Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #646926 > unrolled thread

Are space and time infinitely divisible?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  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 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

#648254

On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 3:28:33 AM UTC+10, Serg io wrote:
> On 9/1/2017 9:02 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 10:25:17 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> >> On 8/31/2017 7:54 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>> On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 7:24:19 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> >>>> On 8/31/2017 1:09 PM, Serg io wrote:
> >>>>> On 8/31/2017 11:03 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:23:56 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 8/27/17 7:25 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> How can life cells split, duplicate, if each atom in the cell does
> >>>>>>>>> not divide into two?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Um, how about the cell incorporating additional atoms as part of
> >>>>>>>> growth?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Of course this is a matter of biology, about which I am totally
> >>>>>>>>> ignorant. This
> >>>>>>>>> is not my field but one can put in one's stray thoughts in any
> >>>>>>>>> discussion group.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Well, Arindam, in this you are like Archimedes Plutonium, so
> >>>>>>>> ego-possessed and so hungry for attention that you believe that your
> >>>>>>>> stray thoughts are jewels, rather than the festering corn cobs that
> >>>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>>> are.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You racists and bigots want me to shut up. Nothing new here.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You can talk all you want. I know it fills empty hours. Just know that
> >>>>>> what
> >>>>>> you say ain't worth much, except in your own eyes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> he should think of the other cases too, why focus on just one ?;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. racists and bigots want me to shut up (his current focus)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2. racists and bigots that do not want me to shut up.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 3. non-racists and non-bigots want me to shut up.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 4. non-racists and non-bigots that do not want me to shut up.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> so, Arimdam, can you address #2, #3, and #4 ?  I am sure you already
> >>>>> have thought it all out.
> >>>>> (I would also add to each above "for money", or "not for money")
> >>>>
> >>>> As a racist and bigot I have to go for number 2. But while I want him to
> >>>> keep digging, we can leave off the "for money" part
> >>>
> >>> benj face it you are a money-grubber who takes to racism and bigotry
> >>> as a side interest. That is why you want me to keep on talking.
> >>>
> >> Nope. I want to keep you talking because Bert and Archie could use some
> >> strong competition for this year's senility prize. I tell you Banjo, you
> >> are a CONTENDER!
> > 
> > For senility prize I recommend Porat.
> > For asininity prize I recommend you.
> > 
> 
> SO, do we add money-grubbing, senility, AND asininity ?
> 
> cases;
> 
> 1. money-grubbing, non-racists and non-bigots that do not want me to 
> shut up, that are senility and not asininity ?
> 
> na, too complicated.  and what does a "money grubber" do?  grubs money ? 
>   that doesnt make any cents!

The following descriptions apply to benj & Co. who have corrupted physics and
now play the monstrous child are:

stupid, foolish, pointless, brainless, mindless, senseless, doltish, idiotic, imbecilic, imbecile, insane, lunatic, ridiculous, ludicrous, absurd, preposterous, nonsensical, fatuous, silly, childish, infantile, puerile, immature, juvenile, inane, witless, half-baked, empty-headed, unintelligent, half-witted, slow-witted, weak-minded

as synonyms of "asinine".

As oldest of the Einsteinian pack, benj should get the award. 
Mind you, this is a tough, highly competitive field here but age does count in 
award-giving. benj claims exalted age, though this may be a ruse.

Besides, he gratuitously called me a pig-thief; now what could be more asinine?
> 
> 
> 
> so lets continue, and not derail,
> 
> Banjo, address case #3, what about them ?
> 
> 3. non-racists and non-bigots want me to shut up.

They are lovely people and my true friends who want my good, so that bad does
not happen to me because of my not shutting up. Like all good people they have
no money and no power. If I have survived so long, and not got into jail on
false charges as a victim of their racist+bigoted malice, it is
because of the great and wonderful and brave non-racists and non-bigots, for
whom all colour and creed are immaterial considerations for judging someone,
and his work.

But I don't shut up, for I want their good as well and that won't happen if
I shut up.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648273

