Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #647234 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-25 17:28 -0500 |
| Last post | 2017-08-30 19:00 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 218 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 17:28 -0500
What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 16:04 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 01:53 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-25 19:17 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <nobody@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-26 01:50 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-26 09:07 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 10:43 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-26 11:26 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 10:24 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 14:28 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 18:06 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 01:25 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 22:52 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 12:27 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 08:23 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 09:00 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-27 18:08 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 16:53 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-27 22:24 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-27 22:37 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-27 22:54 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 06:32 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 09:02 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 07:51 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-28 10:05 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 08:19 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 10:26 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 16:43 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 10:23 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 10:29 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 08:50 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 11:08 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 09:17 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 11:41 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 09:56 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 12:02 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-28 18:05 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 11:14 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 13:31 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-28 20:44 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-28 12:08 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 13:30 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-28 16:15 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 16:32 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-28 19:33 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 13:26 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 18:44 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 02:42 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 18:32 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-28 21:59 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 06:26 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-29 08:46 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-29 16:40 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-29 16:35 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-29 15:53 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 17:34 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 16:46 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:03 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 09:27 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 13:37 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 12:40 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 15:03 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 15:10 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 13:19 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 15:38 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 15:43 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 15:50 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 14:59 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-31 17:06 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-28 11:47 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 07:46 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 10:19 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 16:16 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:03 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-31 17:04 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 19:37 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 18:18 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 22:52 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 21:38 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 02:42 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 23:31 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 13:33 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 10:08 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 12:11 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 10:23 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 11:19 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 14:23 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 14:00 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 15:00 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 22:14 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 22:14 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 15:39 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 22:47 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 16:06 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 00:07 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 16:17 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 00:07 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 17:17 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 00:28 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 17:34 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 00:50 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 18:01 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 01:18 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 18:30 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 18:51 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-09-02 19:05 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 19:17 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 02:19 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 01:33 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 13:08 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-04 07:02 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 13:20 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 02:16 +0000
If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 05:21 -0700
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 13:08 +0000
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 06:27 -0700
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 13:35 +0000
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 06:50 -0700
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 07:16 -0700
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-03 20:29 +0000
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 14:00 -0700
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-03 22:54 +0000
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 19:37 -0700
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-04 06:05 +0000
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 15:10 -0500
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 15:10 -0500
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 15:08 -0500
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2017-09-03 12:47 +0000
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-09-05 06:51 -0500
Re: I'm the best c coder here. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-09-05 11:07 -0700
Re: Michael Glasser is THE UNDISPUTED KING of low SignalToNoise ratios. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-09-05 11:43 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 02:16 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-04 06:50 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 05:01 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-04 16:19 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 11:16 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 12:41 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-05 00:00 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 08:21 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 15:12 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 13:33 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 13:48 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-09-04 14:59 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 07:03 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 08:04 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-05 17:18 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 16:29 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 16:58 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 00:42 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 18:36 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 18:51 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 01:53 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 19:17 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 08:23 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 06:46 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 07:04 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 09:08 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 07:32 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 09:07 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-05 15:39 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 09:48 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-05 17:25 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 16:10 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 19:25 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 05:55 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 08:46 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 07:09 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 12:44 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 01:51 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 00:42 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-05 00:16 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 21:35 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 02:48 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-02 18:26 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 22:47 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-09-01 19:46 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 23:42 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 22:53 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-09-02 00:57 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view "Dingus Dirtbag McGee" <scopeflenser@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 18:58 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 19:04 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 17:43 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-27 11:41 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 16:23 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 17:35 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 17:31 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-26 17:01 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 18:53 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-27 10:20 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 16:21 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view fr314159@gmail.com - 2017-09-01 10:15 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-08-26 12:00 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-26 16:19 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 14:25 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-26 15:57 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-26 17:08 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-26 18:00 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-26 19:15 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 10:25 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view fr314159@gmail.com - 2017-08-28 06:43 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 11:45 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-28 21:11 +0200
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-28 12:22 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 12:36 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 15:59 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-28 21:49 +0200
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-28 23:43 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-29 16:01 +0200
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 07:59 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-29 10:42 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-30 09:37 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-30 10:06 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-30 21:45 +0200
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-09-02 12:46 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-03 22:32 +0200
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Sadovnik Socratus <44socrat@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 02:46 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 06:59 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-30 19:00 +0000
Page 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 Next page →
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-02 19:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <35a58432-f8f6-4a38-ba9d-9103d12b6d4a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #648428 |
Odd It's mind-blowing what you believe in. Particles with no structure, or volume- MANY different kinds !! Waves waving in NOTHING- no medium, no nothing- a wave of nothing!! Discs that are everywhere discs with one side rotating SLOWER!! Wow! Unlimited Gravity within every piece of matter!! Wow. Produced by doing NOTHING ! Forever!! Wow! Electrons spinning around nuclei- charges moving st relativistic speeds- and NO FIELD produced!! Just wow!! Indefensible , man. Just wow!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 17:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a1eb74$0$53159$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647317 |
On 8/26/2017 12:26 PM, Serg io wrote: > On 8/26/2017 10:43 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/26/17 9:07 AM, Serg io wrote: >>> I mean if there were no objects, where would we be? >> >> That's just the point. >> At the root of things, all "objects" are fields underneath. >> Collections of interacting field ripples, nothing more. >> Any material object is made of atoms, but atoms are nothing more than >> bound states of ripples in the quark, gluon, electron, and photon >> fields. The fields extend everywhere, and it's only the ripples that >> are (somewhat) confined. >> >> What your PERCEPTION and COMMON SENSE tell you is a different matter. >> But then again, perception and common sense tell you that the sun >> rises and sets around a fixed earth. >> > > I ran across that in about 1968 or so, was a theme in physics then too, > but then there is the scale factor, (which many in physics seem to > forget or gloss over). > > By scale I mean (increasing scale here), > quantom/plank > a view at the electron scale and the physics equations that hold > there, > then at the atom level and its equations > then say 1nm scale and the equns that hold there, partical > attraction, forces, etc. > then say the 1cm scale, dirt clumping and the discriptive equations > applied there > then say the 1 meter (near field RF, etc) > > then the 1000 meter > > then 10,000 Km scale > > then over 10,000 LYr etc > > and hardly any of the equations that model one range, can be applied to > the others scales. (or apply to regions) > > In fact, the equations used are bounded to specific scales. > > so once you get above 1nm, you cant really tell or care about field > ripples that compose quarks, etc, *folded up stable forms of EM waves*. > > and that is where 'perception' come in, like the human scale, coin, > earth, moon etc. objects I can magnify down to 1nm, and many laws still > hold but many have changed. > > So I reserve viewing or considering items/objects/fields/laws, until the > scale is identified. Trying to view or apply over the entire scale is > futile. Not futile. Listen to John. It's a fractal universe. If you have the operation at one scale then that is the same at ALL scales. Thus one does not have the need to deal with the immense data of all scales. > one can consider it as a limitation of our Mathematics, but we haven't > got anything better. > > also a limitation of our perception, like visulizing the number of > grains of sand on earth, or.... > > Anyhow I will write a book about it, but I cannot find a pen point fine > enough, 10nm, nor paper big enough 10m by 10m, nor a spelt checker tha > works on cursave. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-27 11:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <onusnh$af0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647365 |
On 8/26/2017 4:43 PM, benj wrote:
> On 8/26/2017 12:26 PM, Serg io wrote:
>> On 8/26/2017 10:43 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 8/26/17 9:07 AM, Serg io wrote:
>>>> I mean if there were no objects, where would we be?
>>
>> So I reserve viewing or considering items/objects/fields/laws, until
>> the scale is identified. Trying to view or apply over the entire
>> scale is futile.
>
> Not futile. Listen to John. It's a fractal universe. If you have the
> operation at one scale then that is the same at ALL scales. Thus one
> does not have the need to deal with the immense data of all scales.
like cats with no fur =>
lizards+snakes with no scales =>
Physicists without their under scales (PWTUS) !
always good to simplify a dimension or two anyway.
