjee >>> >>> Given that protons consist of quarks, You may want to >>> rephrase that "point to ponder". > > Protons consist of smaller protons, like electrons consist of smaller electrons. Utter rubbish. Here is what dumb-ass writers (like Banjo) know of science: The Siphonaptera Big fleas have little fleas, Upon their backs to bite 'em, And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so, ad infinitum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 04:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b392645f-9dbe-4524-85f0-9b283fa2762f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647129 |
On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 10:20:51 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > On 8/24/2017 7:39 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 7:54:36 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > >> On 8/24/2017 9:35 AM, Edward Prochak wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 7:37:19 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> [] > >>>> Apart from Millikan's oil drop experiment, there is little to show from > >>>> experimental evidence about the atomicity of matter. > >>> > >>> The Millikan drop experiment is a measure of the fundamental > >>> constant ratio of electron charge to electron mass. > > > > Which does not mean that the electron can be bigger or smaller than what it > > is held to be, mass and charge wise. > > All it means is that if ten electrons joined up to form one electron, then > > it will have ten times the mass and charge. > > All we have found is an average which is held to be the only size/charge. > > That is an ASSUMPTION held to be FACT. > > And we know what assumptions can lead us to. > > > >>>> As for that experiment, well, some say it is dodgy. > >>>> What is seen as an atom with an electron microscope could well be a blob > >>>> of many atoms. > >>> > >>> Brownian motion was shown by Einstein as proof of atomicity of matter. > >>> MANY particle experiments demonstrate atomic nature of matter. > > > > Hand-waving and throwing names does not prove anything to the scientific mind. > > > > Einstein was the biggest bungler in physics - his bungling in SR and GR are > > stupendous. Probably the biggest bungler in the history of science, with the > > most disastrous effects. > > > > No one has seen a gas molecule or atom. As solid or in solution, an atom could > > be a group of smaller atoms depending upon external conditions. > > > > In other words, in gaseous form the atom could become smaller being divided > > as per external conditions. Maybe, reach the smallest possible atomic state. > > This may not be the case when it is solid. > > > >>> And as a final example, many years ago, IBM was able to arrange > >>> individual atoms to spell IBM at the atomic level. So it has gone > >>> well beyond proof, to being practical engineering knowledge > >>> and techniques. > > > > They did not do it with gas atoms. They did it at the solid level. The same > > IBM atom in solution could break up into smaller atoms. What they got was a > > clump of atoms the clumped at that set of external conditions. > > > >> Don't bother to try to explain science to Banjo, Ed. He's a journalist > >> and will never understand any of it. You are simply wasting your time. > >> But then is it your time to waste. > > > > And yours too, benj, but then your whole life is a waste. > > > >>>> Homeopathy suggests that effectively atoms get smaller and smaller with > >>>> increased dilution. > >>> > >>> Pointers to any experimental data/publications? > > > > Homeopaths tell me that the more you dilute the medicine the more potent it is. > > This was well-known to me from my childhood. > > Believe it or not. > > > > One relative said that this was the reason he thought homeopathy had to be fake. > > For when you dilute it more and more there will be not a single atom left in > > the solution so there will be no medicine at all. > > Which is true, mathematically and if you take Avogadro's Number. > > > > But if in solution, atoms become smaller and smaller then we have more > > energetic atoms with greater dilutions. > > > > And these energetic atoms could be very potent, as indeed homeopathy shows and > > has shown for generations. > > > > I am assuming here that the concentration of medical atoms as numbers/cc > > remains constant with the dilutions. > > > >>> The effects of medical compounds may not be linear with > >>> their concentration, but that says nothing about > >>> the molecular size. You are misunderstanding Homeopathy. > > > > I am explaining what I have extrapolated from the workings of homeopathy, and > > how homeopathic medicines are made. It is only natural for me to do so as an > > original genius, and that too, the greatest of all time. > > > > > >> I already pointed this out. He just flings words about hoping that will > >> impress anyone actually dumber than he is. He hasn't a clue about what > >> Homeopathy is about. > > > > Homeopathy is a cheap and effective alternative for the thirdworld, and so > > the parasites of the firstworld hate it as it cuts into their pharma profits. > > It has been very useful to me recently in curing my plantar fasciitis. I was > > asked to take cortisone injections, but no need thanks to Homeopathy. > > > > heh-heh. > > > > Stupid benj, keep on making a sad fool of yourself. > > Right Banjo. I"m such a fool I actually believe that when you take > chemicals and dilute them into more and more water that the number of > those atoms in any ounce of that water is not always the same. I mean > I'ms such a fool I don't believe in atoms that multiply