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 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 Next page →
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 12:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <090f8275-2fe8-4ae7-afe5-8167c5ee7b5b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #648041 |
Odd "No, John, fields are real, and you don't have a single reason to say .." Yes, fields are real. No, they are not primary- they are SECONDARY and DEPEND on an energy process that produces them. You are ignoring this because your theory does not speak to structure and process and is therefore sterile.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 15:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo9q2h$15fu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #648050 |
On 8/31/17 2:40 PM, john wrote: > Odd > "No, John, fields are real, and you don't have a single reason to say .." > Yes, fields are real. > No, they are not primary- they are SECONDARY and DEPEND on an energy process that produces them. No, John, this is just not the case. In the last 50 years, physicists have come to the conclusion that what is fundamental and primary are the fields. There are sound reasons for this, which you can read about if you choose to do so. If you don't choose to do so, then you are going to believe whatever you want to believe, but you'll do it without any rationale. > You are ignoring this because your theory does not speak to structure and process and is therefore sterile. And the John-law that says "Everything must have structure" is yours and yours alone, which you believe without rationale. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 15:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo9qes$16jg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #648053 |
On 8/31/17 3:03 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/31/17 2:40 PM, john wrote: >> Odd >> "No, John, fields are real, and you don't have a single reason to say .." >> Yes, fields are real. >> No, they are not primary- they are SECONDARY and DEPEND on an energy >> process that produces them. > > No, John, this is just not the case. In the last 50 years, physicists > have come to the conclusion that what is fundamental and primary are the > fields. There are sound reasons for this, which you can read about if > you choose to do so. If you don't choose to do so, then you are going to > believe whatever you want to believe, but you'll do it without any > rationale. > >> You are ignoring this because your theory does not speak to structure >> and process and is therefore sterile. > > And the John-law that says "Everything must have structure" is yours and > yours alone, which you believe without rationale. > Just to reiterate, John, you have repeated and repeated and repeated a core article of FAITH to your worldview -- that everything must have structure. You do not have any reason to believe this article of faith, that is why it is called faith -- it is a firm belief held WITHOUT REASON. And then you turn around and say that any physical description that breaks that article of faith is lost, nonsense, jibber-jabber. No matter how much that description is supported by observational data. I'll repeat that if the data yields agreement with that description, then you think the data is worthless as well, because then the data is conflicting with your article of FAITH. Faith and science do not mix, John. They are inherently different ways of thinking and evaluating truth. You do not operate scientifically. You operate out of faith. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 13:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <287c7376-daf6-458d-b675-6c3ffc853225@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #648055 |
Odd Your theory is sterile. It starts by predicatiing a "smallest" and just goes downhill from there. Fields with no sources. Particles with no structure. Waves with no medium. Ever see Planes Trains and Automobiles? YOU ARE GOING THE WRONG WAY. The purpose in Science is getting to the bottom of things. You, instead, are getting more and more superficial- it's BEANCOUNTING. It has no predictive or explanatory power. Wake up, Zombie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 15:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo9s3e$1994$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #648056 |
On 8/31/17 3:19 PM, john wrote: > Odd > Your theory is sterile. This is just a word you use to demonize that which conflict with your faith. The theory is in conflict with your John-law that "Everything must have structure" and so you must find some adjective to make it sound like that's a bad thing. You've used words like "clueless" and "nonsensical" in the past. Today you are using "sterile". You still have a few left in the dictionary that you have at your disposal. You could try "fat" and "antisocial" next week if you like. > It starts by predicatiing a "smallest" and just goes downhill from there. > Fields with no sources. > Particles with no structure. > Waves with no medium. > > Ever see Planes Trains and Automobiles? > YOU ARE GOING THE WRONG WAY. > > The purpose in Science is getting to the bottom of things. Yes, fields appear to be at the bottom. You keep saying, "Can't be. No, no, no, I don't believe it." > You, instead, are getting more and more superficial- > it's BEANCOUNTING. > It has no predictive or explanatory power. It has LOTS of predictive and explanatory power. That's the whole point of matching QUANTITATIVE predictions with QUANTITATIVE measurement, John. That's called science. 