I can reduce Maxwell's equations to a single variable by simply
eliminating the pesky un-needed, x, y and z axis.
call it Mxwl(t),
some say it is pointless,
but I say it is actually to the point. You know what its doing
all the t.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 16:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a47bb5$0$17388$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647428 |
On 8/27/2017 12:41 PM, Serg io wrote: > On 8/26/2017 4:43 PM, benj wrote: >> On 8/26/2017 12:26 PM, Serg io wrote: >>> On 8/26/2017 10:43 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 8/26/17 9:07 AM, Serg io wrote: >>>>> I mean if there were no objects, where would we be? > > >>> >>> So I reserve viewing or considering items/objects/fields/laws, until >>> the scale is identified. Trying to view or apply over the entire >>> scale is futile. >> >> Not futile. Listen to John. It's a fractal universe. If you have the >> operation at one scale then that is the same at ALL scales. Thus one >> does not have the need to deal with the immense data of all scales. > > like cats with no fur => > lizards+snakes with no scales => > Physicists without their under scales (PWTUS) ! > > always good to simplify a dimension or two anyway. > > I can reduce Maxwell's equations to a single variable by simply > eliminating the pesky un-needed, x, y and z axis. > > call it Mxwl(t), > > some say it is pointless, > > but I say it is actually to the point. You know what its doing > all the t. > :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 17:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a1e993$0$53159$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647306 |
On 8/26/2017 11:43 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/26/17 9:07 AM, Serg io wrote: >> I mean if there were no objects, where would we be? > > That's just the point. > At the root of things, all "objects" are fields underneath. > Collections of interacting field ripples, nothing more. > Any material object is made of atoms, but atoms are nothing more than > bound states of ripples in the quark, gluon, electron, and photon > fields. The fields extend everywhere, and it's only the ripples that are > (somewhat) confined. A "field" is just one more fantasy. Somehow somewhere you got the idea that mathematical fantasy is more real than reality? Is Tinkerbell MORE real than I am? Are you nuts? > What your PERCEPTION and COMMON SENSE tell you is a different matter. > But then again, perception and common sense tell you that the sun rises > and sets around a fixed earth. Good point Odd. Now all you have to do is show us that the sun is NOT going around a fixed earth. So far as I can tell there is not the SLIGHTEST bit of evidence that the sun is NOT going around a fixed earth. Do you have books that prove me wrong? Then list them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 17:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a1e8bf$0$17442$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647300 |
On 8/26/2017 10:07 AM, Serg io wrote: > On 8/26/2017 12:50 AM, benj wrote: >> On 08/25/2017 08:17 PM, Serg io wrote: >>> On 8/25/2017 5:28 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who are not >>>> even comfortable with the concepts of 19th century physics, let alone >>>> 20th century physics, and these people prefer to just speculate and >>>> argue about what "feels right" to them, justified or not. >>>> >>>> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who think >>>> 19th century physics (the "classical" physics of Newton and Kelvin and >>>> Maxwell) is still the best model, and that physics went astray with >>>> relativity and quantum mechanics and basically anything that says >>>> classical physics is off a bit. >>>> >>>> But what's interesting to me is that, with some of the reading that >>>> I've done over the last decade, even the "modern physics" of the 20th >>>> century has been left behind for newer and much different ideas. >>>> >>>> Even in the "modern physics" paradigm, amateurs are prone to think of >>>> physics as being about things (objects, particles, material things) >>>> moving around in a backdrop of space and time, where their behaviors >>>> are controlled by certain laws of physics (like conservation of >>>> momentum or Gauss' law) and by certain interactions mediated by other >>>> "things" (gauge bosons, for example). >>>> >>>> But the real picture of the 21st century is far stranger, and amateurs >>>> may not be fully aware of it. >>> >>> agree. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields >>>> which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and >>>> time like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of >>>> the fabric OF space and time. >>>> >>>> There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by >>>> symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than >>>> the conservation laws of nature. >>>> >>>> Ripples can be measured by a quantity called "action", which >>>> physicists have known about for a long time. What they didn't know >>>> until the 20th century is that the smallest chunk of action is given >>>> by a number called Planck's constant. These smallest ripples are what >>>> we associate with field quanta, and when physicists say "fundamental >>>> particles" they are really talking about these field quanta. >>>> >>>> So, recapping so far, the idea of "things" moving through space and >>>> time has become replaced with the idea of fields that extend >>>> everywhere, and the ripples in them that are bestowed with small >>>> amounts of action. >>>> >>>> (I've glossed over a key idea that a field is nothing more than a map >>>> of the value(s) of a property(ies) OF spacetime itself. Different >>>> fields correspond to different sets of properties of spacetime, and >>>> all the fields overlay each other. The little quantized ripples in the >>>> fields can be distinct from each other though, in some sense.) >>>> >>>> Now the last core concept is that a ripple carrying some action in one >>>> field can generate or disturb a ripple carrying some action in a >>>> different field. This is what we call an interaction between fields. >>>> Here's where another old idea gets replaced -- charge (like color >>>> charge or electromagnetic charge) is not some kind of "stuff" that >>>> belongs to "things"; instead, charge is just defined as that tendency >>>> for a given pair of fields to interact and create ripples in each >>>> other. The laws that control these interactions are in fact driven by >>>> yet more symmetries of nature (local gauge symmetries). >>> >>> it is simply the progression of Ideas, and refinement. It is great if >>> one is well read in physics, from Aristotle to present day, and have a >>> full understanding of the various paths theories have been on. >>> >>> Aristotle (360 BCE)believed that there were only five elements: air >>> which was light, earth which was cool and heavy, water which was wet, >>> fire which was hot, and Aether which he viewed as a divine substance >>> which made up the stars and planets. Aristotle believed that all matter >>> was made up either of one of the elements of water air earth and fire or >>> combinations of these four elements, with the exception of stars and >>> planets which were made of aether. This held for centuries. >>> >>>> >>>> What's astonishing about this is that physicists now believe that the >>>> fundamental thing that physics is about is the interaction, not the >>>> object. And rather than physical laws, physicists now think of >>>> symmetries as the fundamental constraint. >>> >>> physics equations describe (or model) interactions between "objects" >>> which are also idealized (also a model) >>> >>> >>>> So gone are the days of thinking of the world as moving things in a >>>> backdrop of space and time. Here today we have the primacy of the >>>> interaction, of action, and of symmetry. And THAT is what 21st century >>>> physics seems to me to be really about. >>> >>> they would be gone, if proven wrong, or if replaced by another type of >>> math ( modeling again) >>> >>>> >>>> There are lots of good references here that support this nutshell >>>> recap in much better detail. >>>> >>>> >>> >> So what Odd is saying Sergio is that the world view of science which >> was of an existence of a concrete reality modeled by language (usually >> arithmetic) has now been replaced in his mind by total fantasy where a >> person is allowed to believe anything and declare it true. Gravity is >> due to warps in space instead of Newton's idea of gravity being caused >> by division of mass by distance. People chase their own tails saying >> causality is as dead as God and Relativity due to entanglement is both >> true and false at the same time. Doublethink. This is what happens >> when idiot librul arts types who haven't a clue about science but are >> all experts in fantasy start to influence sane resaonable people. Next >> thing you know you can't say anything insane enough to make fun of >> them because they pest you every time. >> >> Shame on you for encouraging Odd! You really know better than that. > > > Well, last lines I asked was where is his math, where is it proven > wrong, or replaced, but there are no references. no answer. > > and note, I did not dis the concept of Objects, like he did. I mean if > there were no objects, where would we be? The question of what is "real" in the universe or in math it's worded what is "true" is a central on of the universe. It is a central unanswered question of science. Godel's theorem states: "For every consistent formalization of arithmetic there exist arithmetic truths that are not provable within that formal system". This states much to the dismay of Odd and those like him that even mathematical fantasy cannot prove all things that are actually mathematically "true" let alone the reality that the fantasy is modeling. And of course George Chaitin showed is that no program of complexity n can produce a number of complexity greater than n. More limitations of science as a method to get at "reality". For that science is proven flop EVEN for fantasy! > Object Orentated Programming has "objects" which may contain data in the > form of "fields". > > perhaps all of Physics can be restructured by OOP approch ? Obviously OOP "objects" are total fantasy, like all of math. Does restructuring a model restructure reality? Odd, thinks so. But he's an amateur. > " Objects sometimes correspond to things found in the real world. For > example, a graphics program may have objects such as "circle", "square", > "menu". Sorry Dude, but circles, squares, points, lines and all the rest are NOT in the "real world". "2" is not in the real world and you know where that leaves 2+2 =? An online shopping system might have objects such as "shopping > cart", "customer", and "product".