On 9/1/2017 10:45 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 3:28:33 AM UTC+10, Serg io wrote:
>> On 9/1/2017 9:02 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 10:25:17 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>>>> On 8/31/2017 7:54 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 7:24:19 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/31/2017 1:09 PM, Serg io wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/31/2017 11:03 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:23:56 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/17 7:25 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> How can life cells split, duplicate, if each atom in the cell does
>>>>>>>>>>> not divide into two?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Um, how about the cell incorporating additional atoms as part of
>>>>>>>>>> growth?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course this is a matter of biology, about which I am totally
>>>>>>>>>>> ignorant. This
>>>>>>>>>>> is not my field but one can put in one's stray thoughts in any
>>>>>>>>>>> discussion group.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, Arindam, in this you are like Archimedes Plutonium, so
>>>>>>>>>> ego-possessed and so hungry for attention that you believe that your
>>>>>>>>>> stray thoughts are jewels, rather than the festering corn cobs that
>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>> are.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You racists and bigots want me to shut up. Nothing new here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can talk all you want. I know it fills empty hours. Just know that
>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> you say ain't worth much, except in your own eyes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> he should think of the other cases too, why focus on just one ?;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. racists and bigots want me to shut up (his current focus)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. racists and bigots that do not want me to shut up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. non-racists and non-bigots want me to shut up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4. non-racists and non-bigots that do not want me to shut up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so, Arimdam, can you address #2, #3, and #4 ?  I am sure you already
>>>>>>> have thought it all out.
>>>>>>> (I would also add to each above "for money", or "not for money")
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As a racist and bigot I have to go for number 2. But while I want him to
>>>>>> keep digging, we can leave off the "for money" part
>>>>>
>>>>> benj face it you are a money-grubber who takes to racism and bigotry
>>>>> as a side interest. That is why you want me to keep on talking.
>>>>>
>>>> Nope. I want to keep you talking because Bert and Archie could use some
>>>> strong competition for this year's senility prize. I tell you Banjo, you
>>>> are a CONTENDER!
>>>
>>> For senility prize I recommend Porat.
>>> For asininity prize I recommend you.
>>>
>>
>> SO, do we add money-grubbing, senility, AND asininity ?
>>
>> cases;
>>
>> 1. money-grubbing, non-racists and non-bigots that do not want me to
>> shut up, that are senility and not asininity ?
>>
>> na, too complicated.  and what does a "money grubber" do?  grubs money ?
>>    that doesnt make any cents!
> 
> The following descriptions apply to benj & Co. who have corrupted physics and
> now play the monstrous child are:
> 
> stupid, foolish, pointless, brainless, mindless, senseless, doltish, idiotic, imbecilic, imbecile, insane, lunatic, ridiculous, ludicrous, absurd, preposterous, nonsensical, fatuous, silly, childish, infantile, puerile, immature, juvenile, inane, witless, half-baked, empty-headed, unintelligent, half-witted, slow-witted, weak-minded

Banjo probes the Web for knowledge (as he lacks it)

> as synonyms of "asinine".

> As oldest of the Einsteinian pack, benj should get the award.
> Mind you, this is a tough, highly competitive field here but age does count in
> award-giving. benj claims exalted age, though this may be a ruse.

This is such a HOOT! This coming from a guy who denies E=mcc who thinks 
that perpetual motion is real and Newton's laws are all wrong and that 
he is the greatest Genius in the universe well beyond Einstein who was 
an asinine idiot.

As Sylvia has pointed out this is so ignorant that it can only be a 
pitiful attempt at Troll.

> Besides, he gratuitously called me a pig-thief; now what could be more asinine?

Come on Banjo it's a free gift from me. Be GRATEFUL (and learn some 
Latin, pagan pig thief)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648282

On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 1:39:47 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> On 9/1/2017 10:45 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 3:28:33 AM UTC+10, Serg io wrote:
> >> On 9/1/2017 9:02 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>> On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 10:25:17 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> >>>> On 8/31/2017 7:54 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 7:24:19 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> >>>>>> On 8/31/2017 1:09 PM, Serg io wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 8/31/2017 11:03 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:23:56 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/17 7:25 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> How can life cells split, duplicate, if each atom in the cell does
> >>>>>>>>>>> not divide into two?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Um, how about the cell incorporating additional atoms as part of
> >>>>>>>>>> growth?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Of course this is a matter of biology, about which I am totally
> >>>>>>>>>>> ignorant. This
> >>>>>>>>>>> is not my field but one can put in one's stray thoughts in any
> >>>>>>>>>>> discussion group.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Well, Arindam, in this you are like Archimedes Plutonium, so
> >>>>>>>>>> ego-possessed and so hungry for attention that you believe that your
> >>>>>>>>>> stray thoughts are jewels, rather than the festering corn cobs that
> >>>>>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>>>>> are.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You racists and bigots want me to shut up. Nothing new here.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You can talk all you want. I know it fills empty hours. Just know that
> >>>>>>>> what
> >>>>>>>> you say ain't worth much, except in your own eyes.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> he should think of the other cases too, why focus on just one ?;
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1. racists and bigots want me to shut up (his current focus)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2. racists and bigots that do not want me to shut up.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 3. non-racists and non-bigots want me to shut up.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 4. non-racists and non-bigots that do not want me to shut up.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> so, Arimdam, can you address #2, #3, and #4 ?  I am sure you already
> >>>>>>> have thought it all out.
> >>>>>>> (I would also add to each above "for money", or "not for money")
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As a racist and bigot I have to go for number 2. But while I want him to
> >>>>>> keep digging, we can leave off the "for money" part
> >>>>>
> >>>>> benj face it you are a money-grubber who takes to racism and bigotry
> >>>>> as a side interest. That is why you want me to keep on talking.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Nope. I want to keep you talking because Bert and Archie could use some
> >>>> strong competition for this year's senility prize. I tell you Banjo, you
> >>>> are a CONTENDER!
> >>>
> >>> For senility prize I recommend Porat.
> >>> For asininity prize I recommend you.
> >>>
> >>
> >> SO, do we add money-grubbing, senility, AND asininity ?
> >>
> >> cases;
> >>
> >> 1. money-grubbing, non-racists and non-bigots that do not want me to
> >> shut up, that are senility and not asininity ?
> >>
> >> na, too complicated.  and what does a "money grubber" do?  grubs money ?
> >>    that doesnt make any cents!
> > 
> > The following descriptions apply to benj & Co. who have corrupted physics and
> > now play the monstrous child are:
> > 
> > stupid, foolish, pointless, brainless, mindless, senseless, doltish, idiotic, imbecilic, imbecile, insane, lunatic, ridiculous, ludicrous, absurd, preposterous, nonsensical, fatuous, silly, childish, infantile, puerile, immature, juvenile, inane, witless, half-baked, empty-headed, unintelligent, half-witted, slow-witted, weak-minded
> 
> Banjo probes the Web for knowledge (as he lacks it)
> 
> > as synonyms of "asinine".
> 
> > As oldest of the Einsteinian pack, benj should get the award.
> > Mind you, this is a tough, highly competitive field here but age does count in
> > award-giving. benj claims exalted age, though this may be a ruse.
> 
> This is such a HOOT! This coming from a guy who denies E=mcc who thinks 
> that perpetual motion is real and Newton's laws are all wrong and that 
> he is the greatest Genius in the universe well beyond Einstein who was 
> an asinine idiot.
> 
> As Sylvia has pointed out this is so ignorant that it can only be a 
> pitiful attempt at Troll.
> 
> > Besides, he gratuitously called me a pig-thief; now what could be more asinine?
> 
> Come on Banjo it's a free gift from me. Be GRATEFUL (and learn some 
> Latin, pagan pig thief)