12-digit precision agreement. As in, dead-on-the-money agreement. As in, could not possibly do that well in the prediction unless it was very very very very likely right. You don't like science, and so you use words like "bean-counting" and "sterile" when it does not agree with your FAITH. > Wake up, Zombie. This isn't a matter of waking up to have faith in the same things you have faith in. This is a matter of having REASONS to believe what you do. That is what science is about. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 15:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo9sd9$19st$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #648059 |
On 8/31/17 3:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/31/17 3:19 PM, john wrote: >> Odd >> Your theory is sterile. > > This is just a word you use to demonize that which conflict with your > faith. The theory is in conflict with your John-law that "Everything > must have structure" and so you must find some adjective to make it > sound like that's a bad thing. > > You've used words like "clueless" and "nonsensical" in the past. Today > you are using "sterile". You still have a few left in the dictionary > that you have at your disposal. You could try "fat" and "antisocial" > next week if you like. > >> It starts by predicatiing a "smallest" and just goes downhill from >> there. >> Fields with no sources. >> Particles with no structure. >> Waves with no medium. >> >> Ever see Planes Trains and Automobiles? >> YOU ARE GOING THE WRONG WAY. >> >> The purpose in Science is getting to the bottom of things. > > Yes, fields appear to be at the bottom. You keep saying, "Can't be. No, > no, no, I don't believe it." > >> You, instead, are getting more and more superficial- >> it's BEANCOUNTING. >> It has no predictive or explanatory power. > > It has LOTS of predictive and explanatory power. That's the whole point > of matching QUANTITATIVE predictions with QUANTITATIVE measurement, > John. That's called science. 12-digit precision agreement. As in, > dead-on-the-money agreement. As in, could not possibly do that well in > the prediction unless it was very very very very likely right. > > You don't like science, and so you use words like "bean-counting" and > "sterile" when it does not agree with your FAITH. > >> Wake up, Zombie. > > This isn't a matter of waking up to have faith in the same things you > have faith in. > > This is a matter of having REASONS to believe what you do. That is what > science is about. > > As a simple exercise in science, John, try something. Instead of just repeating over and over and over again your article of faith, try CONVINCING someone that your article of faith is true. Here's the article of faith: "Everything must have structure". Go ahead. Try to present ANY CASE AT ALL that is even remotely convincing that this is true. Make sure that your case, your rationale is consistent with your approach in proposing flat atoms and precessing galaxies. That is, it won't do to say, for example, that everything that is familiar has structure therefore everything does. Because then you can't in good conscience propose things that HAVE NOT BEEN SEEN like flat atoms and precessing galaxies. So, I'll wait right here. "Everything must have structure." WHY? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 15:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo9sr1$1aej$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #648060 |
On 8/31/17 3:43 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/31/17 3:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/31/17 3:19 PM, john wrote: >>> Odd >>> Your theory is sterile. >> >> This is just a word you use to demonize that which conflict with your >> faith. The theory is in conflict with your John-law that "Everything >> must have structure" and so you must find some adjective to make it >> sound like that's a bad thing. >> >> You've used words like "clueless" and "nonsensical" in the past. Today >> you are using "sterile". You still have a few left in the dictionary >> that you have at your disposal. You could try "fat" and "antisocial" >> next week if you like. >> >>> It starts by predicatiing a "smallest" and just goes downhill from >>> there. >>> Fields with no sources. >>> Particles with no structure. >>> Waves with no medium. >>> >>> Ever see Planes Trains and Automobiles? >>> YOU ARE GOING THE WRONG WAY. >>> >>> The purpose in Science is getting to the bottom of things. >> >> Yes, fields appear to be at the bottom. You keep saying, "Can't be. >> No, no, no, I don't believe it." >> >>> You, instead, are getting more and more superficial- >>> it's BEANCOUNTING. >>> It has no predictive or explanatory power. >> >> It has LOTS of predictive and explanatory power. That's the whole >> point of matching QUANTITATIVE predictions with QUANTITATIVE >> measurement, John. That's called science. 