themselves. No > wonder you are unemployed and have to take work as an internet > discussion disrupter. Look if you claim to know anything about science and maths you should at least follow what I am saying instead of twisting my theories around. I said that my assumption is that the concentration of molecules remains the same in the solution, when one small part of it is diluted in another solvent. Got that? This means, that if in a 1000 cc solution A there are N atoms/molecules of B, and I take 1 percent of A and mix it with 1000cc of pure water, then there will be in that resulting solution C N atoms/molecules of B, but those atoms/molecules will be reduced to 1% of the size they had when they were in solution A. Could I make it clearer? > > > >>>> It could well be, that matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the > >>>> soup filling the infinite universe. > >>> > >>> Now you are leading to the idea of string theory. > >>> IOW, there are no particles, only waves. > > > > No, I am not into that kind of pseudo-scientific rubbish. > > Anything Banjo isn't able to understand (means most science) is > "rubbish" to him. > > > There is aether throughout the infinite universe, and that aether knots up > > to form positive and negative charges in the form of matter. > > And the way you know this is? Oh yeah, used your genius superpowers to > look at this aether nobody else has been able to see. Got it. > > > Very simple, really. > > Very insane, really. > > > Will have to write more aphorisms, to get it all clear. > > > > Still, those with wits better than yours, will have grasped what I mean from > > such normal brilliant posts from mine, as this one. > >>> > >>>> That is, there is no aether within electrons and protons, but outside them. > >>>> Points to ponder... > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> Arindam Banerjee > >>> > >>> Given that protons consist of quarks, You may want to > >>> rephrase that "point to ponder". > > > > Protons consist of smaller protons, like electrons consist of smaller electrons. > > Utter rubbish. > > Here is what dumb-ass writers (like Banjo) know of science: > > The Siphonaptera > > Big fleas have little fleas, > Upon their backs to bite 'em, > And little fleas have lesser fleas, > and so, ad infinitum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 18:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a09fe9$0$12485$b1db1813$145976f0@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647147 |
On 8/25/2017 7:14 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 10:20:51 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >> On 8/24/2017 7:39 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 7:54:36 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >>>> On 8/24/2017 9:35 AM, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 7:37:19 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>> [] >>>>>> Apart from Millikan's oil drop experiment, there is little to show from >>>>>> experimental evidence about the atomicity of matter. >>>>> >>>>> The Millikan drop experiment is a measure of the fundamental >>>>> constant ratio of electron charge to electron mass. >>> >>> Which does not mean that the electron can be bigger or smaller than what it >>> is held to be, mass and charge wise. >>> All it means is that if ten electrons joined up to form one electron, then >>> it will have ten times the mass and charge. >>> All we have found is an average which is held to be the only size/charge. >>> That is an ASSUMPTION held to be FACT. >>> And we know what assumptions can lead us to. >>> >>>>>> As for that experiment, well, some say it is dodgy. >>>>>> What is seen as an atom with an electron microscope could well be a blob >>>>>> of many atoms. >>>>> >>>>> Brownian motion was shown by Einstein as proof of atomicity of matter. >>>>> MANY particle experiments demonstrate atomic nature of matter. >>> >>> Hand-waving and throwing names does not prove anything to the scientific mind. >>> >>> Einstein was the biggest bungler in physics - his bungling in SR and GR are >>> stupendous. Probably the biggest bungler in the history of science, with the >>> most disastrous effects. >>> >>> No one has seen a gas molecule or atom. As solid or in solution, an atom could >>> be a group of smaller atoms depending upon external conditions. >>> >>> In other words, in gaseous form the atom could become smaller being divided >>> as per external conditions. Maybe, reach the smallest possible atomic state. >>> This may not be the case when it is solid. >>> >>>>> And as a final example, many years ago, IBM was able to arrange >>>>> individual atoms to spell IBM at the atomic level. So it has gone >>>>> well beyond proof, to being practical engineering knowledge >>>>> and techniques. >>> >>> They did not do it with gas atoms. They did it at the solid level. The same >>> IBM atom in solution could break up into smaller atoms. What they got was a >>> clump of atoms the clumped at that set of external conditions. >>> >>>> Don't bother to try to explain science to Banjo, Ed. He's a journalist >>>> and will never understand any of it. You are simply wasting your time. >>>> But then is it your time to waste. >>> >>> And yours too, benj, but then your whole life is a waste. >>> >>>>>> Homeopathy suggests that effectively atoms get smaller and smaller with >>>>>> increased dilution. >>>>> >>>>> Pointers to any experimental data/publications? >>> >>> Homeopaths tell me that the more you dilute the medicine the more potent it is. >>> This was well-known to me from my childhood. >>> Believe it or not. >>> >>> One relative said that