[7] Sometimes objects represent more > abstract entities, like an object that represents an open file, or an > object that provides the service of translating measurements from U.S. > customary to metric. You use the key word "represent"! Fantasy is used to represent reality. A Shopping Cart is the bums that live under the bridge in my neighborhood use to push their stuff around. An OOP "shopping cart" is an imaginary fantasy that is nothing but a collection of symbols. > Each object is said to be an instance of a particular class (for > example, an object with its name field set to "Mary" might be an > instance of class Employee). Procedures in object-oriented programming > are known as methods; variables are also known as fields, members, > attributes, or properties. This leads to the following terms: > > Class variables – belong to the class as a whole; there is only one > copy of each one > Instance variables or attributes – data that belongs to individual > objects; every object has its own copy of each one > Member variables – refers to both the class and instance variables > that are defined by a particular class > Class methods – belong to the class as a whole and have access only > to class variables and inputs from the procedure call > Instance methods – belong to individual objects, and have access to > instance variables for the specific object they are called on, inputs, > and class variables" > > I am assigning AP to finish that job, conversion of Old Physics into > OOPhysics. A worthy undertaking I'm sure. However, you should note that what you are doing is simply changing the usual language of physics analogs (mathematics) for another one OOP classes and structures. The underlying reality that is being modeled has not changed at all. This is Odd's mistake. He confuses actual reality with how he THINKS about things. In other words to him fantasy IS what he believes is his reality. But let me point out that David Hilbert in 1929 showed that ALL mathematical systems are reducible to arithmetic. For more information see my book at hypersphere.us.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 17:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <onsr54$1ghd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647361 |
On 8/26/2017 4:31 PM, benj wrote: > On 8/26/2017 10:07 AM, Serg io wrote: >> On 8/26/2017 12:50 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 08/25/2017 08:17 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>> On 8/25/2017 5:28 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who are not >>>>> even comfortable with the concepts of 19th century physics, let alone >>>>> 20th century physics, and these people prefer to just speculate and >>>>> argue about what "feels right" to them, justified or not. >>>>> >>>>> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who think >>>>> 19th century physics (the "classical" physics of Newton and Kelvin and >>>>> Maxwell) is still the best model, and that physics went astray with >>>>> relativity and quantum mechanics and basically anything that says >>>>> classical physics is off a bit. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> There are lots of good references here that support this nutshell >>>>> recap in much better detail. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> So what Odd is saying Sergio is that the world view of science which >>> was of an existence of a concrete reality modeled by language >>> (usually arithmetic) has now been replaced in his mind by total >>> fantasy where a person is allowed to believe anything and declare it >>> true. Gravity is due to warps in space instead of Newton's idea of >>> gravity being caused by division of mass by distance. People chase >>> their own tails saying causality is as dead as God and Relativity due >>> to entanglement is both true and false at the same time. Doublethink. >>> This is what happens when idiot librul arts types who haven't a clue >>> about science but are all experts in fantasy start to influence sane >>> resaonable people. Next thing you know you can't say anything insane >>> enough to make fun of them because they pest you every time. >>> >>> Shame on you for encouraging Odd! You really know better than that. >> >> >> Well, last lines I asked was where is his math, where is it proven >> wrong, or replaced, but there are no references. no answer. >> >> and note, I did not dis the concept of Objects, like he did. I mean >> if there were no objects, where would we be? > > The question of what is "real" in the universe or in math it's worded > what is "true" is a central on of the universe. It is a central > unanswered question of science. Godel's theorem states: "For every > consistent formalization of arithmetic there exist arithmetic truths > that are not provable within that formal system". This states much to > the dismay of Odd and those like him that even mathematical fantasy > cannot prove all things that are actually mathematically "true" let > alone the reality that the fantasy is modeling. And of course George > Chaitin showed is that no program of complexity n can produce a number > of complexity greater than n. More limitations of science as a method to > get at "reality". For that science is proven flop EVEN for fantasy! > > >> Object Orentated Programming has "objects" which may contain data in >> the form of "fields". >> >> perhaps all of Physics can be restructured by OOP approch ? > > Obviously OOP "objects" are total fantasy, like all of math. Does > restructuring a model restructure reality? Odd, thinks so. But he's an > amateur. > >> " Objects sometimes correspond to things found in the real world. For >> example, a graphics program may have objects such as "circle", >> "square", "menu". > > Sorry Dude, but circles, squares, points, lines and all the rest are NOT > in the "real world". "2" is not in the real world and you know where > that leaves 2+2 =? > > An online shopping system might have objects such as "shopping >> cart", "customer", and "product".[7] Sometimes objects represent more >> abstract entities, like an object that represents an open file, or an >> object that provides the service of translating measurements from U.S. >> customary to metric. > > You use the key word "represent"! Fantasy is used to represent reality. > A Shopping Cart is the bums that live under the bridge in my > neighborhood use to push their stuff around. An OOP "shopping cart" is > an imaginary fantasy that is nothing but a collection of symbols. > >> Each object is said to be an instance of a particular class (for >> example, an object with its name field set to "Mary" might be an >> instance of class Employee). Procedures in object-oriented programming >> are known as methods; variables are also known as fields, members, >> attributes, or properties. This leads to the following terms: >> >> Class variables – belong to the class as a whole; there is only >> one copy of each one >> Instance variables or attributes – data that belongs to >> individual objects; every object has its own copy of each one >> Member variables – refers to both the class and instance >> variables that are defined by a particular class >> Class methods – belong to the class as a whole and have access >> only to class variables and inputs from the procedure call >> Instance methods – belong to individual objects, and have access >> to instance variables for the specific object they are called on, >> inputs, and class variables" >> >> I am assigning AP to finish that job, conversion of Old Physics into >> OOPhysics. > > A worthy undertaking I'm sure. However, you should note that what you > are doing is simply changing the usual language of physics analogs > (mathematics) for another one OOP classes and structures. The underlying > reality that is being modeled has not changed at all. This is Odd's > mistake. He confuses actual reality with how he THINKS about things. In > other words to him fantasy IS what he believes is his reality. > > But let me point out that David Hilbert in 1929 showed that ALL > mathematical systems are reducible to arithmetic. > > For more information see my book at hypersphere.us. > > this one ? http://www.mrk-inc.com/Docs/Hypersphere/ a lot of items there, I think you could publish pseudoscience .... a snip of it; "Shadow Subsonic Hovering Armament Directing and Observation Window (Saucer drone) Shamrock Massive wiretap project of the SSA in the 1940s to collect all foreign and domestic cable traffic. Sigma Est. 1954 as originally part of Project Gleem to communicate with E.T.s (successful in 1959) became separate project in 1976 continued at AFB in NM. Sign Change of “Project Saucer” name to make it less obvious and more obscure (1948) Shamrock Huge project of SSA (1940s) to tap all foreign and domestic cable traffic. Was done in cooperation with ITT, RCA and Western Union. Sherwood Project to create controlled nuclear fusion reactor. 1955 – to present?"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 18:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a1fbdb$0$42929$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647368 |