Be proud to get an award, benj: the sci.physics Asinine award. It is not the 
Nobel Prize you crave but a prize is a prize.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648196

On 9/1/2017 10:02 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 10:25:17 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>> On 8/31/2017 7:54 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 7:24:19 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>>>> On 8/31/2017 1:09 PM, Serg io wrote:
>>>>> On 8/31/2017 11:03 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:23:56 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/27/17 7:25 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>>>>>> How can life cells split, duplicate, if each atom in the cell does
>>>>>>>>> not divide into two?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Um, how about the cell incorporating additional atoms as part of
>>>>>>>> growth?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course this is a matter of biology, about which I am totally
>>>>>>>>> ignorant. This
>>>>>>>>> is not my field but one can put in one's stray thoughts in any
>>>>>>>>> discussion group.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, Arindam, in this you are like Archimedes Plutonium, so
>>>>>>>> ego-possessed and so hungry for attention that you believe that your
>>>>>>>> stray thoughts are jewels, rather than the festering corn cobs that
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You racists and bigots want me to shut up. Nothing new here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can talk all you want. I know it fills empty hours. Just know that
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> you say ain't worth much, except in your own eyes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> he should think of the other cases too, why focus on just one ?;
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. racists and bigots want me to shut up (his current focus)
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. racists and bigots that do not want me to shut up.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. non-racists and non-bigots want me to shut up.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. non-racists and non-bigots that do not want me to shut up.
>>>>>
>>>>> so, Arimdam, can you address #2, #3, and #4 ?  I am sure you already
>>>>> have thought it all out.
>>>>> (I would also add to each above "for money", or "not for money")
>>>>
>>>> As a racist and bigot I have to go for number 2. But while I want him to
>>>> keep digging, we can leave off the "for money" part
>>>
>>> benj face it you are a money-grubber who takes to racism and bigotry
>>> as a side interest. That is why you want me to keep on talking.
>>>
>> Nope. I want to keep you talking because Bert and Archie could use some
>> strong competition for this year's senility prize. I tell you Banjo, you
>> are a CONTENDER!
> 
> For senility prize I recommend Porat.
> For asininity prize I recommend you.
> 
You forgot to say I believe in ghosts. I bet do too!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648089

On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 3:09:46 AM UTC+10, Serg io wrote:
> On 8/31/2017 11:03 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:23:56 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>> On 8/27/17 7:25 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>>> How can life cells split, duplicate, if each atom in the cell does not divide into two?
> >>>
> >>> Um, how about the cell incorporating additional atoms as part of growth?
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course this is a matter of biology, about which I am totally ignorant. This
> >>>> is not my field but one can put in one's stray thoughts in any discussion group.
> >>>
> >>> Well, Arindam, in this you are like Archimedes Plutonium, so
> >>> ego-possessed and so hungry for attention that you believe that your
> >>> stray thoughts are jewels, rather than the festering corn cobs that they
> >>> are.
> >>
> >> You racists and bigots want me to shut up. Nothing new here.
> > 
> > You can talk all you want. I know it fills empty hours. Just know that what
> > you say ain't worth much, except in your own eyes.
> 
> 
> he should think of the other cases too, why focus on just one ?;
> 
> 1. racists and bigots want me to shut up (his current focus)

These are the better ones, not powerful and just prejudiced.

> 2. racists and bigots that do not want me to shut up.

who and where are they? They all want me to shut up, or if I do speak it should
go to solidify their sense of superiority.

> 3. non-racists and non-bigots want me to shut up.

Yes they do, for they love me and don't want me to get into trouble with the
racists and bigots and their non-white lickers. They think I have already
written more than enough. They cannot help me and my work as they have no 
money and no power, just want what is good for me.

> 4. non-racists and non-bigots that do not want me to shut up.

An opportunist lot that will grab what it can without paying me anything in 
any currency.

> so, Arimdam, can you address #2, #3, and #4 ?  I am sure you already 
> have thought it all out.

Indeed, and so see above.

