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 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 17:28 -0500 |
| Subject | What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view |
| Message-ID | <onq8a4$1a70$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
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
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 16:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0c1b1bfd-fba3-43b2-9b03-3befb853b2ba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647234 |
Odd Now figure out how the information is conveyed to the Space'time'. And how that makes 'measured values' different, there, beancounter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 01:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <onqkaq$1rm4$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647245 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > Now figure out how the information is conveyed to the Space'time'. What's to convey TO spacetime? Fields are intrinsic to spacetime, part OF it. > And how that makes 'measured values' different, there, beancounter That's easy. Yeh symmetry rules make this predictions. Numbers and everything. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 19:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <onqemj$1jcr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647234 |
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. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 01:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a10c26$0$61793$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647249 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 09:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <onrvbt$s3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647285 |
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?
Object Orentated Programming has "objects" which may contain data in the
form of "fields".
perhaps all of Physics can be restructured by OOP approch ?
" Objects sometimes correspond to things found in the real world. For
example, a graphics program may have objects such as "circle", "square",
"menu". 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.
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 10:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ons4ve$c2k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647300 |
On 8/26/17 9:07 AM, Serg io wrote: > I mean if there were no objects, where would we be? That's just the point. At the root of things, all "objects" are fields underneath. Collections of interacting field ripples, nothing more. Any material object is made of atoms, but atoms are nothing more than bound states of ripples in the quark, gluon, electron, and photon fields. The fields extend everywhere, and it's only the ripples that are (somewhat) confined. What your PERCEPTION and COMMON SENSE tell you is a different matter. But then again, perception and common sense tell you that the sun rises and sets around a fixed earth. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 11:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ons7h6$gan$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647306 |
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. 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 | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 10:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <29cdf7b2-7974-4adb-80dc-e9dab815136a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647317 |
Pfft. Bean counting. Chickenshit bean counters want to pretend they know what's happening. Odd will tell you the Interplanetary Magnetic Field creates the Sun. Fields are created and maintained by energy input and organization. They are EFFECTS on OTHER MATTER by the radiation of energy. All a Science that turns a blind eye to atomic organization and actually DENIES it, will get, is ....well, nothing of value. They can measure occurrences, and predict that the next such occurrence will be similar. Non predictive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 14:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <onsi48$11e2$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647320 |
On 8/26/17 12:24 PM, john wrote: > Pfft. > Bean counting. Call it whatever disparaging thing you want. Mathematically precise models and numeric reconciliation with data is what science is all about. You don't like it? You call that bean counting? Then you don't like science, period, end of story. What you like instead is not science. > Chickenshit bean counters want to pretend they know what's happening. > Odd will tell you the Interplanetary Magnetic Field creates the Sun. Shut up, John. I *just* corrected that lie. > > Fields are created and maintained by energy input and organization. They are EFFECTS on OTHER MATTER by the radiation of energy. Energy is not a thing. It is not a stuff. It is a property. You might as well be talking about fields being the effect of the radiation of blue. > > All a Science that turns a blind eye to atomic organization and actually DENIES it, will get, is ....well, nothing of value. They can measure occurrences, and predict that the next such occurrence will be similar. Non predictive. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 18:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6a7db4a2-9237-4e14-bfe8-94f19fe7ffde@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647340 |