On 8/26/2017 6:01 PM, Serg io wrote: > On 8/26/2017 4:31 PM, benj wrote: >> On 8/26/2017 10:07 AM, Serg io wrote: >>> On 8/26/2017 12:50 AM, benj wrote: >>>> On 08/25/2017 08:17 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>> On 8/25/2017 5:28 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who are not >>>>>> even comfortable with the concepts of 19th century physics, let alone >>>>>> 20th century physics, and these people prefer to just speculate and >>>>>> argue about what "feels right" to them, justified or not. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who think >>>>>> 19th century physics (the "classical" physics of Newton and Kelvin >>>>>> and >>>>>> Maxwell) is still the best model, and that physics went astray with >>>>>> relativity and quantum mechanics and basically anything that says >>>>>> classical physics is off a bit. >>>>>> > > >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There are lots of good references here that support this nutshell >>>>>> recap in much better detail. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> So what Odd is saying Sergio is that the world view of science which >>>> was of an existence of a concrete reality modeled by language >>>> (usually arithmetic) has now been replaced in his mind by total >>>> fantasy where a person is allowed to believe anything and declare it >>>> true. Gravity is due to warps in space instead of Newton's idea of >>>> gravity being caused by division of mass by distance. People chase >>>> their own tails saying causality is as dead as God and Relativity >>>> due to entanglement is both true and false at the same time. >>>> Doublethink. This is what happens when idiot librul arts types who >>>> haven't a clue about science but are all experts in fantasy start to >>>> influence sane resaonable people. Next thing you know you can't say >>>> anything insane enough to make fun of them because they pest you >>>> every time. >>>> >>>> Shame on you for encouraging Odd! You really know better than that. >>> >>> >>> Well, last lines I asked was where is his math, where is it proven >>> wrong, or replaced, but there are no references. no answer. >>> >>> and note, I did not dis the concept of Objects, like he did. I mean >>> if there were no objects, where would we be? >> >> The question of what is "real" in the universe or in math it's worded >> what is "true" is a central on of the universe. It is a central >> unanswered question of science. Godel's theorem states: "For every >> consistent formalization of arithmetic there exist arithmetic truths >> that are not provable within that formal system". This states much to >> the dismay of Odd and those like him that even mathematical fantasy >> cannot prove all things that are actually mathematically "true" let >> alone the reality that the fantasy is modeling. And of course George >> Chaitin showed is that no program of complexity n can produce a number >> of complexity greater than n. More limitations of science as a method >> to get at "reality". For that science is proven flop EVEN for fantasy! >> >> >>> Object Orentated Programming has "objects" which may contain data in >>> the form of "fields". >>> >>> perhaps all of Physics can be restructured by OOP approch ? >> >> Obviously OOP "objects" are total fantasy, like all of math. Does >> restructuring a model restructure reality? Odd, thinks so. But he's an >> amateur. >> >>> " Objects sometimes correspond to things found in the real world. For >>> example, a graphics program may have objects such as "circle", >>> "square", "menu". >> >> Sorry Dude, but circles, squares, points, lines and all the rest are >> NOT in the "real world". "2" is not in the real world and you know >> where that leaves 2+2 =? >> >> An online shopping system might have objects such as "shopping >>> cart", "customer", and "product".[7] Sometimes objects represent more >>> abstract entities, like an object that represents an open file, or an >>> object that provides the service of translating measurements from >>> U.S. customary to metric. >> >> You use the key word "represent"! Fantasy is used to represent >> reality. A Shopping Cart is the bums that live under the bridge in my >> neighborhood use to push their stuff around. An OOP "shopping cart" is >> an imaginary fantasy that is nothing but a collection of symbols. >> >>> Each object is said to be an instance of a particular class (for >>> example, an object with its name field set to "Mary" might be an >>> instance of class Employee). Procedures in object-oriented >>> programming are known as methods; variables are also known as fields, >>> members, attributes, or properties. This leads to the following terms: >>> >>> Class variables – belong to the class as a whole; there is only >>> one copy of each one >>> Instance variables or attributes – data that belongs to >>> individual objects; every object has its own copy of each one >>> Member variables – refers to both the class and instance >>> variables that are defined by a particular class >>> Class methods – belong to the class as a whole and have access >>> only to class variables and inputs from the procedure call >>> Instance methods – belong to individual objects, and have access >>> to instance variables for the specific object they are called on, >>> inputs, and class variables" >>> >>> I am assigning AP to finish that job, conversion of Old Physics into >>> OOPhysics. >> >> A worthy undertaking I'm sure. However, you should note that what you >> are doing is simply changing the usual language of physics analogs >> (mathematics) for another one OOP classes and structures. The >> underlying reality that is being modeled has not changed at all. This >> is Odd's mistake. He confuses actual reality with how he THINKS about >> things. In other words to him fantasy IS what he believes is his reality. >> >> But let me point out that David Hilbert in 1929 showed that ALL >> mathematical systems are reducible to arithmetic. >> >> For more information see my book at hypersphere.us. >> >> > > this one ? > http://www.mrk-inc.com/Docs/Hypersphere/ Yes. www.hypersphere.us works but I don't pay the yearly fee to cover the address of the storage server so you get to see it. > a lot of items there, This used to be the site of my BBB theory paper (Big Bang is Bullshit). However, I found a problem with the Cepheid star calculations and pulled it until it's fixed. In the meantime, it's a temporary site for a variety of junk. Wait till you see the next one! Proving NP = P! (Still being written) > I think you could publish pseudoscience .... It is. Right on the Internet under GNU license (It's an experiment) > a snip of it; > > "Shadow Subsonic Hovering Armament Directing and Observation Window > (Saucer drone) > > Shamrock Massive wiretap project of the SSA in the 1940s to collect > all foreign and domestic cable traffic. > > Sigma Est. 1954 as originally part of Project Gleem to communicate > with E.T.s (successful in 1959) became separate project in 1976 > continued at AFB in NM. > > Sign Change of “Project Saucer” name to make it less obvious and > more obscure (1948) > > Shamrock Huge project of SSA (1940s) to tap all foreign and domestic > cable traffic. Was done in cooperation with ITT, RCA and Western Union. > > Sherwood Project to create controlled nuclear fusion reactor. 1955 – > to present?" Note list of projects and names was made by every time I read a book (kook or otherwise) that listed one, I added it to the list. There is no guarantee of accuracy for any of them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-27 10:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <onuo0o$34s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647369 |
On 8/26/2017 5:53 PM, benj wrote: > On 8/26/2017 6:01 PM, Serg io wrote: >> On 8/26/2017 4:31 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 8/26/2017 10:07 AM, Serg io wrote: >>>> On 8/26/2017 12:50 AM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 08/25/2017 08:17 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>>> On 8/25/2017 5:28 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who are >>>>>>> not >>>>>>> even comfortable with the concepts of 19th century physics, let >>>>>>> alone >>>>>>> 20th century physics, and these people prefer to just speculate and >>>>>>> argue about what "feels right" to them, justified or not. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who think >>>>>>> 19th century physics (the "classical" physics of Newton and >>>>>>> Kelvin and >>>>>>> Maxwell) is still the best model, and that physics went astray with >>>>>>> relativity and quantum mechanics and basically anything that says >>>>>>> classical physics is off a bit. >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are lots of good references here that support this nutshell >>>>>>> recap in much better detail. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> So what Odd is saying Sergio is that the world view of science >>>>> which was of an existence of a concrete reality modeled by language >>>>> (usually arithmetic) has now been replaced in his mind by total >>>>> fantasy where a person is allowed to believe anything and declare >>>>> it true. Gravity is due to warps in space instead of Newton's idea >>>>> of gravity being caused by division of mass by distance. People >>>>> chase their own tails saying causality is as dead as God and >>>>> Relativity due to entanglement is both true and false at the same >>>>> time. Doublethink. This is what happens when idiot librul arts >>>>> types who haven't a clue about science but are all experts in >>>>> fantasy start to influence sane resaonable people. Next thing you >>>>> know you can't say anything insane enough to make fun of them >>>>> because they pest you every time. >>>>> >>>>> Shame on you for encouraging Odd! You really know better than that. >>>> >>>> >>>> Well, last lines I asked was where is his math, where is it proven >>>> wrong, or replaced, but there are no references. no answer. >>>> >>>> and note, I did not dis the concept of Objects, like he did. I mean >>>> if there were no objects, where would we be? >>> >>> The question of what is "real" in the universe or in math it's worded >>> what is "true" is a central on of the universe. It is a central >>> unanswered question of science. Godel's theorem states: "For every >>> consistent formalization of arithmetic there exist arithmetic truths >>> that are not provable within that formal system". This states much to >>> the dismay of Odd and those like him that even mathematical fantasy >>> cannot prove all things that are actually mathematically "true" let >>> alone the reality that the fantasy is modeling. And of course George >>> Chaitin showed is that no program of complexity n can produce a >>> number of complexity greater than n. More limitations of science as a >>> method to get at "reality". For that science is proven flop EVEN for >>> fantasy! >>> >>> >>>> Object Orentated Programming has "objects" which may contain data in >>>> the form of "fields". >>>> >>>> perhaps all of Physics can be restructured by OOP approch ? >>> >>> Obviously OOP "objects" are total fantasy, like all of math. Does >>> restructuring a model restructure reality? Odd, thinks so. But he's >>> an amateur. >>> >>>> " Objects sometimes correspond to things found in the real world. >>>> For example, a graphics program may have objects such as "circle", >>>> "square", "menu". >>> >>> Sorry Dude, but circles, squares, points, lines and all the rest are >>> NOT in the "real world". "2" is not in the real world and you know >>> where that leaves 2+2 =? >>> >>> An online shopping system might have objects such as "shopping >>>> cart", "customer", and "product".