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 | 18 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 11 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 11:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo1haj$e20$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647547 |
On 8/28/17 8:43 AM, fr314159@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 6:28:26 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> >> So gone are the days of thinking of the world as moving things in a >> backdrop of space and time. Here today we have the primacy of the >> interaction, of action, and of symmetry. And THAT is what 21st century >> physics seems to me to be really about. >> > > You are really only describing one half of the picture, that > of quantum fields and particles. > > The other half is the curved space-time model of General > Relativity where space and time are not independent entities > but depend on matter-energy. Agreed. But I think the idea of quantizing gravity is relying on these fundamental ideas of field, symmetry, action. > > The two views are not compatible as they each deal with > different scales and domains of the universe. > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 21:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <f0j871F32u9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #647234 |
Am 26.08.2017 um 00:28 schrieb Odd Bodkin: > 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. > Well, I do in fact agree upon most parts. But I am an amateur and have written about , what you think, that amateurs are unable to understand. It's mainly my own invention, (thou influenced by a couple of people). I call it 'structured spacetime' and you can read about it here: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 I have written this 'book' about eight years ago and have since then tried to find some audience for my idea. Didn't really work. But I still think, the concept is correct. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 12:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59A46D8A.1BDF@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #647615 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 26.08.2017 um 00:28 schrieb Odd Bodkin: > > 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. > > > > Well, I do in fact agree upon most parts. But I am an amateur and have > written about , what you think, that amateurs are unable to understand. > > It's mainly my own invention, (thou influenced by a couple of people). > > I call it 'structured spacetime' and you can read about it here: > > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > I have written this 'book' about eight years ago and have since then > tried to find some audience for my idea. Didn't really work. But I still > think, the concept is correct. > > TH The Big Dipper and the little dipper is an example of...'structured spacetime'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 12:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <13a7311a-d352-4e6e-9da8-f860b8902ef7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647617 |
Star "structured" Everything has structure. Otherwise there would be no particles. All fields are caused by energy moving from one place to another. To think they just 'are' is because of the challenges physics has had in explaining Gravity. Extreme hand waving. Release of HEPs from galactic centres is what magnetism is at the atomic level. Release of smaller-scale neutrinos from electron fusion processes is where gravity comes from. To think fields just 'are' is at best completely naive and at worst deliberately obscurantist
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 15:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo207j$17p1$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647620 |
On 8/28/17 2:36 PM, john wrote: > Star > "structured" > Everything has structure. > Otherwise there would be no particles. Prove that. No handwaving now. > > All fields are caused by energy moving from one place to another. > To think they just 'are' is because of the challenges physics has had in explaining Gravity. > Extreme hand waving. > > Release of HEPs from galactic centres is what magnetism is at the atomic level. > Release of smaller-scale neutrinos from electron fusion processes is where gravity comes from. > > To think fields just 'are' is at best completely naive and at worst deliberately obscurantist > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 21:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <f0jaedF3jeoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #647617 |
