Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #706328 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Musatov <tomusatov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-10-05 19:08 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-10-12 13:32 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 123 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
'Space' is never empty Musatov <tomusatov@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 19:08 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-05 21:54 -0500
Re: 'Space' is never empty mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 22:21 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 23:27 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 14:54 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 17:17 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-06 16:46 -0500
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 22:10 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 21:31 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 12:25 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 05:31 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 14:30 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-07 09:07 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 20:36 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-07 21:31 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 06:02 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 11:54 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 10:24 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 12:33 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 19:44 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-09 09:00 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-09 18:58 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-09 14:53 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-09 20:59 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-09 21:23 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 05:52 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 09:44 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 06:59 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 15:59 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 09:12 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 18:01 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 22:14 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 15:41 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 00:07 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 20:50 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 23:33 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 13:06 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 13:01 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 17:57 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 18:28 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 22:52 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 09:58 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 15:57 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 22:34 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 20:45 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 13:06 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 13:13 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 17:57 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 18:52 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 22:56 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 05:55 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 13:15 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 06:51 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 14:13 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 12:07 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 17:52 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 17:20 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 22:11 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 21:49 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 13:35 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-13 21:59 -0700
You can't _ measure motion if you never stop measuring. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-10-13 22:51 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 10:17 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 18:20 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 09:50 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 15:24 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-17 12:47 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 20:43 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-11 00:03 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 12:29 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 12:49 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 16:59 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-11 18:23 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 13:27 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-12 07:39 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 12:00 -0400
Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-10-13 22:38 -0700
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-13 23:39 -0700
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 14:45 +0000
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 08:04 -0700
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 16:12 +0000
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 09:33 -0700
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 20:20 +0000
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-14 13:40 -0700
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 13:52 -0700
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 21:09 +0000
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-14 18:18 -0700
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 05:34 -0700
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 14:24 +0000
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-14 21:44 -0700
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. Rogue Cormac <kremvax2004@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-14 10:58 -0600
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 19:06 +0200
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-10-14 14:49 -0700
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 23:06 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 10:34 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 09:33 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 12:48 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-12 13:35 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 17:29 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-13 11:10 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-17 14:33 -0500
Re: 'Space' is never empty poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-12 18:58 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-12 23:54 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 13:22 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 09:42 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 15:59 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 13:21 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 11:55 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-08 09:47 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-08 11:51 -0500
Re: 'Space' is never empty poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-08 09:58 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 17:13 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-17 12:04 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-10 17:39 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Ivan Smith <invalid@example.com> - 2018-10-11 08:28 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-11 18:20 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-11 19:43 -0500
Re: 'Space' is never empty Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 10:20 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-17 11:58 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-17 12:13 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 15:51 -0400
'Space' is never empty john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 07:55 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-12 13:32 -0700
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-13 21:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c59ca754-170c-4cea-bb25-6294b8b6ca85@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #707650 |
On Saturday, October 13, 2018 at 4:35:28 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 10/12/2018 6:11 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On 10/12/2018 1:52 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On 10/12/2018 10:13 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> Odd > >>>>>>> “I think I’d like to defer to Ben Jacoby, who can try to explain to you what” > >>>>>>> You don’t want to discuss > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I don’t want to train you. > >>>>>> Discussion is a conversation between people who know something about a > >>>>>> subject. You haven’t bothered to learn enough about the subject to discuss > >>>>>> it intelligently. > >>>>>> > >>>>> I'm Ben Jacoby, Odd, and I say you can't hold a conversation even though > >>>>> you have memorized a lot of "statements" about physics but you never > >>>>> bothered to understand the IDEAS behind those statements. > >>>> > >>>> Third time I’ve asked, Ben. What idea do you want to discuss? > >>> > >>> Quite trying to avoid the issue by changing the subject. It does not > >>> matter "what I want to discuss" what matters is that you are incapable > >>> of ANY discussion of ANY idea because you are too busy repeating your > >>> religious dogma. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> Ben, it seems the only thing you want to discuss is my unwillingness to > >> discuss anything. > >> > >> Do you want to discuss some physics? Yes or no? > >> > > It's the purpose of this group. But clearly nobody here is interested in > > doing that. Is it a fractal universe or not? When Hermes Trismegistus > > said: "As above, so below". Was he saying it's a fractal universe? > > > > It isn’t a fractal universe, because it lacks self-similarity at all > scales. There are features of the universe that are fractal, but not the > whole thing. As for Thrice Great Hermès, he was preceded by Parmenides and > Zeno in the thoughts of infinite regression. On the other hand, by > following the consequences of such thinking, Zeno concluded motion is > impossible and an illusion. These are philosophical ideas, not science. ================================ right !!yet see my thread> 'Empty space *??!! 2 wHat are the PHYSICAL Dimensions of sPace ? just ''Meter'''alone (and no mass '_ can do any force ??!! 3 can a photon move in **straight lines* in space that is not absolutely empty and along hundreds of light years ?? ===== TIA Y.P =======================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-13 22:51 -0700 |
| Subject | You can't _ measure motion if you never stop measuring. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Oct.13--10.51pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #707650 |
> Zeno concluded motion is impossible and an illusion.