this was the reason he thought homeopathy had to be fake. >>> For when you dilute it more and more there will be not a single atom left in >>> the solution so there will be no medicine at all. >>> Which is true, mathematically and if you take Avogadro's Number. >>> >>> But if in solution, atoms become smaller and smaller then we have more >>> energetic atoms with greater dilutions. >>> >>> And these energetic atoms could be very potent, as indeed homeopathy shows and >>> has shown for generations. >>> >>> I am assuming here that the concentration of medical atoms as numbers/cc >>> remains constant with the dilutions. >>> >>>>> The effects of medical compounds may not be linear with >>>>> their concentration, but that says nothing about >>>>> the molecular size. You are misunderstanding Homeopathy. >>> >>> I am explaining what I have extrapolated from the workings of homeopathy, and >>> how homeopathic medicines are made. It is only natural for me to do so as an >>> original genius, and that too, the greatest of all time. >>> >>> >>>> I already pointed this out. He just flings words about hoping that will >>>> impress anyone actually dumber than he is. He hasn't a clue about what >>>> Homeopathy is about. >>> >>> Homeopathy is a cheap and effective alternative for the thirdworld, and so >>> the parasites of the firstworld hate it as it cuts into their pharma profits. >>> It has been very useful to me recently in curing my plantar fasciitis. I was >>> asked to take cortisone injections, but no need thanks to Homeopathy. >>> >>> heh-heh. >>> >>> Stupid benj, keep on making a sad fool of yourself. >> >> Right Banjo. I"m such a fool I actually believe that when you take >> chemicals and dilute them into more and more water that the number of >> those atoms in any ounce of that water is not always the same. I mean >> I'ms such a fool I don't believe in atoms that multiply themselves. No >> wonder you are unemployed and have to take work as an internet >> discussion disrupter. > > Look if you claim to know anything about science and maths you should at least > follow what I am saying instead of twisting my theories around. Oh listen to the world's greatest genius. You point out he's stupid and it's "twisting his theories arund" Sure. > I said that my assumption is that the concentration of molecules remains the > same in the solution, when one small part of it is diluted in another solvent. > > Got that? That is stooopid beyond belief. When you dilute anything the molecules are mixed and evenly distributed (eventually when you stir it) throughout the volume. To say otherwise is beyond Third World ignorant. Got that? > This means, that if in a 1000 cc solution A there are N atoms/molecules of B, > and I take 1 percent of A and mix it with 1000cc of pure water, then there > will be in that resulting solution C N atoms/molecules of B, but those > atoms/molecules will be reduced to 1% of the size they had when they were in > solution A. > > Could I make it clearer? Yes, you could. You need to learn some science terminology. Atoms aren't reduced in "size" they are reduced in "concentration" and that implies that all the properties that relate to concentration are reduced as well. Got it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 11:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <390c41eb-aaed-4bbe-9156-a77648013667@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647127 |
On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 7:39:27 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 7:54:36 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > > On 8/24/2017 9:35 AM, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 7:37:19 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > [] > > >> Apart from Millikan's oil drop experiment, there is little to show from > > >> experimental evidence about the atomicity of matter. > > > > > > The Millikan drop experiment is a measure of the fundamental > > > constant ratio of electron charge to electron mass. > > Which does not mean that the electron can be bigger or > smaller than what it > is held to be, mass and charge wise. Wrong. It means there is a smallest size. > All it means is that if ten electrons joined up to form one electron, then > it will have ten times the mass and charge. yes, but they don't magically join. > All we have found is an average which is held to be the only size/charge. But the Millikan experiment does not stand alone. other experiments can show the unit of charge of an electron. > That is an ASSUMPTION held to be FACT. > And we know what assumptions can lead us to. These are facts shown by experiments. > > > >> As for that experiment, well, some say it is dodgy. > > >> What is seen as an atom with an electron microscope could well be a blob > > >> of many atoms. > > > > > > Brownian motion was shown by Einstein as proof of atomicity of matter. > > > MANY particle experiments demonstrate atomic nature of matter. > > Hand-waving and throwing names does not prove > anything to the scientific mind. Please show us the hand waving that Einstein did in his published, peer-reviewed, paper on Brownian motion. > > Einstein was the biggest bungler in physics - his bungling in SR and GR are > stupendous. Probably the biggest bungler in the history of science, with the > most disastrous effects. Go talk to PV. You are both stuck in 18th century thinking. > > No one has seen a gas molecule or atom. As solid or in solution, an atom could > be a group of smaller atoms depending upon external conditions. Look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_(atoms) The article includes an image and