Am 28.08.2017 um 21:22 schrieb The Starmaker: .. >>> 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. >>> >> >> Well, I do in fact agree upon most parts. But I am an amateur and have >> written about , what you think, that amateurs are unable to understand. >> >> It's mainly my own invention, (thou influenced by a couple of people). >> >> I call it 'structured spacetime' and you can read about it here: >> >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 >> >> I have written this 'book' about eight years ago and have since then >> tried to find some audience for my idea. Didn't really work. But I still >> think, the concept is correct. >> >> TH > > > The Big Dipper and the little dipper is an example of...'structured spacetime'. > ?? Actually I had tried to connect GR and QM in this way: I take spacetime of GR for granted and build particles out of that (to replicate QM from the 'GR side'). This is actually possible. I assume, that spacetime consists of the equivalent of a point, called 'elements' (of spacetime). These elements are kind of points with features. These elements are connected similar to how quaternions are multiplied. By this the state of an element is conserved in time. This builds 'timelike stable patterns' and those are, what we call matter. IOW particles are not real, but more like patterns or structures. As proof of concept I wanted to use 'Growing Earth'. So I spent a good part of the last year in the attempt to prove GE. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 23:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59A50D29.267D@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #647622 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 28.08.2017 um 21:22 schrieb The Starmaker: > .. > >>> 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. > >>> > >> > >> Well, I do in fact agree upon most parts. But I am an amateur and have > >> written about , what you think, that amateurs are unable to understand. > >> > >> It's mainly my own invention, (thou influenced by a couple of people). > >> > >> I call it 'structured spacetime' and you can read about it here: > >> > >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > >> > >> I have written this 'book' about eight years ago and have since then > >> tried to find some audience for my idea. Didn't really work. But I still > >> think, the concept is correct. > >> > >> TH > > > > > > The Big Dipper and the little dipper is an example of...'structured spacetime'. > > > > ?? > > Actually I had tried to connect GR and QM in this way: > > I take spacetime of GR for granted and build particles out of that (to > replicate QM from the 'GR side'). > > This is actually possible. I assume, that spacetime consists of the > equivalent of a point, called 'elements' (of spacetime). These elements > are kind of points with features. > > These elements are connected similar to how quaternions are multiplied. > > By this the state of an element is conserved in time. This builds > 'timelike stable patterns' and those are, what we call matter. > > IOW particles are not real, but more like patterns or structures. > > As proof of concept I wanted to use 'Growing Earth'. > > So I spent a good part of the last year in the attempt to prove GE. > > TH If you're seeking an audience for 'Growing Earth... you have to use search and replace to redo it and replace keywords with 'climate change', explaining how climate change is causeing a 'Growing Earth'. Then send it to Al Gore and his compadres.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 16:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <f0ladbFhbk1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #647716 |
Am 29.08.2017 um 08:43 schrieb The Starmaker: > Thomas Heger wrote: >> >> Am 28.08.2017 um 21:22 schrieb The Starmaker: >> .. >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, I do in fact agree upon most parts. But I am an amateur and have >>>> written about , what you think, that amateurs are unable to understand. >>>> >>>> It's mainly my own invention, (thou influenced by a couple of people). >>>> >>>> I call it 'structured spacetime' and you can read about it here: >>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 >>>> >>>> I have written this 'book' about eight years ago and have since then >>>> tried to find some audience for my idea. Didn't really work. But I still >>>> think, the concept is correct. >>>> >>>> TH >>> >>> >>> The Big Dipper and the little dipper is an example of...'structured spacetime'. >>> >> >> ?? >> >> Actually I had tried to connect GR and QM in this way: >> >> I take spacetime of GR for granted and build particles out of that (to >> replicate QM from the 'GR side'). >> >> This is actually possible. I assume, that spacetime consists of the >> equivalent of a point, called 'elements' (of spacetime). These elements >> are kind of points with features. >> >> These elements are connected similar to how quaternions are multiplied. >> >> By this the state of an element is conserved in time. This builds >> 'timelike stable patterns' and those are, what we call matter. >> >> IOW particles are not real, but more like patterns or structures. >> >> As proof of concept I wanted to use 'Growing Earth'. >> >> So I spent a good part of the last year in the attempt to prove GE. >> >> TH > > > If you're seeking an audience for 'Growing Earth... > > you have to use search and replace to redo it > and replace keywords with 'climate change', > explaining how climate change is causeing a > 'Growing Earth'. > No. It's the other way round: Growing Earth is changing the climate. The 'climate change' is actually among the hints for 'Growing Earth'. This is because 'climate' means 'the average type of whether (and other atmospheric factors) at a certain spot'. So: the change of climate over a long period of time at - say - Timbuktu is 'climate change' (in Timbuktu). Now we know, that many places in the Sahara had been much greener a few thousand years ago. Before there was green land, there have been marshes and before that, the Sahara was the bottom of an ocean. So the amount of water changed over long time spans and that is, what we call 'climate change'. This sinking sea-level is caused by the expanding planet, where the surface builds cracks and rifts. Into these rifts the water flows and the sea-level sink. Another effect from Growing Earth is the increasing heat inside the planet, what generates more heat on the surface. This does also alter the climate in many places. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 07:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cb21c8d2-a26d-421a-8652-f6c43c83a0ba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647738 |