[7] Sometimes objects represent >>>> more abstract entities, like an object that represents an open file, >>>> or an object that provides the service of translating measurements >>>> from U.S. customary to metric. >>> >>> You use the key word "represent"! Fantasy is used to represent >>> reality. A Shopping Cart is the bums that live under the bridge in my >>> neighborhood use to push their stuff around. An OOP "shopping cart" >>> is an imaginary fantasy that is nothing but a collection of symbols. >>> >>>> Each object is said to be an instance of a particular class (for >>>> example, an object with its name field set to "Mary" might be an >>>> instance of class Employee). Procedures in object-oriented >>>> programming are known as methods; variables are also known as >>>> fields, members, attributes, or properties. This leads to the >>>> following terms: >>>> >>>> Class variables – belong to the class as a whole; there is only >>>> one copy of each one >>>> Instance variables or attributes – data that belongs to >>>> individual objects; every object has its own copy of each one >>>> Member variables – refers to both the class and instance >>>> variables that are defined by a particular class >>>> Class methods – belong to the class as a whole and have access >>>> only to class variables and inputs from the procedure call >>>> Instance methods – belong to individual objects, and have >>>> access to instance variables for the specific object they are called >>>> on, inputs, and class variables" >>>> >>>> I am assigning AP to finish that job, conversion of Old Physics into >>>> OOPhysics. >>> >>> A worthy undertaking I'm sure. However, you should note that what you >>> are doing is simply changing the usual language of physics analogs >>> (mathematics) for another one OOP classes and structures. The >>> underlying reality that is being modeled has not changed at all. This >>> is Odd's mistake. He confuses actual reality with how he THINKS about >>> things. In other words to him fantasy IS what he believes is his >>> reality. >>> >>> But let me point out that David Hilbert in 1929 showed that ALL >>> mathematical systems are reducible to arithmetic. >>> >>> For more information see my book at hypersphere.us. >>> >> >> this one ? >> http://www.mrk-inc.com/Docs/Hypersphere/ > > Yes. www.hypersphere.us works but I don't pay the yearly fee to cover > the address of the storage server so you get to see it. > >> a lot of items there, > This used to be the site of my BBB theory paper (Big Bang is Bullshit). > However, I found a problem with the Cepheid star calculations and pulled > it until it's fixed. In the meantime, it's a temporary site for a > variety of junk. Wait till you see the next one! Proving NP = P! > (Still being written) > >> I think you could publish pseudoscience .... > > It is. Right on the Internet under GNU license (It's an experiment) > >> a snip of it; >> >> "Shadow Subsonic Hovering Armament Directing and Observation >> Window (Saucer drone) >> >> Shamrock Massive wiretap project of the SSA in the 1940s to >> collect all foreign and domestic cable traffic. >> >> Sigma Est. 1954 as originally part of Project Gleem to communicate >> with E.T.s (successful in 1959) became separate project in 1976 >> continued at AFB in NM. >> >> Sign Change of “Project Saucer” name to make it less obvious and >> more obscure (1948) >> >> Shamrock Huge project of SSA (1940s) to tap all foreign and >> domestic cable traffic. Was done in cooperation with ITT, RCA and >> Western Union. >> >> Sherwood Project to create controlled nuclear fusion reactor. 1955 >> – to present?" > > Note list of projects and names was made by every time I read a book > (kook or otherwise) that listed one, I added it to the list. There is no > guarantee of accuracy for any of them. > > great list, brings to light obscured programs, most I have never heard about, some very strange, and google can provide further detailed information on them
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 16:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a47b3e$0$17388$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647421 |
On 8/27/2017 11:20 AM, Serg io wrote: > On 8/26/2017 5:53 PM, benj wrote: >> On 8/26/2017 6:01 PM, Serg io wrote: >>> On 8/26/2017 4:31 PM, benj wrote: >>>> On 8/26/2017 10:07 AM, Serg io wrote: >>>>> On 8/26/2017 12:50 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>> On 08/25/2017 08:17 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/25/2017 5:28 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who >>>>>>>> are not >>>>>>>> even comfortable with the concepts of 19th century physics, let >>>>>>>> alone >>>>>>>> 20th century physics, and these people prefer to just speculate and >>>>>>>> argue about what "feels right" to them, justified or not. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who think >>>>>>>> 19th century physics (the "classical" physics of Newton and >>>>>>>> Kelvin and >>>>>>>> Maxwell) is still the best model, and that physics went astray with >>>>>>>> relativity and quantum mechanics and basically anything that says >>>>>>>> classical physics is off a bit. >>>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are lots of good references here that support this nutshell >>>>>>>> recap in much better detail. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> So what Odd is saying Sergio is that the world view of science >>>>>> which was of an existence of a concrete reality modeled by >>>>>> language (usually arithmetic) has now been replaced in his mind by >>>>>> total fantasy where a person is allowed to believe anything and >>>>>> declare it true. Gravity is due to warps in space instead of >>>>>> Newton's idea of gravity being caused by division of mass by >>>>>> distance. People chase their own tails saying causality is as dead >>>>>> as God and Relativity due to entanglement is both true and false >>>>>> at the same time. Doublethink. This is what happens when idiot >>>>>> librul arts types who haven't a clue about science but are all >>>>>> experts in fantasy start to influence sane resaonable people. Next >>>>>> thing you know you can't say anything insane enough to make fun of >>>>>> them because they pest you every time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Shame on you for encouraging Odd! You really know better than that. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Well, last lines I asked was where is his math, where is it proven >>>>> wrong, or replaced, but there are no references. no answer. >>>>> >>>>> and note, I did not dis the concept of Objects, like he did. I >>>>> mean if there were no objects, where would we be? >>>> >>>> The question of what is "real" in the universe or in math it's >>>> worded what is "true" is a central on of the universe. It is a >>>> central unanswered question of science. Godel's theorem states: "For >>>> every consistent formalization of arithmetic there exist arithmetic >>>> truths that are not provable within that formal system". This states >>>> much to the dismay of Odd and those like him that even mathematical >>>> fantasy cannot prove all things that are actually mathematically >>>> "true" let alone the reality that the fantasy is modeling. And of >>>> course George Chaitin showed is that no program of complexity n can >>>> produce a number of complexity greater than n. More limitations of >>>> science as a method to get at "reality". For that science is proven >>>> flop EVEN for fantasy! >>>> >>>> >>>>> Object Orentated Programming has "objects" which may contain data >>>>> in the form of "fields". >>>>> >>>>> perhaps all of Physics can be restructured by OOP approch ? >>>> >>>> Obviously OOP "objects" are total fantasy, like all of math. Does >>>> restructuring a model restructure reality? Odd, thinks so. But he's >>>> an amateur. >>>> >>>>> " Objects sometimes correspond to things found in the real world. >>>>> For example, a graphics program may have objects such as "circle", >>>>> "square", "menu". >>>> >>>> Sorry Dude, but circles, squares, points, lines and all the rest are >>>> NOT in the "real world". "2" is not in the real world and you know >>>> where that leaves 2+2 =? >>>> >>>> An online shopping system might have objects such as "shopping >>>>> cart", "customer", and "product".[7] Sometimes objects represent >>>>> more abstract entities, like an object that represents an open >>>>> file, or an object that provides the service of translating >>>>> measurements from U.S. customary to metric. >>>> >>>> You use the key word "represent"! Fantasy is used to represent >>>> reality. A Shopping Cart is the bums that live under the bridge in >>>> my neighborhood use to push their stuff around. An OOP "shopping >>>> cart" is an imaginary fantasy that is nothing but a collection of >>>> symbols. >>>> >>>>> Each object is said to be an instance of a particular class (for >>>>> example, an object with its name field set to "Mary" might be an >>>>> instance of class Employee). Procedures in object-oriented >>>>> programming are known as methods; variables are also known as >>>>> fields, members, attributes, or properties. This leads to the >>>>> following terms: >>>>> >>>>> Class variables – belong to the class as a whole; there is >>>>> only one copy of each one >>>>> Instance variables or attributes – data that belongs to >>>>> individual objects; every object has its own copy of each one >>>>> Member variables – refers to both the class and instance >>>>> variables that are defined by a particular class >>>>> Class methods – belong to the class as a whole and have access >>>>> only to class variables and inputs from the procedure call >>>>> Instance methods – belong to individual objects, and have >>>>> access to instance variables for the specific object they are >>>>> called on, inputs, and class variables" >>>>> >>>>> I am assigning AP to finish that job, conversion of Old Physics >>>>> into OOPhysics. >>>> >>>> A worthy undertaking I'm sure. However, you should note that what >>>> you are doing is simply changing the usual language of physics >>>> analogs (mathematics) for another one OOP classes and structures. >>>> The underlying reality that is being modeled has not changed at all. >>>> This is Odd's mistake. He confuses actual reality with how he THINKS >>>> about things. In other words to him fantasy IS what he believes is >>>> his reality. >>>> >>>> But let me point out that David Hilbert in 1929 showed that ALL >>>> mathematical systems are reducible to arithmetic. >>>> >>>> For more information see my book at hypersphere.us. >>>> > >>> >>> this one ? >>> http://www.mrk-inc.com/Docs/Hypersphere/ >> >> Yes. www.hypersphere.us works but I don't pay the yearly fee to cover >> the address of the storage server so you get to see it. >> >>> a lot of items there, > >> This used to be the site of my BBB theory paper (Big Bang is >> Bullshit). However, I found a problem with the Cepheid star >> calculations and pulled it until it's fixed. In the meantime, it's