You can't _ measure motion if you never stop measuring.
Our ability to measure varies with scale;
many things can't be measured, such as the "mass" of a photon,
or the volume of a "singularity".
My "theory of everything" ( including our feeble minds ):
2016, NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope found
the brightest objects known to man: gamma-ray blazars,
Two Trillion times the sun's output.
They're young, of course, just 1.4 billion years old,
multi-billion-solar-mass black holes, in "Active Galactic Nuclei".
Like The Known Universe itself, blazars had more exergy,
less entropy, when they were younger.
At the start, there was "no entropy" ("no time, no space"), just "eXergy"
( a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ).
Everything decays, even gravity; hence the arrow of time.
Entropy converts blazars into SpaceTime. Gravity is residual eXergy.
Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
but none of the eXergy.
Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) tells us
that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
-- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
is the most likley outcome.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 10:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <78e07524-f033-4c16-932e-0e3665a5e84d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #707062 |
On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 8:45:50 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 10/10/2018 6:41 PM, john wrote: > > Odd > > “I don’t find mathematics indecipherable. Maybe you and John do. Maybe you > > think this is” > > Translate it into something that makes sense. > > EXPLAIN your understanding. > > > Since mathematics is just a shorthand language of symbols, it is obvious > that anyone who understands mathematics can also translate the meaning > of any math into the long form of words. I've never heard Odd do that, > have you? benj, Oversimplified nonsense. It is not just a matter of translating "F=ma" into "Force equals mass times acceleration". It is the description of how such ideas are applied and the precision of the results and the elegance of the mathematics that are part of truly understanding the physics as it describes the real world. Even that simple F=ma has been described in many ways in many books including but not limited to physics text books. All those descriptions do not provide the full meaning as well as a good understanding of the physics of F=ma. Enjoy, ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 18:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ppoibu$1cj2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707196 |
On 10/11/2018 1:17 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 8:45:50 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: >> On 10/10/2018 6:41 PM, john wrote: >>> Odd >>> “I don’t find mathematics indecipherable. Maybe you and John do. Maybe you >>> think this is” >>> Translate it into something that makes sense. >>> EXPLAIN your understanding. >>> >> Since mathematics is just a shorthand language of symbols, it is obvious >> that anyone who understands mathematics can also translate the meaning >> of any math into the long form of words. I've never heard Odd do that, >> have you? > > benj, > Oversimplified nonsense. It is not just a matter of translating > "F=ma" into "Force equals mass times acceleration". It is the description > of how such ideas are applied and the precision of the results and > the elegance of the mathematics that are part of truly understanding > the physics as it describes the real world. Even that simple F=ma has > been described in many ways in many books including but not limited > to physics text books. All those descriptions do not provide the full > meaning as well as a good understanding of the physics of F=ma. > > Enjoy, > ed You and Odd have no idea of the relationship between mathematics and science. The "elegance" of math does not create "elegance" in science except in your fantasy world. Math is precise because it's DEFINED that way. F=ma is NOT physics. It is mathematics! Describing mathematics in words is NOT the same thing as describing the physics. Math is only a MODEL of the reality. You (and Odd) somehow have developed the idea (along with much of modern post-Einstein science) that math is more real than reality. It is NOT. What is "acceleration"? It's not even a real quanity. It is PURE fantasy. What does "times" mean? None of this is physics. Physics would ask what is a force? What is mass? How do they seem related. Until you get the physics knowing the math even in words is meaningless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 09:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8a143e0b-79f4-4292-960a-124b24938ae2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #707323 |
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 6:20:52 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 10/11/2018 1:17 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 8:45:50 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > >> On 10/10/2018 6:41 PM, john wrote: > >>> Odd > >>> “I don’t find mathematics indecipherable. Maybe you and John do. Maybe you > >>> think this is” > >>> Translate it into something that makes sense. > >>> EXPLAIN your understanding. > >>> > >> Since mathematics is just a shorthand language of symbols, it is obvious > >> that anyone who understands mathematics can also translate the meaning > >> of any math into the long form of words. I've never heard Odd do that, > >> have you? > > > > benj, > > Oversimplified nonsense. It is not just a matter of translating > > "F=ma" into "Force equals mass times acceleration". It is the description > > of how such ideas are applied and the precision of the results and > > the elegance of the mathematics that are part of truly understanding > > the physics as it describes the real world. Even that simple F=ma has > > been described in many ways in many books including but not limited > > to physics text books. All those descriptions do not provide the full > > meaning as well as a good understanding of the physics of F=ma. > > > > Enjoy, > > ed > > You and Odd have no idea of the relationship between mathematics and > science. The "elegance" of math does not create "elegance" in science > except in your fantasy world. Math is precise because it's DEFINED that > way. F=ma is NOT physics. It is mathematics! Describing mathematics in > words is NOT the same thing as describing the physics. Math is only a > MODEL of the reality. You (and Odd) somehow have developed the idea > (along with much of modern post-Einstein science) that math is more real > than reality. It is NOT. You have totally misunderstood what I said and reached (possibly deliberately) a false and misleading conclusion. > What is "acceleration"? It's not even a real > quanity. It is PURE fantasy. What does "times" mean? None of this is > physics. Physics would ask what is a force? What is mass? How do they > seem related. Until you get the physics knowing the math even in words > is meaningless. Sorry you are close, but no cigar. The mathematics and measurements are the elements that make modern physics. You cannot truly know the physics without at least some knowledge of the mathematics. Remember Lord Kelvin. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 15:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pq829k$1eb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #708606 |