TH I like 'growing Earth.' I have posted before that Gravity had to have been less in dinosaur times, and every time there's an extinction, bigger species go extinct. How did the DoDos get stranded on that island if they didn't suddenly get too fat to fly?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 10:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59A5A770.63EC@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #647738 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 29.08.2017 um 08:43 schrieb The Starmaker: > > Thomas Heger wrote: > >> > >> Am 28.08.2017 um 21:22 schrieb The Starmaker: > >> .. > >>>>> 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. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Well, I do in fact agree upon most parts. But I am an amateur and have > >>>> written about , what you think, that amateurs are unable to understand. > >>>> > >>>> It's mainly my own invention, (thou influenced by a couple of people). > >>>> > >>>> I call it 'structured spacetime' and you can read about it here: > >>>> > >>>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > >>>> > >>>> I have written this 'book' about eight years ago and have since then > >>>> tried to find some audience for my idea. Didn't really work. But I still > >>>> think, the concept is correct. > >>>> > >>>> TH > >>> > >>> > >>> The Big Dipper and the little dipper is an example of...'structured spacetime'. > >>> > >> > >> ?? > >> > >> Actually I had tried to connect GR and QM in this way: > >> > >> I take spacetime of GR for granted and build particles out of that (to > >> replicate QM from the 'GR side'). > >> > >> This is actually possible. I assume, that spacetime consists of the > >> equivalent of a point, called 'elements' (of spacetime). These elements > >> are kind of points with features. > >> > >> These elements are connected similar to how quaternions are multiplied. > >> > >> By this the state of an element is conserved in time. This builds > >> 'timelike stable patterns' and those are, what we call matter. > >> > >> IOW particles are not real, but more like patterns or structures. > >> > >> As proof of concept I wanted to use 'Growing Earth'. > >> > >> So I spent a good part of the last year in the attempt to prove GE. > >> > >> TH > > > > > > If you're seeking an audience for 'Growing Earth... > > > > you have to use search and replace to redo it > > and replace keywords with 'climate change', > > explaining how climate change is causeing a > > 'Growing Earth'. > > > No. It's the other way round: Growing Earth is changing the climate. > > The 'climate change' is actually among the hints for 'Growing Earth'. > > This is because 'climate' means 'the average type of whether (and other > atmospheric factors) at a certain spot'. > > So: the change of climate over a long period of time at - say - Timbuktu > is 'climate change' (in Timbuktu). > > Now we know, that many places in the Sahara had been much greener a few > thousand years ago. > > Before there was green land, there have been marshes and before that, > the Sahara was the bottom of an ocean. > > So the amount of water changed over long time spans and that is, what we > call 'climate change'. > > This sinking sea-level is caused by the expanding planet, where the > surface builds cracks and rifts. Into these rifts the water flows and > the sea-level sink. > > Another effect from Growing Earth is the increasing heat inside the > planet, what generates more heat on the surface. This does also alter > the climate in many places. > > TH that's what I meant, how climate change is causeing a 'Growing Earth', or Growing Earth is changing the climate. i don't know if you have the keywords "climate change" in your 'Growing Earth' doc. I only suggest if you didn't, you can add it to your doc. Like for example, you can say Growing Earth is causing "cancer". You just do a search and replace on [KEYWORD] to tailor your audience.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-30 09:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59A6E9E6.7063@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #647758 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > Am 29.08.2017 um 08:43 schrieb The Starmaker: > > > Thomas Heger wrote: > > >> > > >> Am 28.08.2017 um 21:22 schrieb The Starmaker: > > >> .. > > >>>>> 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. > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Well, I do in fact agree upon most parts. But I am an amateur and have > > >>>> written about , what you think, that amateurs are unable to understand. > > >>>> > > >>>> It's mainly my own invention, (thou influenced by a couple of people). > > >>>> > > >>>> I call it 'structured spacetime' and you can read about it here: > > >>>> > > >>>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > >>>> > > >>>> I have written this 'book' about eight years ago and have since then > > >>>> tried to find some audience for my idea. Didn't really work. But I still > > >>>> think, the concept is correct. > > >>>> > > >>>> TH > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> The Big Dipper and the little dipper is an example of...'structured spacetime'. > > >>> > > >> > > >> ?? > > >> > > >> Actually I had tried to connect GR and QM in this way: > > >> > > >> I take spacetime of GR for granted and build particles out of that (to > > >> replicate QM from the 'GR side'). > > >> > > >> This is actually possible. I assume, that spacetime consists of the > > >> equivalent of a point, called 'elements' (of spacetime). These elements > > >> are kind of points with features. > > >> > > >> These elements are connected similar to how quaternions are multiplied. > > >> > > >> By this the state of an element is conserved in time. This builds > > >> 'timelike stable patterns' and those are, what we call matter. > > >> > > >> IOW particles are not real, but more like patterns or structures. > > >> > > >> As proof of concept I wanted to use 'Growing Earth'. > > >> > > >> So I spent a good part of the last year in the attempt to prove GE. > > >> > > >> TH > > > > > > > > > If you're seeking an audience for 'Growing Earth... > > > > > > you have to use search and replace to redo it > > > and replace keywords with 'climate change', > > > explaining how climate change is causeing a > > > 'Growing Earth'. > > > > > No. It's the other way round: Growing Earth is changing the climate. > > > > The 'climate change' is actually among the hints for 'Growing Earth'. > > > > This is because 'climate' means 'the average type of whether (and other > > atmospheric factors) at a certain spot'. > > > > So: the change of climate over a long period of time at - say - Timbuktu > > is 'climate change' (in Timbuktu). > > > > Now we know, that many places in the Sahara had been much greener a few > > thousand years ago. > > > > Before there was green land, there have been marshes and before that, > > the Sahara was the bottom of an ocean. > > > > So the amount of water changed over long time spans and that is, what we > > call 'climate change'. > > > > This sinking sea-level is caused by the expanding planet, where the > > surface builds cracks and rifts. Into these rifts the water flows and > > the sea-level sink. > > > > Another effect from Growing Earth is the increasing heat inside the > > planet, what generates more heat on the surface. This does also alter > > the climate in many places. > > > > TH > > that's what I meant, how climate change is causeing a > 'Growing Earth', or Growing Earth is changing the climate. > > i don't know if you have the keywords "climate change" in your 'Growing Earth' doc. > > I only suggest if you didn't, you can add it to your doc. > > Like for example, you can say Growing Earth is causing "cancer". > > You just do a search and replace on [KEYWORD] to tailor your audience. Like for example, NASA says "water is key to life as we know it". But that isn't true. There is no proof that where there is water there is life. But, it is the [KEYWORD] that NASA uses to get funding.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-30 10:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59A6F0A5.355A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #647875 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > Am 29.08.2017 um 08:43 schrieb The Starmaker: > > > > Thomas Heger wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Am 28.08.2017 um 21:22 schrieb The Starmaker: > > > >> .. > > > >>>>> 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. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Well, I do in fact agree upon most parts. But I am an amateur and have > > > >>>> written about , what you think, that amateurs are unable to understand. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> It's mainly my own invention, (thou influenced by a couple of people). > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I call it 'structured spacetime' and you can read about it here: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I have written this 'book' about eight years ago and have since then > > > >>>> tried to find some audience for my idea. Didn't really work. But I still > > > >>>> think, the concept is correct. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> TH > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> The Big Dipper and the little dipper is an example of...'structured spacetime'. > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> ?? > > > >> > > > >> Actually I had tried to connect GR and QM in this way: > > > >> > > > >> I take spacetime of GR for granted and build particles out of that (to > > > >> replicate QM from the 'GR side'). > > > >> > > > >> This is actually possible. I assume, that spacetime consists of the > > > >> equivalent of a point, called 'elements' (of spacetime). These elements > > > >> are kind of points with features. > > > >> > > > >> These elements are connected similar to how quaternions are multiplied. > > > >> > > > >> By this the state of an element is conserved in time. This builds > > > >> 'timelike stable patterns' and those are, what we call matter. > > > >> > > > >> IOW particles are not real, but more like patterns or structures. > > > >> > > > >> As proof of concept I wanted to use 'Growing Earth'. > > > >> > > > >> So I spent a good part of the last