a >> temporary site for a variety of junk. Wait till you see the next one! >> Proving NP = P! >> (Still being written) >> >>> I think you could publish pseudoscience .... >> >> It is. Right on the Internet under GNU license (It's an experiment) >> >>> a snip of it; >>> >>> "Shadow Subsonic Hovering Armament Directing and Observation >>> Window (Saucer drone) >>> >>> Shamrock Massive wiretap project of the SSA in the 1940s to >>> collect all foreign and domestic cable traffic. >>> >>> Sigma Est. 1954 as originally part of Project Gleem to >>> communicate with E.T.s (successful in 1959) became separate project >>> in 1976 continued at AFB in NM. >>> >>> Sign Change of “Project Saucer” name to make it less obvious and >>> more obscure (1948) >>> >>> Shamrock Huge project of SSA (1940s) to tap all foreign and >>> domestic cable traffic. Was done in cooperation with ITT, RCA and >>> Western Union. >>> >>> Sherwood Project to create controlled nuclear fusion reactor. >>> 1955 – to present?" >> >> Note list of projects and names was made by every time I read a book >> (kook or otherwise) that listed one, I added it to the list. There is >> no guarantee of accuracy for any of them. >> >> > > great list, brings to light obscured programs, most I have never heard > about, some very strange, and google can provide further detailed > information on them By the way the list of government acronyms was obtained in much the same way only that one was checked against a gigantic book of government acronyms for accuracy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fr314159@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-01 10:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a6f20062-1eb7-43c7-b395-491136ffa588@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647361 |
On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 5:31:49 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > > The question of what is "real" in the universe or in math it's worded > what is "true" is a central on of the universe. It is a central > unanswered question of science. Godel's theorem states: "For every > consistent formalization of arithmetic there exist arithmetic truths > that are not provable within that formal system". > So, then, what is reality? What is the real universe? Humans cannot ever know or grasp this reality and therefore they are forced to implement what you call "fantasy" in order to formulate an intellectual perception of the real universe. But you dismiss this "fantasy" as if it is somehow inadequate or undesirable. Then what do you propose as a substitute? Can you directly perceive this reality. As long as our "fantasy" works, or allows accurate predictions, then we will keep using it. But it will always be provisional with new "fantasies" to replace the old when necessary. Goedel was a Platonist, which means that he believed that math truths were real and independent of the human mind. Axiomatic systems may be incapable of deciding all theorems, but one can alleviate this by merely adding more axioms. The new formal system may still be incomplete but at least it can cover all that we need to cover. Axioms are the key. Deciding what is fundamental, or self-evident, is the critical task. If done properly, an axiomatic system can serve our needs adequately in spite of Goedel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 12:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <onrnsd$1jom$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647234 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who are not > even comfortable with the concepts of 19th century physics, let alone > 20th century physics, and these people prefer to just speculate and > argue about what "feels right" to them, justified or not. > > I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who think 19th > century physics (the "classical" physics of Newton and Kelvin and > Maxwell) > is still the best model, and that physics went astray with relativity > and quantum mechanics and basically anything that says classical physics > is off a bit. You are aware of so many things.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 16:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ons739$ge1$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #647234 |
Very good post. I see that the physics of the subatomic realm is more and more just math and less and less "objects" interacting. Simplest cases, why is there only one pi-0 and not two (u+ubar and d+dbar) or why is the lambda-0 not the same as sigma-0 (same quark makeup¶ms).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 14:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <onshud$11e2$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647316 |
On 8/26/17 11:19 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > Very good post. I see that the physics of the subatomic realm is more > and more just math and less and less "objects" interacting. Simplest > cases, why is there only one pi-0 and not two (u+ubar and d+dbar) or > why is the lambda-0 not the same as sigma-0 (same quark makeup¶ms). > Well, I would quibble about it being "just math". Fields are very real. The properties of empty space are very real. And symmetry is very real. All of these are PHYSICAL concepts. Just different ones. Not the ones of our everyday worldview or our common sense. Our common sense minds are just focused on the wrong things. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 15:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59A1FCDF.4685@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #647234 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > > I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who are not > even comfortable with the concepts of 19th century physics, let alone > 20th century physics, and these people prefer to just speculate and > argue about what "feels right" to them, justified or not. > > I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who think 19th > century physics (the "classical" physics of Newton and Kelvin and > Maxwell) is still the best model, and that physics went astray with > relativity and quantum mechanics and basically anything that says > classical physics is off a bit. > > But what's interesting to me is that, with some of the reading that I've > done over the last decade, even the "modern physics" of the 20th century > has been left behind for newer and much different ideas. > > Even in the "modern physics" paradigm, amateurs are prone to think of > physics as being about things (objects, particles, material things) > moving around in a backdrop of space and time, where their behaviors are > controlled by certain laws of physics (like conservation of momentum or > Gauss' law) and by certain interactions mediated by other "things" > (gauge bosons, for example). > > But the real picture of the 21st century is far stranger, and amateurs > may not be fully aware of it. > > In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields > which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time > like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the > fabric OF space and time. > > There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by > symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than > the conservation laws of nature. > > Ripples can be measured by a quantity called "action", which physicists > have known about for a long time. What they didn't know until the 20th > century is that the smallest chunk of action is given by a number called > Planck's constant. These smallest ripples are what we associate with > field quanta, and when physicists say "fundamental particles" they are > really talking about these field quanta. > > So, recapping so far, the idea of "things" moving through space and time > has become replaced with the idea of fields that extend everywhere, and > the ripples in them that are bestowed with small amounts of action. > > (I've glossed over a key idea that a field is nothing more than a map of > the value(s) of a property(ies) OF spacetime itself. Different fields > correspond to different sets of properties of spacetime, and all the > fields overlay each other. The little quantized ripples in the fields > can be distinct from each other though, in some sense.) > > Now the last core concept is that a ripple carrying some action in one > field can generate or disturb a ripple carrying some action in a > different field. This is what we call an interaction between fields. > Here's where another old idea gets replaced -- charge (like color charge > or electromagnetic charge) is not some kind of "stuff" that belongs to > "things"; instead, charge is just defined as that tendency for a given > pair of fields to interact and create ripples in each other. The laws > that control these interactions are in fact driven by yet more > symmetries of nature (local gauge symmetries). > > What's astonishing about this is that physicists now believe that the > fundamental thing that physics is about is the interaction, not the > object. And rather than physical laws, physicists now think of > symmetries as the fundamental constraint. > > So gone are the days of thinking of the world as moving things in a > backdrop of space and time. Here today we have the primacy of the > interaction, of action, and of symmetry. And THAT is what 21st century > physics seems to me to be really about. > > There are lots of good references here that support this nutshell recap > in much better detail. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables "interaction" is not what "physicists now believe", it's just another 'rehash' of an old theory. You certaintly fell for the new lingo "interaction". It's pushcart science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 17:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59A20D77.6BBB@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #647371 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who are not > > even comfortable with the concepts of 19th century physics, let alone > > 20th century physics, and these people prefer to just speculate and > > argue about what "feels right" to them, justified or not. > > > > I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who think 19th > > century physics (the "classical" physics of Newton and Kelvin and > > Maxwell) is still the best model, and that physics went astray with > > relativity and quantum mechanics and basically anything that says > > classical physics is off a bit. > > > > But what's interesting to me is that, with some of the reading that I've > > done over the last decade, even the "modern physics" of the 20th century > > has been left behind for newer and much different ideas. > > > > Even in the "modern physics" paradigm, amateurs are prone to think of > > physics as being about things (objects, particles, material things) > > moving around in a backdrop of space and time, where their behaviors are > > controlled by certain laws of physics (like conservation of momentum or > > Gauss' law) and by certain interactions mediated by other "things" > > (gauge bosons, for example). > > > > But the real picture of the 21st century is far stranger, and amateurs > > may not be fully aware of it. > > > > In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields > > which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time > > like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the > > fabric OF space and time. > > > > There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by > > symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than > > the conservation laws of nature. > > > > Ripples can be measured by a quantity called "action", which physicists > > have known about for a long time. What they didn't know until the 20th > > century is that the smallest chunk of action is given by a number called > > Planck's constant. These smallest ripples are what we associate with > > field quanta, and when physicists say "fundamental particles" they are > > really talking about these field quanta. > > > > So, recapping so far, the idea of "things" moving through space and time > > has become replaced with the idea of fields that extend everywhere, and > > the ripples in them that are bestowed with small amounts of action. > > > > (I've glossed over a key idea that a field is nothing more than a map of > > the value(s) of a property(ies) OF spacetime itself. Different fields > > correspond to different sets of properties of spacetime, and all the > > fields overlay each other. The little quantized ripples in the fields > > can be distinct from each other though, in some sense.) > > > > Now the last core concept is that a ripple carrying some action in one > > field can generate or disturb a ripple carrying some action in a > > different field. This is what we call an interaction between fields. > > Here's where another old idea gets replaced -- charge (like color charge > > or electromagnetic charge) is not some kind of "stuff" that belongs to > > "things"; instead, charge is just defined as that tendency for a given > > pair of fields to interact and create ripples in each other. The laws > > that control these interactions are in fact driven by yet more > > symmetries of nature (local gauge symmetries). > > > > What's astonishing about this is that physicists now believe that the > > fundamental thing that physics is about is the interaction, not the > > object. And rather than physical laws, physicists now think of > > symmetries as the fundamental constraint. > > > > So gone are the days of thinking of the world as moving things in a > > backdrop of space and time. Here today we have the primacy of the > > interaction, of action, and of symmetry. And THAT is what 21st century > > physics seems to me to be really about. > > > > There are lots of good references here that support this nutshell recap > > in much better detail. > > > > -- > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > "interaction" is not what "physicists now believe", it's just another > 'rehash' of an old theory. > > You certaintly fell for the new lingo "interaction". > > It's pushcart science. Let me explain to yous what "interation" really means in the 'old hat' world... it's simply a rehash of the word....entanglement, or quantum entanglement. 'spooky at a distance' is a very old concept, ...now lem me see if i can remember who thought of that? give me a break with..."physicists now believe". Poppycock, hogwash...fake science news.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 18:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59A219B2.38A3@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #647378 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who are not > > > even comfortable with the concepts of 19th century physics, let alone > > > 20th century physics, and these people prefer to just speculate and > > > argue about what "feels right" to them, justified or not. > > > > > > I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who think 19th > > > century physics (the "classical" physics of Newton and Kelvin and > > > Maxwell) is still the best model, and that physics went astray with > > > relativity and quantum mechanics and basically anything that says > > > classical physics is off a bit. > > > > > > But what's interesting to me is that, with some of the reading that I've > > > done over the last decade, even the "modern physics" of the 20th century > > > has been left behind for newer and much different ideas. > > > > > > Even in the "modern physics" paradigm, amateurs are prone to think of > > > physics as being about things (objects, particles, material things) > > > moving around in a backdrop of space and time, where their behaviors are > > > controlled by certain laws of physics (like conservation of momentum or > > > Gauss' law) and by certain interactions mediated by other "things" > > > (gauge bosons, for example). > > > > > > But the real picture of the 21st century is far stranger, and amateurs > > > may not be fully aware of it. > > > > > > In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields > > > which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time > > > like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the > > > fabric OF space and time. > > > > > > There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by > > > symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than > > > the conservation laws of nature. > > > > > > Ripples can be measured by a quantity called "action", which physicists > > > have known about for a long time. What they didn't know until the 20th > > > century is that the smallest chunk of action is given by a number called > > > Planck's constant. These smallest ripples are what we associate with > > > field quanta, and when physicists say "fundamental particles" they are > > > really talking about these field quanta. > > > > > > So, recapping so far, the idea of "things" moving through space and time > > > has become replaced with the idea of fields that extend everywhere, and > > > the ripples in them that are bestowed with small amounts of action. > > > > > > (I've glossed over a key idea that a field is nothing more than a map of > > > the value(s) of a property(ies) OF spacetime itself. Different fields > > > correspond to different sets of properties of spacetime, and all the > > > fields overlay each other. The little quantized ripples in the fields > > > can be distinct from each other though, in some sense.) > > > > > > Now the last core concept is that a ripple carrying some action in one > > > field can generate or disturb a ripple carrying some action in a > > > different field. This is what we call an interaction between fields. > > > Here's where another old idea gets replaced -- charge (like color charge > > > or electromagnetic charge) is not some kind of "stuff" that belongs to > > > "things"; instead, charge is just defined as that tendency for a given > > > pair of fields to interact and create ripples in each other. The laws > > > that control these interactions are in fact driven by yet more > > > symmetries of nature (local gauge symmetries). > > > > > > What's astonishing about this is that physicists now believe that the > > > fundamental thing that physics is about is the interaction, not the > > > object. And rather than physical laws, physicists now think of > > > symmetries as the fundamental constraint. > > > > > > So gone are the days of thinking of the world as moving things in a > > > backdrop of space and time. Here today we have the primacy of the > > > interaction, of action, and of symmetry. And THAT is what 21st century > > > physics seems to me to be really about. > > > > > > There are lots of good references here that support this nutshell recap > > > in much better detail. > > > > > > -- > > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > "interaction" is not what "physicists now believe", it's just another > > 'rehash' of an old theory. > > > > You certaintly fell for the new lingo "interaction". > > > > It's pushcart science. > > Let me explain to yous what "interation" really means in the 'old hat' world... > > it's simply a rehash of the word....entanglement, or quantum entanglement. > > 'spooky at a distance' is a very old concept, ...now lem me see if i can remember who thought of that? > > give me a break with..."physicists now believe". > > Poppycock, hogwash...fake science news. Here is the definition of the entaglement...and watch the catch words: "Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact.." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement So, someone simply takes 'entanglement' and switches it to "interaction", and makes a new science the one word..interaction. It's just...the same ol 'spooky at a distance'.... "physicists now believe"???? Give me a break...hogwash, that's all it is, rehashing old stuff. It translate that the Odd Bodkin has no place in this world anymore...he is..irrevelant. wasting space. kaput. Toys-was-Us