> (I would also add to each above "for money", or "not for money")

I don't see how money comes in at this nascent stage. Later when things are
widely accepted, for technical progress, then, certainly. But then when money
is concerned there a grand unity among all for the purpose of making money;
and disunity for the purpose of grabbing the most of it.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

> 
> > 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -- 
> >>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > 
> >

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648064

On 8/31/2017 12:03 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:23:56 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 8/27/17 7:25 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>> How can life cells split, duplicate, if each atom in the cell does not divide into two?
>>>
>>> Um, how about the cell incorporating additional atoms as part of growth?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course this is a matter of biology, about which I am totally ignorant. This
>>>> is not my field but one can put in one's stray thoughts in any discussion group.
>>>
>>> Well, Arindam, in this you are like Archimedes Plutonium, so
>>> ego-possessed and so hungry for attention that you believe that your
>>> stray thoughts are jewels, rather than the festering corn cobs that they
>>> are.
>>
>> You racists and bigots want me to shut up. Nothing new here.
> 
> You can talk all you want. I know it fills empty hours. Just know that what
> you say ain't worth much, except in your own eyes.

Don't worry Banjo. It works for racist bigots like Odd, so why not for you?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647575

On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 8:25:12 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 7:57:53 AM UTC+10, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 4:21:55 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > - snip -
> > > 
> > > > > 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.
> > > 
> > 
> > You say,
> > No one has seen a gas molecule or atom.
> > I pointed to IBM moving individual atoms, with an image of the atoms.
> 
> Not a gas molecule.
> > 
> > you say,
> > "they are the same size because they are frozen solid"
> > I mention the size can be measured when the atom is a gas.
> 
> Can you use an electron microscope to see a gas molecule?
> Hint: a gas molecule moves, so it cannot be seen by any kind of microscope

here I should have said the same mass.
> > 
> > you reply
> > > Again, you don't know if they cannot be broken up into smaller atoms.
> > But not scientific measurement has ever found differences in size
> > (well except for isotopes)
> 
> Isotopes can be seen as the heavier version of the same element.

But the difference is always an integer.
> 
> Fatter protons, fatter electrons.
> 
> I have now before me the book "Tables of physical and chemical constants" by Kaye and Laby.
> 
> I have opened the table of "the chemical elements"
> Most elemnents are not like Oxygen which has an atomic mass number of 16 which
> is the reference perhaps as it is in bold.
> They have fractions like Neon at 20.183, Cadmimum at 112.41, Potassium at
> 39.1 and so on.

 The values reported in the periodic table are for the common average.
IOW, the mix of isotopes on earth.
So Potassium (K) is extracted from various sources on earth.
It has a mixture of Potassium 39 (93.3%) and 41 (6.7%) with
a tiny fraction of radioactive K 40.


> 
> Isn't "discovering" isotopes a convenient way of denying that the atomic mass
> is the average mass of the atom in gaseous or otherwise moving form?

No. I told you before it is measured with a mass spectrograph.
"Mass spectrometry (MS) is an analytical technique that ionizes
 chemical species and sorts the ions based on their mass-to-charge
 ratio."  - wikipedia

So two isotopes of potassium have the same charge.
yet they are separated but a different mass.
The mass difference is always an integer multiple
of the mass of a neutron.

> 
> The isotope could be the heavier or lighter version of the elemental stable atom.

No, it cannot.
> 
> > So time for your theory to put up or shut up:
> 
> I am not really keen about this theory as it is not my work.
> It simple explains things like homeopathy.

No it doesn't.

> It would appear then that atoms nicely split up in solution or when moving
> just to keep the concentration constant.

There's no "appear" about that. It is nonsense.

> 
> How can life cells split, duplicate, if each atom in the cell does not divide into two?

A cell is BILLIONS of atoms. Half go one way,
half go the other.  so it is a false analogy.

> 
> Of course this is a matter of biology, about which I am totally ignorant.

Honest humility?

> This
> is not my field but one can put in one's stray thoughts
> in any discussion group.
> 
Your's seem to stray, that much is true.
That's not bad unless the discussion goes too far off topic.
> 
> > How does the size always come up the same
> > in measurements done different ways, and
> > in many places all over the world, yet still
> > vary in size?
> 
> The average is constant and that is found.

The average of the mixture.

> You cannot find the size of a single atom in movement.

The mass spectrometer can.

> What you see under a  microscope could be a clump of atoms.
> It could be a singular atom, but how can one be sure?

Other measurements like x-ray crystallography and
other scattering measurements give data on the dimensions.
Mass is measured also. The mass data in particular fits
the standard model. It always seems to come in discrete
increments. 

> 
> When you are talking averages, you are talking about distributions.
> So if the mode is peaked in the distribution, like all atoms have the same
> atomic mass, then yes they have the same size.
> But the atomic mass is rarely integer.


The atomic mass is a standard:
1 unified atomic mass unit is defined as 1/12th of the mass
of a single carbon-12 atom, at rest, and referes to a single atom.
You can get a good approximation of atomic mass by counting
the number of protons and neutrons. (But also remember
neutrons and protons are slightly different in mass.)

What you are referring to is the atomic weight which is
the average over a sample. Note: I mentioned that usually the
sample comes from a source on earth. Getting a sample from
an extra terrestrial source can be revealing. Samples
have different distributions of some isotopes.



> One could argue that there is a spread in atomic mass, and from that conjecture
> that atoms could vary in mass.

But confronted by the particle data for measuring individual atoms
and counting then, a reasonable person would conclude that such an
argument fails.