year in the attempt to prove GE. > > > >> > > > >> TH > > > > > > > > > > > > If you're seeking an audience for 'Growing Earth... > > > > > > > > you have to use search and replace to redo it > > > > and replace keywords with 'climate change', > > > > explaining how climate change is causeing a > > > > 'Growing Earth'. > > > > > > > No. It's the other way round: Growing Earth is changing the climate. > > > > > > The 'climate change' is actually among the hints for 'Growing Earth'. > > > > > > This is because 'climate' means 'the average type of whether (and other > > > atmospheric factors) at a certain spot'. > > > > > > So: the change of climate over a long period of time at - say - Timbuktu > > > is 'climate change' (in Timbuktu). > > > > > > Now we know, that many places in the Sahara had been much greener a few > > > thousand years ago. > > > > > > Before there was green land, there have been marshes and before that, > > > the Sahara was the bottom of an ocean. > > > > > > So the amount of water changed over long time spans and that is, what we > > > call 'climate change'. > > > > > > This sinking sea-level is caused by the expanding planet, where the > > > surface builds cracks and rifts. Into these rifts the water flows and > > > the sea-level sink. > > > > > > Another effect from Growing Earth is the increasing heat inside the > > > planet, what generates more heat on the surface. This does also alter > > > the climate in many places. > > > > > > TH > > > > that's what I meant, how climate change is causeing a > > 'Growing Earth', or Growing Earth is changing the climate. > > > > i don't know if you have the keywords "climate change" in your 'Growing Earth' doc. > > > > I only suggest if you didn't, you can add it to your doc. > > > > Like for example, you can say Growing Earth is causing "cancer". > > > > You just do a search and replace on [KEYWORD] to tailor your audience. > > Like for example, NASA says "water is key to life as we know it". > > But that isn't true. There is no proof that where there is water there > is life. > > But, it is the [KEYWORD] that NASA uses to get funding. In other words, it's not enough to say 'Growing Earth', you have to attach a "doomsday" to it. Killer Asteroids! The Big One Is Coming! KILLER EARTH! You sell the sizzle, not the steak.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-30 21:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <f0oiumF4fj0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #647878 |
Am 30.08.2017 um 19:06 schrieb The Starmaker: > The Starmaker wrote: >> >> The Starmaker wrote: >>> >>> Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> >>>> Am 29.08.2017 um 08:43 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>> Thomas Heger wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 28.08.2017 um 21:22 schrieb The Starmaker: >>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, I do in fact agree upon most parts. But I am an amateur and have >>>>>>>> written about , what you think, that amateurs are unable to understand. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's mainly my own invention, (thou influenced by a couple of people). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I call it 'structured spacetime' and you can read about it here: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have written this 'book' about eight years ago and have since then >>>>>>>> tried to find some audience for my idea. Didn't really work. But I still >>>>>>>> think, the concept is correct. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> TH >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Big Dipper and the little dipper is an example of...'structured spacetime'. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ?? >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually I had tried to connect GR and QM in this way: >>>>>> >>>>>> I take spacetime of GR for granted and build particles out of that (to >>>>>> replicate QM from the 'GR side'). >>>>>> >>>>>> This is actually possible. I assume, that spacetime consists of the >>>>>> equivalent of a point, called 'elements' (of spacetime). These elements >>>>>> are kind of points with features. >>>>>> >>>>>> These elements are connected similar to how quaternions are multiplied. >>>>>> >>>>>> By this the state of an element is conserved in time. This builds >>>>>> 'timelike stable patterns' and those are, what we call matter. >>>>>> >>>>>> IOW particles are not real, but more like patterns or structures. >>>>>> >>>>>> As proof of concept I wanted to use 'Growing Earth'. >>>>>> >>>>>> So I spent a good part of the last year in the attempt to prove GE. >>>>>> >>>>>> TH >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If you're seeking an audience for 'Growing Earth... >>>>> >>>>> you have to use search and replace to redo it >>>>> and replace keywords with 'climate change', >>>>> explaining how climate change is causeing a >>>>> 'Growing Earth'. >>>>> >>>> No. It's the other way round: Growing Earth is changing the climate. >>>> >>>> The 'climate change' is actually among the hints for 'Growing Earth'. >>>> >>>> This is because 'climate' means 'the average type of whether (and other >>>> atmospheric factors) at a certain spot'. >>>> >>>> So: the change of climate over a long period of time at - say - Timbuktu >>>> is 'climate change' (in Timbuktu). >>>> >>>> Now we know, that many places in the Sahara had been