a reference to a youtube video. (We know how you like youtube.) > > In other words, in gaseous form the atom could become smaller being divided > as per external conditions. Maybe, reach the smallest possible atomic state. > This may not be the case when it is solid. Atoms are often measured individually when not a solid. Look up: mass spectrometer. > > > > And as a final example, many years ago, IBM was able to arrange > > > individual atoms to spell IBM at the atomic level. So it has gone > > > well beyond proof, to being practical engineering knowledge > > > and techniques. > > They did not do it with gas atoms. They did it at the solid level. The same > IBM atom in solution could break up into smaller atoms. What they got was a > clump of atoms the clumped at that set of external conditions. But they then generated an image. As far as changing size in solution, name one experiment that even hints at a change such that an atom "could break up into smaller atoms." Preferred published in a standard scientific journal. > > > Don't bother to try to explain science to Banjo, Ed. He's a journalist > > and will never understand any of it. You are simply wasting your time. > > But then is it your time to waste. > > And yours too, benj, but then your whole life is a waste. Yes, benj, looks like I am wasting my time. > > > >> Homeopathy suggests that effectively atoms get smaller and smaller with > > >> increased dilution. > > > > > > Pointers to any experimental data/publications? > > Homeopaths tell me that the more you dilute the medicine the more potent it is. > This was well-known to me from my childhood. > Believe it or not. I'll accept such a thing when there is expermental evidence for it. I don't believe in facts, I accept facts that are demonstrated by data. > > One relative said that this was the reason he thought homeopathy had to be fake. > For when you dilute it more and more there will be not a single atom left in > the solution so there will be no medicine at all. > Which is true, mathematically and if you take Avogadro's Number. > > But if in solution, atoms become smaller and smaller then we have more > energetic atoms with greater dilutions. stuff and nonsense. > > And these energetic atoms could be very potent, as indeed homeopathy shows and > has shown for generations. Show ONE experiment where this works! > > I am assuming here that the concentration of medical atoms as numbers/cc > remains constant with the dilutions. Then you assume wrongly. How does that work when we can measure the concentration by the spectra. how does the same number of smaller atoms manage to produce the correct frequency of light, but the wrong number of photons? In fact produce the same number of photons as if the atoms stayed the same size but the number of atoms was reduced. > > > > The effects of medical compounds may not be linear with > > > their concentration, but that says nothing about > > > the molecular size. You are misunderstanding Homeopathy. > > I am explaining what I have extrapolated from the workings of homeopathy, and > how homeopathic medicines are made. It is only natural for me to do so as an > original genius, and that too, the greatest of all time. > Well, your genius cap is a little crooked. > > > I already pointed this out. He just flings words about hoping that will > > impress anyone actually dumber than he is. He hasn't a clue about what > > Homeopathy is about. > > Homeopathy is a cheap and effective alternative for the thirdworld, and so > the parasites of the firstworld hate it as it cuts into their pharma profits. Politics that has nothing to do with the Chemistry/Physics that we are discussing. > It has been very useful to me recently in curing my plantar fasciitis. I was > asked to take cortisone injections, but no need thanks to Homeopathy. > One data point does not make a clear trend line. [] > > > >> It could well be, that matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the > > >> soup filling the infinite universe. > > > > > > Now you are leading to the idea of string theory. > > > IOW, there are no particles, only waves. > > No, I am not into that kind of pseudo-scientific rubbish. Ah, I suggest the one thing that MIGHT help support your idea and you reject that too. Interesting. > > There is aether throughout the infinite universe, and that aether knots up > to form positive and negative charges in the form of matter. > > Very simple, really. Experimental evidence? Mathematical model? Anything besides your statement out of thin air? > > Will have to write more aphorisms, to get it all clear. A peer reviewed journal article will be more convincing, either a theoretical proposal with suggestions of how to test your theory or an experimental paper with data supporting your idea. Lacking that, even a reference to someone else's published work that supports your idea. Otherwise, all you have is words. > > Still, those with wits better than yours, will have grasped what I mean from > such normal brilliant posts from mine, as this one. I am but a humble person. I claim no genius skills or special knowledge. I only know what I have tested myself or read is respected sources. (PS usenet is not generally a respected source.) > > > > > >> That is, there is no aether within electrons and protons, but outside them. > > >> Points to ponder... > > >> Cheers, > > >> Arindam Banerjee > > > > > > Given that protons consist of quarks, You may want to > > > rephrase that "point to ponder". > > Protons consist of smaller protons, like electrons consist of smaller electrons. Now you are channeling John S. You are heading down a dead end path. Or more accurately you are in a maze of twisted passages, all the same. Have a nice time pondering what I have said. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 12:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ea2ef5dd-4fba-40c3-bd92-37720499bc6f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647192 |