12-digit precision >> agreement. As in, dead-on-the-money agreement. As in, could not >> possibly do that well in the prediction unless it was very very very >> very likely right. >> >> You don't like science, and so you use words like "bean-counting" and >> "sterile" when it does not agree with your FAITH. >> >>> Wake up, Zombie. >> >> This isn't a matter of waking up to have faith in the same things you >> have faith in. >> >> This is a matter of having REASONS to believe what you do. That is >> what science is about. >> >> > > As a simple exercise in science, John, try something. > Instead of just repeating over and over and over again your article of > faith, try CONVINCING someone that your article of faith is true. > > Here's the article of faith: "Everything must have structure". Go ahead. > Try to present ANY CASE AT ALL that is even remotely convincing that > this is true. > > Make sure that your case, your rationale is consistent with your > approach in proposing flat atoms and precessing galaxies. That is, it > won't do to say, for example, that everything that is familiar has > structure therefore everything does. Because then you can't in good > conscience propose things that HAVE NOT BEEN SEEN like flat atoms and > precessing galaxies. > > So, I'll wait right here. > "Everything must have structure." > WHY? > This is where John Sefton will be thinking, "Fuck you. Why do I have to have a reason? I just know it's true. Know it, know it, know it." -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-01 14:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ooce7e$ttv$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #648061 |
On 8/31/17 3:50 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/31/17 3:43 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/31/17 3:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 8/31/17 3:19 PM, john wrote: >>>> Odd >>>> Your theory is sterile. >>> >>> This is just a word you use to demonize that which conflict with your >>> faith. The theory is in conflict with your John-law that "Everything >>> must have structure" and so you must find some adjective to make it >>> sound like that's a bad thing. >>> >>> You've used words like "clueless" and "nonsensical" in the past. >>> Today you are using "sterile". You still have a few left in the >>> dictionary that you have at your disposal. You could try "fat" and >>> "antisocial" next week if you like. >>> >>>> It starts by predicatiing a "smallest" and just goes downhill from >>>> there. >>>> Fields with no sources. >>>> Particles with no structure. >>>> Waves with no medium. >>>> >>>> Ever see Planes Trains and Automobiles? >>>> YOU ARE GOING THE WRONG WAY. >>>> >>>> The purpose in Science is getting to the bottom of things. >>> >>> Yes, fields appear to be at the bottom. You keep saying, "Can't be. >>> No, no, no, I don't believe it." >>> >>>> You, instead, are getting more and more superficial- >>>> it's BEANCOUNTING. >>>> It has no predictive or explanatory power. >>> >>> It has LOTS of predictive and explanatory power. That's the whole >>> point of matching QUANTITATIVE predictions with QUANTITATIVE >>> measurement, John. That's called science. 12-digit precision >>> agreement. As in, dead-on-the-money agreement. As in, could not >>> possibly do that well in the prediction unless it was very very very >>> very likely right. >>> >>> You don't like science, and so you use words like "bean-counting" and >>> "sterile" when it does not agree with your FAITH. >>> >>>> Wake up, Zombie. >>> >>> This isn't a matter of waking up to have faith in the same things you >>> have faith in. >>> >>> This is a matter of having REASONS to believe what you do. That is >>> what science is about. >>> >>> >> >> As a simple exercise in science, John, try something. >> Instead of just repeating over and over and over again your article of >> faith, try CONVINCING someone that your article of faith is true. >> >> Here's the article of faith: "Everything must have structure". Go >> ahead. Try to present ANY CASE AT ALL that is even remotely convincing >> that this is true. >> >> Make sure that your case, your rationale is consistent with your >> approach in proposing flat atoms and precessing galaxies. That is, it >> won't do to say, for example, that everything that is familiar has >> structure therefore everything does. Because then you can't in good >> conscience propose things that HAVE NOT BEEN SEEN like flat atoms and >> precessing galaxies. >> >> So, I'll wait right here. >> "Everything must have structure." >> WHY? >> > > > This is where John Sefton will be thinking, > "Fuck you. Why do I have to have a reason? I just know it's true. Know > it, know it, know it." > Isn't it interesting how quiet John Sefton suddenly got on this subject? What does that tell you? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 17:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a87a59$0$2124$b1db1813$8546dec9@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #648014 |