Odd "Sun. Shut up, John. I *just* corrected that lie. " Let's look at the IMF, Odd. Does it go away if the sun goes away? Which is the object and which the 'field'? Can Matter move through the field? Can Matter move through the sun? Are you starting to see the difference?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-27 01:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ont72o$1v5c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647383 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > "Sun. > > Shut up, John. I *just* corrected that lie. " > > Let's look at the IMF, Odd. > Does it go away if the sun goes away? > Which is the object and which the 'field'? > Can Matter move through the field? > Can Matter move through the sun? > > Are you starting to see the difference? > The sun is a high temperature bundle of fields. That is what matter is made of. Sure there are differences between high temperature bundles of fields and low temperature bundles of fields? If you remove all the field quanta that make up the sun, then of course the field quanta that radiate from them will go away. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 22:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a23400$0$22779$c3e8da3$33881b6a@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647384 |
On 8/26/2017 9:25 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >> Odd >> "Sun. >> >> Shut up, John. I *just* corrected that lie. " >> >> Let's look at the IMF, Odd. >> Does it go away if the sun goes away? >> Which is the object and which the 'field'? >> Can Matter move through the field? >> Can Matter move through the sun? >> >> Are you starting to see the difference? >> > > The sun is a high temperature bundle of fields. That is what matter is made > of. Listen to this babbling kookdom! Odd is as bad as Banjo. Odd thinks the sun is made of mathematical fantasy. I mean he REALLY seems to believe that reality for him is all in his mind! Lucky he's an amateur and not setting policy in government. Let's hope Trump doesn't read his posts. > Sure there are differences between high temperature bundles of fields and > low temperature bundles of fields? Yeah, Odd, There is a difference between "high fantasy" and "low fantasy"! You are nuts. > If you remove all the field quanta that make up the sun, then of course the > field quanta that radiate from them will go away. "Field quanta" = babbling senile nonsense. Hey Odd, you trying to compete with Bert and Archie for the worst case of Alzheimer's prize?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-27 12:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <onudql$1hu5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647388 |
benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 8/26/2017 9:25 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Odd >>> "Sun. >>> >>> Shut up, John. I *just* corrected that lie. " >>> >>> Let's look at the IMF, Odd. >>> Does it go away if the sun goes away? >>> Which is the object and which the 'field'? >>> Can Matter move through the field? >>> Can Matter move through the sun? >>> >>> Are you starting to see the difference? >>> >> >> The sun is a high temperature bundle of fields. That is what matter is made >> of. > > Listen to this babbling kookdom! Odd is as bad as Banjo. Odd thinks the > sun is made of mathematical fantasy. I mean he REALLY seems to believe > that reality for him is all in his mind! Lucky he's an amateur and not > setting policy in government. Let's hope Trump doesn't read his posts. > >> Sure there are differences between high temperature bundles of fields and >> low temperature bundles of fields? > > Yeah, Odd, There is a difference between "high fantasy" and "low > fantasy"! You are nuts. > >> If you remove all the field quanta that make up the sun, then of course the >> field quanta that radiate from them will go away. > > "Field quanta" = babbling senile nonsense. Hey Odd, you trying to > compete with Bert and Archie for the worst case of Alzheimer's prize? > > > I wonder how you determine what is nonsense and what is not. Agreement with experiment or gut feel? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-27 08:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <020778b6-6d11-41a9-8600-8bd493a04348@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647415 |
Odd " >> If you remove all the field quanta that make up the sun, then of course the >> field quanta that radiate from them will I wonder how you determine what is nonsense and what is not. Agreement with experiment or gut feel? " Oh boy. "Field quanta". More fudge, but pretty close. ALL fields are the result of radiation released from Matter processes. There are different GAUGES of matter that give off different GAUGES of radiation that create complex "fields". Protons and photons are bosons. Bosons are the 'tangible' Matter at our level and are directly composed of the first level of Matter iteration below us: the 'aether'. Electrons are fermions. They are one step further below us, and are one level (10^31) less 'tangible'. Not 'feel-able". Bosons at each level radiate photons, which are 'tangible' photons at their own level, but comprise 'fields' at levels above. NOW do you see the difference, Odd?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-27 09:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cf2b4248-1c72-487b-9837-f284c2779620@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647422 |