much greener a few >>>> thousand years ago. >>>> >>>> Before there was green land, there have been marshes and before that, >>>> the Sahara was the bottom of an ocean. >>>> >>>> So the amount of water changed over long time spans and that is, what we >>>> call 'climate change'. >>>> >>>> This sinking sea-level is caused by the expanding planet, where the >>>> surface builds cracks and rifts. Into these rifts the water flows and >>>> the sea-level sink. >>>> >>>> Another effect from Growing Earth is the increasing heat inside the >>>> planet, what generates more heat on the surface. This does also alter >>>> the climate in many places. >>>> >>>> TH >>> >>> that's what I meant, how climate change is causeing a >>> 'Growing Earth', or Growing Earth is changing the climate. >>> >>> i don't know if you have the keywords "climate change" in your 'Growing Earth' doc. >>> >>> I only suggest if you didn't, you can add it to your doc. >>> >>> Like for example, you can say Growing Earth is causing "cancer". >>> >>> You just do a search and replace on [KEYWORD] to tailor your audience. >> >> Like for example, NASA says "water is key to life as we know it". >> >> But that isn't true. There is no proof that where there is water there >> is life. >> >> But, it is the [KEYWORD] that NASA uses to get funding. > > In other words, it's not enough to say 'Growing Earth', you have to attach a "doomsday" to it. > > Killer Asteroids! > > The Big One Is Coming! > > > KILLER EARTH! > > > > You sell the sizzle, not the steak. > I get the point, but actually my aim was not geology. I wanted to prove, that matter is not composed from lasting entities called 'particles'. My idea is an entirely different concept and 'Growing Earth' was used as kind of proof. This proof goes like this: if the Earth would grow from the inside, the so called 'Standard model' of QM could not be true, since if the Earth is kind of 'breading' matter inside, this matter could not consist of particles created in the aftermath of the big bang. Reason: they could not get inside. Only neutrinos could enter the Earth in significant amounts, but neutrinos alone could not build matter. So I tried to disprove the standard model and could (eventually) replace it with my own, very different, concept called 'structured spacetime'. This concept is not based on particles. Instead particles are certain structures. These structures should occur as 'timelike stable patterns' of/within spacetime. So Growing Earth might an be interesting subject by itself, but was not really what I'm interested in. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-02 12:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59AB0A82.44A9@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #647716 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > Am 28.08.2017 um 21:22 schrieb The Starmaker: > > .. > > >>> 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. > > >>> > > >> > > >> Well, I do in fact agree upon most parts. But I am an amateur and have > > >> written about , what you think, that amateurs are unable to understand. > > >> > > >> It's mainly my own invention, (thou influenced by a couple of people). > > >> > > >> I call it 'structured spacetime' and you can read about it here: > > >> > > >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > >> > > >> I have written this 'book' about eight years ago and have since then > > >> tried to find some audience for my idea. Didn't really work. But I still > > >> think, the concept is correct. > > >> > > >> TH > > > > > > > > > The Big Dipper and the little dipper is an example of...'structured spacetime'. > > > > > > > ?? > > > > Actually I had tried to connect GR and QM in this way: > > > > I take spacetime of GR for granted and build particles out of that (to > > replicate QM from the 'GR side'). > > > > This is actually possible. I assume, that spacetime consists of the > > equivalent of a point, called 'elements' (of spacetime). These elements > > are kind of points with features. > > > > These elements are connected similar to how quaternions are multiplied. > > > > By this the state of an element is conserved in time. This builds > > 'timelike stable patterns' and those are, what we call matter. > > > > IOW particles are not real, but more like patterns or structures. > > > > As proof of concept I wanted to use 'Growing Earth'. > > > > So I spent a good part of the last year in the attempt to prove GE. > > > > TH > > If you're seeking an audience for 'Growing Earth... > > you have to use search and replace to redo it > and replace keywords with 'climate change', > explaining how climate change is causeing a > 'Growing Earth'. > > Then send it to Al Gore and his compadres. Another way to seek an audience for 'Growing Earth' is to.. go to your nearest community college and offer a class on "Growing Earth 101" or "Earth Science 101". And then you take one of the students and turn them into a 'Growing Earth'. Albert Einstein had an idea for a Uranium Bomb, and used a student of his to help him build it. That student name is Leo Szilard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-03 22:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <f1377bFhauoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #648357 |