On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 4:27:02 AM UTC+10, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 7:39:27 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 7:54:36 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > > > On 8/24/2017 9:35 AM, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 7:37:19 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > [] > > > >> Apart from Millikan's oil drop experiment, there is little to show from > > > >> experimental evidence about the atomicity of matter. > > > > > > > > The Millikan drop experiment is a measure of the fundamental > > > > constant ratio of electron charge to electron mass. > > > > Which does not mean that the electron can be bigger or > > smaller than what it > > is held to be, mass and charge wise. > > Wrong. It means there is a smallest size. Your own comment does not indicate that. You said that "experiment is a measure of the fundamental constant ratio of electron charge to electron mass". Don't you think you are contradicting yourself? I think this was the Sir JJ Thomson experiment of bending the electrons in a CRT with a magnetic field, to get the value of e/m. But e/m does not give e. You are confusing one with the other. As I remember they got discrete values of such readings and from the steps involved they somehow managed to measure the mass of an electron in Millikan oil drop experiment. Hmm, just checked and I am correct, just see https://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/2002summer/PHY192/electron_charge_and_mass.pdf relevant quote from that site: *** When the experimenter knows the density of the latex ball, the terminal velocity of the ball falling under the influence of gravity alone, and the charge on the plates of the Millikan apparatus, it is possible to find the force produced by the electric charge on the ball. A series of observations will produce a group of terminal velocity values which are seen to be multiples of a lowest value. From this data, it is possible to determine the elementary unit of charge. *** Well, if people are satisfied with that sort of experimentation, using gravity and electricity to prove some point with sketchy details, I do not see why they should object to my own open, clear experimentation with Lorenz force in rail guns as shown in the video films IFE-1 to 8 one of which shows the rail gun as a pendulum bob: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno > > All it means is that if ten electrons joined up to form one electron, then > > it will have ten times the mass and charge. > > yes, but they don't magically join. If matter is infinitely divisible, they will have to. Usually the electrons are bunched up, as in the case of static. > > All we have found is an average which is held to be the only size/charge. > > But the Millikan experiment does not stand alone. > other experiments can show the unit of charge of an electron. Name them. > > > > That is an ASSUMPTION held to be FACT. > > And we know what assumptions can lead us to. > > These are facts shown by experiments. Only one is shown. It is rather dodgy, going by my own exacting standards. > > > >> As for that experiment, well, some say it is dodgy. > > > >> What is seen as an atom with an electron microscope could well be a blob > > > >> of many atoms. > > > > > > > > Brownian motion was shown by Einstein as proof of atomicity of matter. > > > > MANY particle experiments demonstrate atomic nature of matter. > > > > Hand-waving and throwing names does not prove > > anything to the scientific mind. > > Please show us the hand waving that Einstein did in his published, > peer-reviewed, paper on Brownian motion. Not all peer-reviewed are correct in every way, given the differences academics have over every matter. They only indicate one point of view. They do not negate others. > > Einstein was the biggest bungler in physics - his bungling in SR and GR are > > stupendous. Probably the biggest bungler in the history of science, with the > > most disastrous effects. > > Go talk to PV. You are both stuck in 18th century thinking. 19th century, which was the real time for scientific thinking, whereas 20th century is the time for technology based upon 19th century science. Einstein et al corrupted physics, which has to be fixed based upon the work shown in my video films. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 14:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e77afc24-f47d-455a-9d74-273230f41cb1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647201 |
On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 3:32:34 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 4:27:02 AM UTC+10, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 7:39:27 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 7:54:36 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> > > > On 8/24/2017 9:35 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 7:37:19 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > []
> > > > >> Apart from Millikan's oil drop experiment, there is little to show from
> > > > >> experimental evidence about the atomicity of matter.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Millikan drop experiment is a measure of the fundamental
> > > > > constant ratio of electron charge to electron mass.