Odd "Odd " >> If you remove all the field quanta that make up the sun, then of course the >> field quanta that radiate from them " Oh boy. "Field quanta". More fudge, but pretty close. ALL fields are the result of radiation released from Matter processes. There are different GAUGES of matter that give off different GAUGES of radiation that create complex "fields". Protons and photons are bosons. Bosons are the 'tangible' Matter at our level and are directly composed of the first level of Matter iteration below us: the 'aether'. Electrons are fermions. They are one step further below us, and are one level (10^31) less 'tangible'. Not 'feel-able". Bosons at each level radiate photons, which are 'tangible' photons at their own level, but comprise 'fields' at levels above. " So, Odd, you're RIGHT in this way: if you look at the electron and it's emanations (NOT the photon) at each DIMENSION of the Universal Fractal, they are all fields. I f you look at the BOSONS and their emanations from the dimension above them, it is the same thing: fields. So, it's 'all' fields from that perspective. But one can look at the Bosons and their radiations on this level, and then look at their Fermions and their radiations from the Dimension below, and it's all particles. PLEASE tell me you're starting to get it. You're right- in a way. But it's half and half at each Dimension/Level/Iteration
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-27 18:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <onv1rl$f6g$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #647423 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >There are different GAUGES of matter that give off different GAUGES of >radiation that create complex "fields". Why are you stuck on this multiple levels crap even after we've repeatedly told you there is no evidence supporting it and plenty against it? And quit using terms in physics already with a meaning (gauge) for your multilevel stuff. >Protons and photons are bosons. Bosons are the 'tangible' Matter at our >level and are directly composed of the first level of Matter iteration >below us: the 'aether'. Wrong! Protons and electrons are fermions, not bosons. Fermions are 'tangible' matter typically. Bosons are frequently radiation or energy or force mediators as they behave differently, many bosons can be in the same state. >PLEASE tell me you're starting to get it. Oh we get it all right. You are STUCK and refuse to learn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-27 16:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <onvf14$179j$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647422 |
On 8/27/17 10:23 AM, john wrote: > Odd > " >>> If you remove all the field quanta that make up the sun, then of course the >>> field quanta that radiate from them will > > I wonder how you determine what is nonsense and what is not. Agreement with > experiment or gut feel? > " > > Oh boy. > "Field quanta". Yup. And what gives you a queasy feeling about that? > More fudge, but pretty close. ALL fields are the result of radiation released from Matter processes. What do you think radiation IS, John? That's right: field quanta. > There are different GAUGES of matter that give off different GAUGES of radiation that create complex "fields". > Protons and photons are bosons. Bosons are the 'tangible' Matter at our level and are directly composed of the first level of Matter iteration below us: the 'aether'. > Electrons are fermions. They are one step further below us, and are one level (10^31) less 'tangible'. Not 'feel-able". > Bosons at each level radiate photons, which are 'tangible' photons at their own level, but comprise 'fields' at levels above. > > NOW do you see the difference, Odd? > Your "facts" are full of shit. Check again which ones are bosons and which ones are fermions. Which ones make "tangible matter" and which ones don't. And put down the blunt before you look this up. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-27 22:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59A3A925.23D7@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #647482 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 8/27/17 10:23 AM, john wrote: > > Odd > > " > >>> If you remove all the field quanta that make up the sun, then of course the > >>> field quanta that radiate from them will > > > > I wonder how you determine what is nonsense and what is not. Agreement with > > experiment or gut feel? > > " > > > > Oh boy. > > "Field quanta". > > Yup. And what gives you a queasy feeling about that? In 1905, Albert Einstein used the idea of light quanta to explain the photoelectric effect. "Field quanta" is a modern word for "light quanta". It's just 1905 rehash..they both mean the same thing. it's poppycock. There is nothing about modern physics here except a few changes in words... it's fake modern science if it is nothing new... it's a con. How is ideas invented in 1905 modern science????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-27 22:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59A3AC04.6666@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #647523 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > On 8/27/17 10:23 AM, john wrote: > > > Odd > > > " > > >>> If you remove all the field quanta that make up the sun, then of course the > > >>> field quanta that radiate from them will > > > > > > I wonder how you determine what is nonsense and what is not. Agreement with > > > experiment or gut feel? > > > " > > > > > > Oh boy. > > > "Field quanta". > > > > Yup. And what gives you a queasy feeling about that? > > In 1905, Albert Einstein used the idea of light quanta to explain the photoelectric effect. > > "Field quanta" is a modern word for "light quanta". It's just 1905 rehash..they both mean the same thing. > > it's poppycock. There is nothing about modern physics here except a few changes in words... > > it's fake modern science if it is nothing new... > > it's a con. > > How is ideas invented in 1905 modern science???? In other words... "Field quanta" is Einstein's 1905 "light quanta" which are "photons". How is that modern science? It simply is not. But you do got a bunch of kids in skool who fall for anything, and have to... It's like changing 'global warming' to 'climate change'.. it just garbage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web