> And from that extrapolate to their division or union in solution, as a 
> function of concentration.

Here again is a data point that cannot be explained by that idea.
Take a sample from a solution. we place that sample in an instrument
which illuminates it with white light. The atoms absorb light at
specific frequencies, the atomic spectra. From the absorption lines
we can tell what atoms are in the sample. We also see the intensity
of the lines.

Now dilute the solution by half and take another sample. [recall at this
point the claim is the number of atoms remains the same.] Place
a sample of the diluted solution in the instrument. Measure the
intensity again. This intensity is Half of the value measured
the first time.

So, somehow the same number of "smaller" atoms absorb half
as many photons at the same wavelength as their bigger versions.

> 
> If one proton or one electron is NOT equally big as another proton or electron,

One characteristic of the electron is that nothing has been
measured to tell them apart. A mass spectrograph for electrons
has been done, and no difference in mass has ever been measured.

Same with the proton. Same mass, measured to 10 significant digits.
Same charge measured to 11 significant digits. (BTW the proton
charge has the same absolute value as the electron out to 11 digits.

Given the above, then this conclusion:
> then natural processes for their union and divison based upon external circs.
> cannot be discounted.

is FALSE.
> 
> > Tell us the conditions to test your hypothesis.
> 
> See if you can measure the size of a gas molecule.
> The same IBM atom heat up and make it fly in space.
> The see if it is the same size when it was frozen.

We measure it's mass with the mass spectrometer.
We get a measure of its diameter by its spectra,
and it seems the same in gas, solid, or liquid.
The spectra also gives us a nice count of the number
of atoms in the solution.

I don't see any data suggesting atoms change size.

> > 
> > If you cannot at least do that, your hypothesis is dead.
> 
> Not so fast. The theory of matter divisibility to nothing, or rather to 
> aetheric dimensions is not new at all.

It is dead and shall remain dead until and unless there is DATA
suggesting otherwise.

> It relates to geometry in a way as I pointed out in another thread.
> Infinitude of points make a straight line.
> Thus, an infinity of aether-points makes for a speck of matter.

Your conclusion logically does not follow. 

You are just playing Philosopher games.

Though you may have been reading too many of john's posts.

I think you try to be a logical guy. I hope you can see the
logic failures in this variable atomic size theory from homeopathy.
It just doesn't fit the data.

Think of these issues with that idea:
* how does the atom know when to split?
* How does the size of the atoms and number of atoms
 change during diffusion?
* If an atom gets smaller as you dilute the solution,
 then does it get bigger as the solute evaporates?
* If an atom gets bigger as the concentration of the solution
 increases, why does it have a finite size when all the
 solute evaporates?

HTH,
Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647644

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 12:52:29 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 8:25:12 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
[]
> > > > Again, you don't know if they cannot be broken up into smaller atoms.
> > > But not scientific measurement has ever found differences in size
> > > (well except for isotopes)
> > 
> > Isotopes can be seen as the heavier version of the same element.
> 
> But the difference is always an integer.
> > 
> > Fatter protons, fatter electrons.
> > 
> > I have now before me the book "Tables of physical and chemical constants" by Kaye and Laby.
> > 
> > I have opened the table of "the chemical elements"
> > Most elemnents are not like Oxygen which has an atomic mass number of 16 which
> > is the reference perhaps as it is in bold.
> > They have fractions like Neon at 20.183, Cadmimum at 112.41, Potassium at
> > 39.1 and so on.
> 
>  The values reported in the periodic table are for the common average.
> IOW, the mix of isotopes on earth.
> So Potassium (K) is extracted from various sources on earth.
> It has a mixture of Potassium 39 (93.3%) and 41 (6.7%) with
> a tiny fraction of radioactive K 40.
> 
> 
> > 
> > Isn't "discovering" isotopes a convenient way of denying that the atomic mass
> > is the average mass of the atom in gaseous or otherwise moving form?
> 
> No. I told you before it is measured with a mass spectrograph.
> "Mass spectrometry (MS) is an analytical technique that ionizes
>  chemical species and sorts the ions based on their mass-to-charge
>  ratio."  - wikipedia
> 
> So two isotopes of potassium have the same charge.
> yet they are separated but a different mass.
                        ^^by^^
> The mass difference is always an integer multiple
> of the mass of a neutron.
> 
> > 
> > The isotope could be the heavier or lighter version of the elemental stable atom.
> 
> No, it cannot.