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 19:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59A22B47.5BC2@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #647382 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who are not > > > > even comfortable with the concepts of 19th century physics, let alone > > > > 20th century physics, and these people prefer to just speculate and > > > > argue about what "feels right" to them, justified or not. > > > > > > > > I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who think 19th > > > > century physics (the "classical" physics of Newton and Kelvin and > > > > Maxwell) is still the best model, and that physics went astray with > > > > relativity and quantum mechanics and basically anything that says > > > > classical physics is off a bit. > > > > > > > > But what's interesting to me is that, with some of the reading that I've > > > > done over the last decade, even the "modern physics" of the 20th century > > > > has been left behind for newer and much different ideas. > > > > > > > > Even in the "modern physics" paradigm, amateurs are prone to think of > > > > physics as being about things (objects, particles, material things) > > > > moving around in a backdrop of space and time, where their behaviors are > > > > controlled by certain laws of physics (like conservation of momentum or > > > > Gauss' law) and by certain interactions mediated by other "things" > > > > (gauge bosons, for example). > > > > > > > > But the real picture of the 21st century is far stranger, and amateurs > > > > may not be fully aware of it. > > > > > > > > In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields > > > > which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time > > > > like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the > > > > fabric OF space and time. > > > > > > > > There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by > > > > symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than > > > > the conservation laws of nature. > > > > > > > > Ripples can be measured by a quantity called "action", which physicists > > > > have known about for a long time. What they didn't know until the 20th > > > > century is that the smallest chunk of action is given by a number called > > > > Planck's constant. These smallest ripples are what we associate with > > > > field quanta, and when physicists say "fundamental particles" they are > > > > really talking about these field quanta. > > > > > > > > So, recapping so far, the idea of "things" moving through space and time > > > > has become replaced with the idea of fields that extend everywhere, and > > > > the ripples in them that are bestowed with small amounts of action. > > > > > > > > (I've glossed over a key idea that a field is nothing more than a map of > > > > the value(s) of a property(ies) OF spacetime itself. Different fields > > > > correspond to different sets of properties of spacetime, and all the > > > > fields overlay each other. The little quantized ripples in the fields > > > > can be distinct from each other though, in some sense.) > > > > > > > > Now the last core concept is that a ripple carrying some action in one > > > > field can generate or disturb a ripple carrying some action in a > > > > different field. This is what we call an interaction between fields. > > > > Here's where another old idea gets replaced -- charge (like color charge > > > > or electromagnetic charge) is not some kind of "stuff" that belongs to > > > > "things"; instead, charge is just defined as that tendency for a given > > > > pair of fields to interact and create ripples in each other. The laws > > > > that control these interactions are in fact driven by yet more > > > > symmetries of nature (local gauge symmetries). > > > > > > > > What's astonishing about this is that physicists now believe that the > > > > fundamental thing that physics is about is the interaction, not the > > > > object. And rather than physical laws, physicists now think of > > > > symmetries as the fundamental constraint. > > > > > > > > So gone are the days of thinking of the world as moving things in a > > > > backdrop of space and time. Here today we have the primacy of the > > > > interaction, of action, and of symmetry. And THAT is what 21st century > > > > physics seems to me to be really about. > > > > > > > > There are lots of good references here that support this nutshell recap > > > > in much better detail. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > "interaction" is not what "physicists now believe", it's just another > > > 'rehash' of an old theory. > > > > > > You certaintly fell for the new lingo "interaction". > > > > > > It's pushcart science. > > > > Let me explain to yous what "interation" really means in the 'old hat' world... > > > > it's simply a rehash of the word....entanglement, or quantum entanglement. > > > > 'spooky at a distance' is a very old concept, ...now lem me see if i can remember who thought of that? > > > > give me a break with..."physicists now believe". > > > > Poppycock, hogwash...fake science news. > > Here is the definition of the entaglement...and watch the catch words: > > "Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or > groups of particles are generated or interact.." > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement > > So, someone simply takes 'entanglement' and switches it to > "interaction", and makes a new science the one word..interaction. > > It's just...the same ol 'spooky at a distance'.... > > "physicists now believe"???? Give me a break...hogwash, that's all it > is, rehashing old stuff. > > It translate that the Odd Bodkin has no place in this world anymore...he > is..irrevelant. > > wasting space. > > kaput. > > Toys-was-Us What modern physics is really about? There is nothing modern about it..really.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-27 10:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <453db3de-5834-429e-a4a5-085f81320f83@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647234 |
On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 3:28:26 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who are not > even comfortable with the concepts of 19th century physics, let alone > 20th century physics, and these people prefer to just speculate and > argue about what "feels right" to them, justified or not. Science pretenders, like yourself, are always overly concerned with what other people think and how to formulate a basis to dismiss them based upon their own somewhat idiosyncratic interpretation of what others believe. > > I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who think 19th > century physics (the "classical" physics of Newton and Kelvin and > Maxwell) is still the best model, and that physics went astray with > relativity and quantum mechanics and basically anything that says > classical physics is off a bit. Opinions vary. Everybody knows this, jackass. Do you have a substantive point? > > But what's interesting to me is that, with some of the reading that I've > done over the last decade, even the "modern physics" of the 20th century > has been left behind for newer and much different ideas. > > Even in the "modern physics" paradigm, amateurs are prone to think of > physics as being about things (objects, particles, material things) > moving around in a backdrop of space and time, where their behaviors are > controlled by certain laws of physics (like conservation of momentum or > Gauss' law) and by certain interactions mediated by other "things" > (gauge bosons, for example). > > But the real picture of the 21st century is far stranger, and amateurs > may not be fully aware of it. It's comical how often amateurs use this forum to straighten out amateurs. > > In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields > which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time > like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the > fabric OF space and time. The notion that space/time is a fabric is, ultimately, just a meaningless analogy. It's a conceptual play on words. > > There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by > symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than > the conservation laws of nature. Well, sure. But so what? Some people talk because they have a point. Others talk because they want to be perceived as having a point. Why are you the first and not the second. Stop babbling and tells us what your point is. > > Ripples can be measured by a quantity called "action", which physicists > have known about for a long time. What they didn't know until the 20th > century is that the smallest chunk of action is given by a number called > Planck's constant. These smallest ripples are what we associate with > field quanta, and when physicists say "fundamental particles" they are > really talking about these field quanta. > > So, recapping so far, the idea of "things" moving through space and time > has become replaced with the idea of fields that extend everywhere, and > the ripples in them that are bestowed with small amounts of action. Okay. Are you now going to get to a point? > > (I've glossed over a key idea that a field is nothing more than a map of > the value(s) of a property(ies) OF spacetime itself. Different fields > correspond to different sets of properties of spacetime, and all the > fields overlay each other. The little quantized ripples in the fields > can be distinct from each other though, in some sense.) > > Now the last core concept is that a ripple carrying some action in one > field can generate or disturb a ripple carrying some action in a > different field. This is what we call an interaction between fields. > Here's where another old idea gets replaced -- charge (like color charge > or electromagnetic charge) is not some kind of "stuff" that belongs to > "things"; instead, charge is just defined as that tendency for a given > pair of fields to interact and create ripples in each other. The laws > that control these interactions are in fact driven by yet more > symmetries of nature (local gauge symmetries). Right. As in Feynman's checkerboard analogy. But do you have anything new to add? > > What's astonishing about this is that physicists now believe that the > fundamental thing that physics is about is the interaction, not the > object. And rather than physical laws, physicists now think of > symmetries as the fundamental constraint. > > So gone are the days of thinking of the world as moving things in a > backdrop of space and time. Here today we have the primacy of the > interaction, of action, and of symmetry. And THAT is what 21st century > physics seems to me to be really about. > > There are lots of good references here that support this nutshell recap > in much better detail. It's funny watching you amateurs produce thoughts that skim across the evidence and never quite getting fully wet. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fr314159@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 06:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <50d8caf8-fc06-49fd-80ca-a5de2f751ded@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647234 |
On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 6:28:26 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > So gone are the days of thinking of the world as moving things in a > backdrop of space and time. Here today we have the primacy of the > interaction, of action, and of symmetry. And THAT is what 21st century > physics seems to me to be really about. > You are really only describing one half of the picture, that of quantum fields and particles. The other half is the curved space-time model of General Relativity where space and time are not independent entities but depend on matter-energy. The two views are not compatible as they each deal with different scales and domains of the universe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web