> > >
> > > Which does not mean that the electron can be bigger or
> > > smaller than what it
> > > is held to be, mass and charge wise.
> >
> > Wrong. It means there is a smallest size.
>
> Your own comment does not indicate that. You said that "experiment is a measure
> of the fundamental constant ratio of electron charge to electron mass".
>
> Don't you think you are contradicting yourself? I think this was the Sir JJ
> Thomson experiment of bending the electrons in a CRT with a magnetic field,
> to get the value of e/m. But e/m does not give e. You are confusing one with
> the other.
>
> As I remember they got discrete values of such readings and from the steps
> involved they somehow managed to measure the mass of an electron in Millikan
> oil drop experiment.
>
> Hmm, just checked and I am correct, just see
>
> https://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/2002summer/PHY192/electron_charge_and_mass.pdf
>
> relevant quote from that site:
> ***
> When the experimenter knows the density of the latex ball, the terminal velocity of the ball falling under the influence of gravity alone, and the charge on the plates of the Millikan apparatus, it is possible to find the force produced by the electric charge on the ball. A series of observations will produce a group of terminal velocity values which are seen to be multiples of a lowest value. From this data, it is possible to determine the elementary unit of charge.
> ***
Exactly. There is a discrete unit, IOW a smallest unit.
>
> Well, if people are satisfied with that sort of experimentation, using gravity
> and electricity to prove some point with sketchy details, I do not see why
> they should object to my own open, clear experimentation with Lorenz force
[spam deleted]
Because it is anything but a reproducible experiment.
As I told you before, that would fail a school science fair.
>
>
> > > All it means is that if ten electrons joined up to form one electron, then
> > > it will have ten times the mass and charge.
> >
> > yes, but they don't magically join.
>
> If matter is infinitely divisible, they will have to.
But matter is not infinitely divisible, as the Milliken
experiment shows!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Usually the electrons are bunched up, as in the case of static.
The electrons are held by clusters of molecules.
They do not bunch up on their own.
>
> > > All we have found is an average which is held to be the only size/charge.
> >
> > But the Millikan experiment does not stand alone.
> > other experiments can show the unit of charge of an electron.
>
> Name them.
You just posted the link to one.
> >
> >
> > > That is an ASSUMPTION held to be FACT.
> > > And we know what assumptions can lead us to.
> >
> > These are facts shown by experiments.
>
> Only one is shown. It is rather dodgy, going by my own exacting standards.
LOL! Your standards are anything but exacting!
>
> > > > >> As for that experiment, well, some say it is dodgy.
> > > > >> What is seen as an atom with an electron microscope could well be a blob
> > > > >> of many atoms.
> > > > >
> > > > > Brownian motion was shown by Einstein as proof of atomicity of matter.
> > > > > MANY particle experiments demonstrate atomic nature of matter.
> > >
> > > Hand-waving and throwing names does not prove
> > > anything to the scientific mind.
> >
> > Please show us the hand waving that Einstein did in his published,
> > peer-reviewed, paper on Brownian motion.
>
> Not all peer-reviewed are correct in every way, given the differences
> academics have over every matter. They only indicate one point of view. They
> do not negate others.
That does not answer the question I asked.
Where in his paper on Brownian motion did Einstein
perform a hand waving calculation?
>
> > > Einstein was the biggest bungler in physics - his bungling in SR and GR are
> > > stupendous. Probably the biggest bungler in the history of science, with the
> > > most disastrous effects.
> >
> > Go talk to PV. You are both stuck in 18th century thinking.
>
> 19th century, which was the real time for scientific thinking, whereas 20th
> century is the time for technology based upon 19th century science. Einstein
> et al corrupted physics, which has to be fixed based upon the work shown in
> my video films.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
Sorry, but we are in the 21st century now.
Please reset your calendar.
Have a good day,
ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web