Making my comment clearer: it cannot be just any amount of
heavier or lighter. So, Potassium is mainly the stable weight of 39,
and the rest is the stable isotope with weight of 41. There is
no isotope of potassium, stable or unstable, with weight 39.5
or some other non-integer weight.
[]
> > What you see under a  microscope could be a clump of atoms.
> > It could be a singular atom, but how can one be sure?
> 
> Other measurements like x-ray crystallography and
> other scattering measurements give data on the dimensions.
> Mass is measured also. The mass data in particular fits
> the standard model. It always seems to come in discrete
> increments. 
> 
> > 
> > When you are talking averages, you are talking about distributions.
> > So if the mode is peaked in the distribution, like all atoms have the same
> > atomic mass, then yes they have the same size.
> > But the atomic mass is rarely integer.
> 
> 
> The atomic mass is a standard:
> 1 unified atomic mass unit is defined as 1/12th of the mass
> of a single carbon-12 atom, at rest, and refers to a single atom.
> You can get a good approximation of atomic mass by counting
> the number of protons and neutrons. (But also remember
> neutrons and protons are slightly different in mass.)
> 
> What you are referring to is the atomic weight which is
> the average over a sample. Note: I mentioned that usually the
> sample comes from a source on earth. Getting a sample from
> an extra terrestrial source can be revealing. Samples
> have different distributions of some isotopes.
> 
> 
[]
> > 
> > If one proton or one electron is NOT equally big as another proton or electron,
> 
> One characteristic of the electron is that nothing has been
> measured to tell them apart. A mass spectrograph for electrons
> has been done, and no difference in mass has ever been measured.
> 
> Same with the proton. Same mass, measured to 10 significant digits.
> Same charge measured to 11 significant digits. (BTW the proton
> charge has the same absolute value as the electron out to 11 digits.
> 
> Given the above, then this conclusion:
> > then natural processes for their union and divison based upon external circs.
> > cannot be discounted.
> 
> is FALSE.
> > 
[]
> We measure it's mass with the mass spectrometer.
> We get a measure of its diameter by its spectra,
> and it seems the same in gas, solid, or liquid.
> The spectra also gives us a nice count of the number
> of atoms in the solution.
> 
> I don't see any data suggesting atoms change size.
[] 
> > Not so fast. The theory of matter divisibility to nothing, or rather to 
> > aetheric dimensions is not new at all.
> 
> It is dead and shall remain dead until and unless there is DATA
> suggesting otherwise.
> 
> > It relates to geometry in a way as I pointed out in another thread.
> > Infinitude of points make a straight line.
> > Thus, an infinity of aether-points makes for a speck of matter.
> 
> Your conclusion logically does not follow. 
> 
> You are just playing Philosopher games.
> 
> Though you may have been reading too many of john's posts.
> 
> I think you try to be a logical guy. I hope you can see the
> logic failures in this variable atomic size theory from homeopathy.
> It just doesn't fit the data.
> 
> Think of these issues with that idea:
> * how does the atom know when to split?
> * How does the size of the atoms and number of atoms
>  change during diffusion?
> * If an atom gets smaller as you dilute the solution,
>  then does it get bigger as the solute evaporates?
> * If an atom gets bigger as the concentration of the solution
>  increases, why does it have a finite size when all the
>  solute evaporates?
> 
> HTH,
> Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647671

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 2:52:29 AM UTC+10, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 8:25:12 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 7:57:53 AM UTC+10, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 4:21:55 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > - snip -
> > > > 
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > You say,
> > > No one has seen a gas molecule or atom.
> > > I pointed to IBM moving individual atoms, with an image of the atoms.
> > 
> > Not a gas molecule.
> > > 
> > > you say,
> > > "they are the same size because they are frozen solid"
> > > I mention the size can be measured when the atom is a gas.
> > 
> > Can you use an electron microscope to see a gas molecule?
> > Hint: a gas molecule moves, so it cannot be seen by any kind of microscope
> 
> here I should have said the same mass.

My question is can you see the gas molecule and measure its size with the
same kind of equipment IBM used to show us an atom?
> > > 
> > > you reply
> > > > Again, you don't know if they cannot be broken up into smaller atoms.
> > > But not scientific measurement has ever found differences in size
> > > (well except for isotopes)
> > 
> > Isotopes can be seen as the heavier version of the same element.
> 
> But the difference is always an integer.

That is how they are shown. It could be that there are two or more modes of the atomic mass distribution for the element and those modes are called the isotopes.

> > Fatter protons, fatter electrons.
> > 
> > I have now before me the book "Tables of physical and chemical constants" by Kaye and Laby.
> > 
> > I have opened the table of "the chemical elements"
> > Most elemnents are not like Oxygen which has an atomic mass number of 16 which
> > is the reference perhaps as it is in bold.
> > They have fractions like Neon at 20.183, Cadmimum at 112.41, Potassium at
> > 39.1 and so on.
> 
>  The values reported in the periodic table are for the common average.
> IOW, the mix of isotopes on earth.
> So Potassium (K) is extracted from various sources on earth.
> It has a mixture of Potassium 39 (93.3%) and 41 (6.7%) with
> a tiny fraction of radioactive K 40.

See above. As I said, if atomic mass distribution has modes in it, then those
modes could be seen as isotopes.

> 
> > 
> > Isn't "discovering" isotopes a convenient way of denying that the atomic mass
> > is the average mass of the atom in gaseous or otherwise moving form?
> 
> No. I told you before it is measured with a mass spectrograph.
> "Mass spectrometry (MS) is an analytical technique that ionizes
>  chemical species and sorts the ions based on their mass-to-charge
>  ratio."  - Wikipedia

aha, mass to charge ration. Same as for the electron as per Sir JJ Thomson's
experiment with CRTs.
It does not find the mass of an individual chemical species.

> So two isotopes of potassium have the same charge.

Isn't that an assumption?
A heavier atom of potassium should have more charge as the ionisation will
create more charge for it.
As it got rid of a bigger electron it would have more charge.

> yet they are separated but a different mass.
> The mass difference is always an integer multiple
> of the mass of a neutron.

They certainly will be separated as they have different masses.


> > The isotope could be the heavier or lighter version of the elemental stable atom.
> 
> No, it cannot.