Am 02.09.2017 um 21:46 schrieb The Starmaker: .. > > Another way to seek an audience for 'Growing Earth' is to.. > go to your nearest community college and offer a class on > "Growing Earth 101" or "Earth Science 101". > I can go to the nearest UseNet terminal and type in the 'Growing Earth 101'.. > And then you take one of the students and turn them into a 'Growing Earth'. > Well...possibly... btw: Have you ever heard of a theory called 'Growing Earth'??? > Albert Einstein had an idea for a Uranium Bomb, and used a student of his > to help him build it. That student name is Leo Szilard. Leo Szillard and Einstein did not build an atomic bomb (as far as I know). But they had patented a device, they called 'refrigerator'. But there had been students, who wanted to rebuild such a machine, but it didn't work. They only known use of this thing (where it actually worked) is within a fast breading reactor. (This is one of those mysteries I don't a plausible explanation for.) TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sadovnik Socratus <44socrat@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-30 02:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6ef8baa2-53b2-49ad-b242-78fd02e735fe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647234 |
You didn't understand situation. The Odd Bodkin post said: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... IswrWd65cs =========== a) The fields / waves extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time like particles. They are part of the fabric OF space and time. b) There are ''ripples'' = field quanta = "fundamental particles'' in these fields, which have behavior constrained by symmetries of nature. c) '' the idea of "things"/ particles 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.'' d) '' . . . 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. This idea needs more symmetries of nature (local gauge symmetries).'' e) ''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, at first physicists use waves and math symmetries to understand situation. And . . . EM waves can create . . . ''charge'', ''ripples'' / particles. ===================== My opinion. We don't drink H2O, We drink water, particles of water. We cannot replace water on H2O and be quenched. Oceanic waves consists of particles. Without these particles we don't have waves / water. The same story is with energy fields / EM waves. Maxwell's EM waves and Lorentz electron /force are one complete theory. Without electrons there aren't waves. # But until today we don't know what electron is. We don't know why the electron has six ( 6 ) formulas E=h*f and e^2=ah*c , +E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2 , E=-me^4/2h*^2= -13,6eV and E= ∞ An electron obey five Laws : a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law d) Dirac - Fermi statistic e) Maxwell - Lorentz EM theory. We don't know: what are interactions between these formulas and laws. ================================. Robert A. Millikan, in his Nobel speech ( 1923) said, that he knew nothing about “ last essence of electron” # Feynman wrote about electron : “ It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. “ =============== Therefore the situation with electron is similar to an old Indian story: ''what is an elephant ?'' One blind man touched the elephant’s foot and said elephant is like a column Other blind man touched the elephant’s tail and said elephant looks like a snake The third one touched the elephant’s stomach and said elephant is like a ball The . . . . . . .. . . =============. The electron was '' touched'' in different experiments from different sides but it seems that our knowledge of an electron is similar to the * blind – knowledge* of elephant from this old Indian proverb. As somebody wrote: ''We know electron by what it does, not by what it is'' ===========================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-30 06:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <070ccf4e-5659-4702-a15e-9f114a497c2d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647855 |
Soc "As somebody wrote: ''We know electron by what it does, not by what it is'' " There are two distinct electrons with opposite helical fields. When one kind is the first, you will have Matter- when the other kind is first, you will have antimatter. Our Space- our Level- our Iteration- our Dimension, is composed of Matter. The Galaxies at the next size-level up have opposite spin and would be antimatter if they were our size. The aether at the next size level down also has opposite spin and would also be antimatter if it were our size. The level/dimension/iteration determines which electron will be on top and control the spin- electron or positron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-30 19:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oo720v$l3n$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #647864 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Soc >"As somebody wrote: ''We know electron by what it does, not by what it is'' " >There are two distinct electrons with opposite helical fields. When >one kind is the first, you will have Matter- when the other kind is >first, you will have antimatter. No, John, I've told you several times spin-up and spin-down electrons are like a quarter on a table - it can be "heads" or "tails" and can be switched from one to another. QM "spin" also has no macroscopic equivalent. Electrons are not part of antimatter at all - antimatter has positrons, not electrons.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web