On 8/31/2017 12:03 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >> On 8/28/2017 11:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 8/28/17 9:51 AM, john wrote: >>>> Odd >>>> " >>>> Fields aren't "given off". A field by definition extends everywhere for >>>> all time. A field is not something that radiates out into a place where >>>> there was no field before. It's already there and has already been >>>> there " >>>> >>>> Well SHIT. >>>> What are we building microwave towers for? >>>> Tell the boys we don't have to- fields already there!! >>>> >>> >>> I think if you'll look more carefully, John, you'll probably see that >>> the description of microwave towers may talk about radiation of SIGNALS, >>> not of fields. And quite possibly, the idea of those signals being >>> fields and so fields are what have been radiated, is an idea that you >>> made up completely in your own head. >>> >>> In the absence of information, people tend to make shit up. >>> >> In the absence of intelligence and thinking Odd tends to drift off into >> his fantasies. >> >> Odd, a FIELD is a mathematical model of actions in the real world. > > No, Ben, it isn't. You trying to make it so by fiat is pointless. Right, Odd. Now nurz says it's time for your meds. Now go and gobble them down like a good boy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 11:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59A46532.2DE9@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #647525 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > 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. > > What's in a name? that which we call a rose. By any other name is old > science... Has anybody ever seen the view a woodworker has? ...a little toooo close to the tree to see the forest..ever!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 07:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <18f21ad5-062a-4b26-be5f-b2e9b9e6462b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647482 |
Odd " > 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. " You're right. I'm trying to match my pattern, which is an idea/model, you say it isn't a model- whatever- to YOUR model- Standard Model. Fermion and Boson are YOUR terms, as well as Spin, which you can't even explain, but you use. Let's look them up: from somewhere ' Fermions and bosons. A fermion is any particle that has an odd half-integer (like 1/2, 3/2, and so forth) spin. Quarks and leptons, as well as most composite particles, like protons and neutrons, are fermions. ' and somewhere else 'bo·son ˈbōzän/Submit nounPHYSICS plural noun: bosons a subatomic particle, such as a photon, that has zero or integral spin and follows the statistical description given by S. N. Bose and Einstein.' Okay, my atomic disc comprising everything has a gross rotation of ONE rotation of the disk to TWO precessions. So, there's a rotational spin of 1 And a precessional spin of 2 So, yes, all Matter, protons, neutrons, etc contained in the disk have 1/2 integer spin. And my Photon I have represented as a disk which rotates once per cycle as well as twisting once around it's pathway per cycle. So there's a rotational spin of 1 And a precessional spin of 1 So, it would be a Boson, because it's 1/1 So, you were right, Odd. Protons are Fermions. Sorry- YOUR term, and not probably going to be used in my model. I'll use SPIN, though. Thoroughly. Hey! YOU don't. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 10:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo1ca8$5i6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647555 |
On 8/28/17 9:46 AM, john wrote: > Odd > " >> 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. > " > You're right. I'm trying to match my pattern, which is an idea/model, you say it isn't a model- whatever- to YOUR model- Standard Model. Fermion and Boson are YOUR terms, as well as Spin, which you can't even explain, but you use. They are PHYSICIST'S terms, which a woodworker has been able to learn and understand, but somehow you have not been able to. > Let's look them up: > from somewhere > ' > Fermions and bosons. A fermion is any particle that has an odd half-integer (like 1/2, 3/2, and so forth) spin. Quarks and leptons, as well as most composite particles, like protons and neutrons, are fermions. Yes. Baryons, quarks, leptons in all three generations (neutrinos, electrons, muons, taus) are all fermions. > ' > and somewhere else > 'bo·son > ˈbōzän/Submit > nounPHYSICS > plural noun: bosons > a subatomic particle, such as a photon, that has zero or integral spin and follows the statistical description given by S. N. Bose and Einstein.' Yes, photons, gluons, mesons, W and Z and Higgs are all bosons. > > Okay, my atomic disc comprising everything has a gross rotation of ONE rotation of the disk to TWO precessions. So, there's a rotational spin of 1 > And a precessional spin of 2 You're regressed. Remember that the spin in the definitions of boson and fermion are NOT rotational spin, they are quantum mechanical spin. If you want to know what quantum mechanical spin is, go look it up, like you eventually did for bosons and fermions. Don't jump to ANY conclusion that a term in a physics definition is quite the same as your children's-museum definition until you CHECK. > So, yes, all Matter, protons, neutrons, etc contained in the disk have 1/2 integer spin. Half integer QUANTUM MECHANICAL spin, not rotational spin. Not the spin you're thinking about. > And my Photon I have represented as a disk which rotates once per cycle as well as twisting once around it's pathway per cycle. > So there's a rotational spin of 1 > And a precessional spin of 1 > So, it would be a Boson, because it's 1/1 > > So, you were right, Odd. Protons are Fermions. Sorry- YOUR term, and not probably going to be used in my model. > I'll use SPIN, though. Thoroughly. Hey! YOU don't. > :) > See John? In order to talk about physics, and to stop chopping word salad at a furious rate, you have to learn what the terms actually mean. To do this requires READING unfortunately. Not speculating, not babbling, not ideating, not smoke-filled-bedroom conceptualizing. READING. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 16:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a47a39$0$51926$c3e8da3$76a7c58f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647415 |
On 8/27/2017 8:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > 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? Agreement with the meanings assigned to words both in traditional physics and dictionaries. Also whether the statements are descriptions of reality (experiments and measurements) or if they are simply mathematical fantasies that one pretends are reality. In your case that line simply does not exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 16:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oo9c18$dtg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647625 |
benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 8/27/2017 8:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> 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? > > Agreement with the meanings assigned to words both in traditional > physics and dictionaries. Well no wonder you're locked in the past! Wow! > Also whether the statements are descriptions > of reality (experiments and measurements) or if they are simply > mathematical fantasies that one pretends are reality. In your case that > line simply does not exist. > > > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 17:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a879fb$0$2124$b1db1813$8546dec9@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #648013 |
On 8/31/2017 12:03 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >> On 8/27/2017 8:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> 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? >> >> Agreement with the meanings assigned to words both in traditional >> physics and dictionaries. > > Well no wonder you're locked in the past! Wow! Typical Boinker. Usual Kook method: Make up a bunch of jargon that nobody knows the meaning of so you can spout it and pretend to understand it and then everyone will be impressed and think you are smart. Odd doesn't even make up his own jargon, he lets others do it for him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-01 19:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ooccu0$s0s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #648062 |
benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 8/31/2017 12:03 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>> On 8/27/2017 8:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> 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? >>> >>> Agreement with the meanings assigned to words both in traditional >>> physics and dictionaries. >> >> Well no wonder you're locked in the past! Wow! > > Typical Boinker. > > Usual Kook method: Make up a bunch of jargon that nobody knows the > meaning of so you can spout it and pretend to understand it and then > everyone will be impressed and think you are smart. Odd doesn't even > make up his own jargon, he lets others do it for him. > It's not hard to learn jargon. Just takes reading. Oh, that's right, you said everyone gets confused reading books on modern physics. Except maybe physicists and at least a woodworker. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-01 18:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a9dcc9$0$4586$b1db1813$8546dec9@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #648162 |
On 9/1/2017 3:37 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >> On 8/31/2017 12:03 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>> On 8/27/2017 8:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> 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? >>>> >>>> Agreement with the meanings assigned to words both in traditional >>>> physics and dictionaries. >>> >>> Well no wonder you're locked in the past! Wow! >> >> Typical Boinker. >> >> Usual Kook method: Make up a bunch of jargon that nobody knows the >> meaning of so you can spout it and pretend to understand it and then >> everyone will be impressed and think you are smart. Odd doesn't even >> make up his own jargon, he lets others do it for him. >> > > It's not hard to learn jargon. Just takes reading. Oh, that's right, you > said everyone gets confused reading books on modern physics. Except maybe > physicists and at least a woodworker. > Ah, so the secret of learning science is simply memorizing jargon! Know the jargon and then that proves you are smart. I think we all understand your "science" now, Odd.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-01 22:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oococb$1cv0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #648205 |
benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 9/1/2017 3:37 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>> On 8/31/2017 12:03 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>> On 8/27/2017 8:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> 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? >>>>> >>>>> Agreement with the meanings assigned to words both in traditional >>>>> physics and dictionaries. >>>> >>>> Well no wonder you're locked in the past! Wow! >>> >>> Typical Boinker. >>> >>> Usual Kook method: Make up a bunch of jargon that nobody knows the >>> meaning of so you can spout it and pretend to understand it and then >>> everyone will be impressed and think you are smart. Odd doesn't even >>> make up his own jargon, he lets others do it for him. >>> >> >> It's not hard to learn jargon. Just takes reading. Oh, that's right, you >> said everyone gets confused reading books on modern physics. Except maybe >> physicists and at least a woodworker. >> > Ah, so the secret of learning science is simply memorizing jargon! Know > the jargon and then that proves you are smart. I think we all understand > your "science" now, Odd. > Do you know the difference between learning and memorizing, Ben? And you know that attempting learning without reading is just idle spinning of wheels? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-01 21:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59aa0ba3$0$30102$b1db1813$d06edd96@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #648213 |
On 9/1/2017 6:52 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >> On 9/1/2017 3:37 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>> On 8/31/2017 12:03 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>> On 8/27/2017 8:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> 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? >>>>>> >>>>>> Agreement with the meanings assigned to words both in traditional >>>>>> physics and dictionaries. >>>>> >>>>> Well no wonder you're locked in the past! Wow! >>>> >>>> Typical Boinker. >>>> >>>> Usual Kook method: Make up a bunch of jargon that nobody knows the >>>> meaning of so you can spout it and pretend to understand it and then >>>> everyone will be impressed and think you are smart. Odd doesn't even >>>> make up his own jargon, he lets others do it for him. >>>> >>> >>> It's not hard to learn jargon. Just takes reading. Oh, that's right, you >>> said everyone gets confused reading books on modern physics. Except maybe >>> physicists and at least a woodworker. >>> >> Ah, so the secret of learning science is simply memorizing jargon! Know >> the jargon and then that proves you are smart. I think we all understand >> your "science" now, Odd. >> > > Do you know the difference between learning and memorizing, Ben? > And you know that attempting learning without reading is just idle spinning > of wheels? > Learning is different from memorizing Odd. Learning is when the REALLY REALLY BELIEVE what you are told no matter how insane or ridiculous it is. It is obvious that you are well beyond basic memorization.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-02 02:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ood5qt$1sqn$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #648243 |
benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 9/1/2017 6:52 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>> On 9/1/2017 3:37 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>> On 8/31/2017 12:03 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/27/2017 8:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Agreement with the meanings assigned to words both in traditional >>>>>>> physics and dictionaries. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well no wonder you're locked in the past! Wow! >>>>> >>>>> Typical Boinker. >>>>> >>>>> Usual Kook method: Make up a bunch of jargon that nobody knows the >>>>> meaning of so you can spout it and pretend to understand it and then >>>>> everyone will be impressed and think you are smart. Odd doesn't even >>>>> make up his own jargon, he lets others do it for him. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It's not hard to learn jargon. Just takes reading. Oh, that's right, you >>>> said everyone gets confused reading books on modern physics. Except maybe >>>> physicists and at least a woodworker. >>>> >>> Ah, so the secret of learning science is simply memorizing jargon! Know >>> the jargon and then that proves you are smart. I think we all understand >>> your "science" now, Odd. >>> >> >> Do you know the difference between learning and memorizing, Ben? >> And you know that attempting learning without reading is just idle spinning >> of wheels? >> > Learning is different from memorizing Odd. Learning is when the REALLY > REALLY BELIEVE what you are told no matter how insane or ridiculous it > is. It is obvious that you are well beyond basic memorization. > Ok so one would conclude that you think both learning and memorization are bad, and that credulity and gut feel are what should be used instead. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web