I don't see why all atoms must be the same size wise. They could be the same
under some conditions, but in some other conditions as in solution they could
just break up into smaller or larger atoms.

> > > So time for your theory to put up or shut up:
> > 
> > I am not really keen about this theory as it is not my work.
> > It simple explains things like homeopathy.
> 
> No it doesn't.

It does. Homeopathic medicine is stronger the more it is diluted. So one of
my scientific friends said it is a hoax as the more you dilute it at some
stage there will be no medical atoms. That is why he did not take homeopathy.
This was the standard doctrine in the making of homeopathy, though. Dilution
makes for strength. All those who take homeopathic medicine know this.

> > It would appear then that atoms nicely split up in solution or when moving
> > just to keep the concentration constant.
> 
> There's no "appear" about that. It is nonsense.

So you say. But who knows. At least homeopathy works unlike anything from
e=mcc unless we are talking GPS where yes, two wrongs do make a right. Good for
conformal mapping thus. Hold the Earth still, and yes then spacetime equations
do work as GPS shows. An Earth moving in aether, would have made the equaitons
more difficult, I think.

Strange, how the bad works for the good, sometimes.

> > How can life cells split, duplicate, if each atom in the cell does not divide into two?
> 
> A cell is BILLIONS of atoms. Half go one way,
> half go the other.  so it is a false analogy.

No it is not. If half the atoms go there, then the power of the cell is 
reduced by half, quarter and so on with every division. Disastrous! Life just
cannot work this way.

THE BEST WAY TO EXPLAIN LIFE IS THUS THEORIZE THAT THE ATOMS SPLIT EQUALLY
IN CELL DIVISION TO MAINTAIN THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE CELL.

As the cell takes in more water from the membrane, the concentration decreases
and more atoms have to get into solution to keep up the required concentration.

So atoms must divide gracefully and as there are more atoms now there is the
possibility for the creation of another cell.

Now the mystery is that if the atoms do get halved in mass, how do they regain
the mass to the original size before splitting?

One may theorise here that when they get halved then they gain in size from
the aether; they grow from aether as plants grow from soil.

Just as plants once again turn to soil after they die.

Hmm, this explains quite a lot, I think. 

Aether forms all masses as positive and negative charges. When the size of the
atom decreases, it again builds up from the aether if it can, or vanishes into
aether otherwise. 

Death then, happens when the cell can no longer build up its atoms from the
aether.

The notion that the concentration of atoms must remain constant in any solution
is thus a very powerful one, as I just worked out.

Whether it is a correct idea or not I do not know, but then a theory is just
that, a conjecture which may or may not be validated later to the status of an
universal fact (for the moment). Knowledge in science is always provisional, or
else it turns into a religion like e=mcc.

Well, enough for now. I know such great original thoughts from my brown Hindu
non-bootlicking genius self are toxic to the western arrogant+horrid
racist+bigoted devils, like benj & Co., but what to do; not everyone of a
brown colour and strange accent can work in call centres; and so, with a heh-heh

Cheers,

Arindam Banerjee

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647757

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 7:38:13 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
[]
> My question is can you see the gas molecule and measure its size with the
> same kind of equipment IBM used to show us an atom?

Are you claiming Xenon atoms are a different size as a gas
then they are sitting on a chilled nickel plate?
 
You claim to be an experienced and accomplished engineer.
Can you propose a test showing the size of atoms changes?
Every test I mentioned shows atoms do not changes size,
meaning, spatial dimensions or inertial mass or charge.
Please, I am not even asking for the experimental results
yet. Just describe under what condition does an atom will
change size (and what size properties are affected).

Otherwise you are just blowing smoke without any real
progress in learning.
Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647815

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 3:28:39 AM UTC+10, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 7:38:13 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> []
> > My question is can you see the gas molecule and measure its size with the
> > same kind of equipment IBM used to show us an atom?
> 
> Are you claiming Xenon atoms are a different size as a gas
> then they are sitting on a chilled nickel plate?

I am not claiming anything. I am suggesting that a gas atom or molecule 
becomes bigger or smaller with concentration or dilution, the hypothesis 
being that the concentration of moving atoms/molecules in any volume has to 
remain constant.

From the above, the answer to your question is, yes.
  
> You claim to be an experienced and accomplished engineer.

True. Now that's a claim.

> Can you propose a test showing the size of atoms changes?

At the moment, no. I don't have the means of estimating the size of a 
singular atom in a gas with a certain pressure. Nor can I think of any method
that will satisfy myself.

I look at outer space and find no gas particles. There is nothing there except
some solids like asteroids and stars and planets plus meteors and comets.

So gas cannot survive in outer space. It subdivides to zero or aether, 
depending upon point of view, going by my hypothesis.

> Every test I mentioned shows atoms do not changes size,
> meaning, spatial dimensions or inertial mass or charge.

No doubt, they were done under the same set of conditions, as any decent
experiment should be. If so, the above does not prove anything one way or the
other.

Under the same set of conditions, they would exhibit same results.
Point is, no one thought that atoms could subdivide as per *non-atomic theory*
of matter which while acknowledging the elements and their properties add that
there is no minimum size to matter - meaning that the atomic size as we know
it could get smaller, or rather, it jolly well will get smaller depending upon
circumstances.

Just as the non-atomic theory about the infinite divisibility of matter which
is by no means a new idea.

One must remember, that non-atomic theory only says on top of atomic theory
is that there is no minimum size or put another way Avogadro's Number is 
infinity. I am adding that under certain circumstances such as solution big
atoms divide to form more numbers of smaller atoms.

> Please, I am not even asking for the experimental results
> yet. Just describe under what condition does an atom will
> change size (and what size properties are affected).

I am suggesting that when cells multiply, we need to know exactly what is 
happening. How does the material in the cell grow to become two identical
cells? Is there an increase of mass in the process? What are the masses of
the two divided cells with respect to the original cell? Is there a change?
What is the impact of putting more solution in the cell division process?
Can we show if some saline or other input in the solution impacts upon the 
cell division process? Can we agree that prior to division the number of molecules in the cell was twice the number it was when it was formed? Can we
track this increase of numbers in the individual live cell? In that process,
can we show that a molecule is halving itself? Can we show that after halving
itself it is regaining its original weight from somewhere - like say aether?

We have to investigate with live cells here and not dead cells.

I don't suppose the above experiments will be very easy to do, and I for one
would much rather work to make an internal force engine based upon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws
IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship


> Otherwise you are just blowing smoke without any real
> progress in learning.

This is unkind and also ridiculous. One can make theories is science without
being forced to suggest experiments to prove them. 

Theories are about explanations of nature, based upon observations -
they could be correct, or not. Science is not a one-man job. If someone is
interested in any theory, it is for him or her to take it up no matter who
initiated it. Science is for everyone, but who will tell that to the 
bullying racist+bigots, except

Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time, sole
god among lotsa devils.

> Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647274

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:39:16 -0700 (PDT), Arindam Banerjee
<banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:

>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.

Yes, they have.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/07/IBM_in_atoms.gif

The bumps are xenon atoms.  Under STP xenon is a gas, but in this photo
they're stuck to the flat surface of a crystal of nickel.  In the
crystal the individual nickel atoms, which are smaller than the xenon
atoms, are indistinguishable to the SEM because they're glued together
by electron gas.

(Or maybe by electron dust...?)

-- 
Goat

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#646981

On 8/23/2017 11:34 AM, 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
As usual Odd just drools on imparting zero information on the subject at 
hand. Bottom line": He says go read a book because he hasn't a clue.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#646985

benj
"
As usual Odd just drools on imparting zero information on the subject at 
hand. Bottom line": He says go read a book because he hasn't a clue. "

Are you noticing a marked mental deterioration, with Odd?
And what about poor HVAC?
Has the Tribulation started with them, maybe?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#646993

On 8/23/17 4:28 PM, john wrote:
> benj
> "
> As usual Odd just drools on imparting zero information on the subject at
> hand. Bottom line": He says go read a book because he hasn't a clue. "
> 
> Are you noticing a marked mental deterioration, with Odd?
> And what about poor HVAC?
> Has the Tribulation started with them, maybe?
> 

The Tribulation referred to in the Bible that describes a creator god 
who created the universe at a finite time in the past, which is an event 
you John do not believe in? You believe in an eternal universe, 
extending infinitely long ago in the past, and therefore there was no 
creation of the universe.

So, John, when you say you believe things, but you can't muster a 
coherent belief system that is consistent, do you see the problem with 
credibility?

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#646933

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

what is space?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647041

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> what is space?


particles have nothing to do with...space.

only 4 percent of space contain matter...


might as well say 96 percent of space is water..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#646977

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 11:26:28 AM UTC-4, alal...@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

There is the idea that space may have a smallest size. It is
called the Planck length. It is a consequence of Quantum theory.
And if there is a smallest length, then time may also be quantized
in a smallest length.

But these may only represent the limits of our measurements.
If space could be divided smaller, we cannot tell.

Bottom like is: we do not yet know the answer to your question.
ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#646980

On 8/23/2017 11:26 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
> 
Old idea. Depends what you mean by "space" and what you mean by "time".
"Infinitely divisible" is mathematical concept and hence fantasy. 
Everything can be infinite or infinitely divisible in your mind.

In reality speaking of "infinite" or "infinitely divisible" most likely 
means you are wrong. Quantum physics is the result of studying the 
non-infinitely divisible nature of reality (even though physicists are 
so drilled with mathematics they try their damnedest to even make the 
indivisible divisible.

Those smallest pieces of reality that are possible are basically an 
extension of the atomic concept and these particles are termed "ultimates".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647038

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 2:20:15 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
> On 8/23/2017 11:26 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
> > 
> Old idea. Depends what you mean by "space" and what you mean by "time".
> "Infinitely divisible" is mathematical concept and hence fantasy. 
> Everything can be infinite or infinitely divisible in your mind.
> 
> In reality speaking of "infinite" or "infinitely divisible" most likely 
> means you are wrong. Quantum physics is the result of studying the 
> non-infinitely divisible nature of reality (even though physicists are 
> so drilled with mathematics they try their damnedest to even make the 
> indivisible divisible.
> 
> Those smallest pieces of reality that are possible are basically an 
> extension of the atomic concept and these particles are termed "ultimates".

Atoms.  "Ultimates", what are these "ultimates", tell 
me more about this.  Why not just atoms.


There are usual theories with the continuous or 
"infinitely divisible" here for example that 
"atoms" don't divide.  You're quite welcome to 
the stochastic.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web