On 10/17/2018 12:50 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 6:20:52 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: >> On 10/11/2018 1:17 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: >>> On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 8:45:50 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: >>>> On 10/10/2018 6:41 PM, john wrote: >>>>> Odd >>>>> “I don’t find mathematics indecipherable. Maybe you and John do. Maybe you >>>>> think this is” >>>>> Translate it into something that makes sense. >>>>> EXPLAIN your understanding. >>>>> >>>> Since mathematics is just a shorthand language of symbols, it is obvious >>>> that anyone who understands mathematics can also translate the meaning >>>> of any math into the long form of words. I've never heard Odd do that, >>>> have you? >>> >>> benj, >>> Oversimplified nonsense. It is not just a matter of translating >>> "F=ma" into "Force equals mass times acceleration". It is the description >>> of how such ideas are applied and the precision of the results and >>> the elegance of the mathematics that are part of truly understanding >>> the physics as it describes the real world. Even that simple F=ma has >>> been described in many ways in many books including but not limited >>> to physics text books. All those descriptions do not provide the full >>> meaning as well as a good understanding of the physics of F=ma. >>> >>> Enjoy, >>> ed >> >> You and Odd have no idea of the relationship between mathematics and >> science. The "elegance" of math does not create "elegance" in science >> except in your fantasy world. Math is precise because it's DEFINED that >> way. F=ma is NOT physics. It is mathematics! Describing mathematics in >> words is NOT the same thing as describing the physics. Math is only a >> MODEL of the reality. You (and Odd) somehow have developed the idea >> (along with much of modern post-Einstein science) that math is more real >> than reality. It is NOT. > > You have totally misunderstood what I said and reached > (possibly deliberately) a false and misleading conclusion. > >> What is "acceleration"? It's not even a real >> quanity. It is PURE fantasy. What does "times" mean? None of this is >> physics. Physics would ask what is a force? What is mass? How do they >> seem related. Until you get the physics knowing the math even in words >> is meaningless. > > Sorry you are close, but no cigar. The mathematics and measurements > are the elements that make modern physics. You cannot truly know the > physics without at least some knowledge of the mathematics. > > Remember Lord Kelvin. > ed You have misinterpreted what I'm saying (deliberately?). I did not say mathematics was useless in science. However the statement that one can only know physics if one knows mathematics is clearly wrong. Mathematics is simply a descriptive language of science. To assert that one language is the ONLY language that one can use to describe science data is, well, as obvious nonsense as saying that one can only truly know literature without at least some knowledge of English! You miss my point that there is science and there is a handy shorthand language that can represent those facts. To say that those two things are the same and interchangeable is oversimplification.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 12:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6b1a7ac7-194e-46fa-9ec1-e43dfca11cfe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #708635 |
On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 12:24:41 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: > On 10/17/2018 12:50 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 6:20:52 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > >> On 10/11/2018 1:17 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 8:45:50 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > >>>> On 10/10/2018 6:41 PM, john wrote: > >>>>> Odd > >>>>> “I don’t find mathematics indecipherable. Maybe you and John do. Maybe you > >>>>> think this is” > >>>>> Translate it into something that makes sense. > >>>>> EXPLAIN your understanding. > >>>>> > >>>> Since mathematics is just a shorthand language of symbols, it is obvious > >>>> that anyone who understands mathematics can also translate the meaning > >>>> of any math into the long form of words. I've never heard Odd do that, > >>>> have you? > >>> > >>> benj, > >>> Oversimplified nonsense. It is not just a matter of translating > >>> "F=ma" into "Force equals mass times acceleration". It is the description > >>> of how such ideas are applied and the precision of the results and > >>> the elegance of the mathematics that are part of truly understanding > >>> the physics as it describes the real world. Even that simple F=ma has > >>> been described in many ways in many books including but not limited > >>> to physics text books. All those descriptions do not provide the full > >>> meaning as well as a good understanding of the physics of F=ma. > >>> > >>> Enjoy, > >>> ed > >> > >> You and Odd have no idea of the relationship between mathematics and > >> science. The "elegance" of math does not create "elegance" in science > >> except in your fantasy world. Math is precise because it's DEFINED that > >> way. F=ma is NOT physics. It is mathematics! Describing mathematics in > >> words is NOT the same thing as describing the physics. Math is only a > >> MODEL of the reality. You (and Odd) somehow have developed the idea > >> (along with much of modern post-Einstein science) that math is more real > >> than reality. It is NOT. > > > > You have totally misunderstood what I said and reached > > (possibly deliberately) a false and misleading conclusion. > > > >> What is "acceleration"? It's not even a real > >> quanity. It is PURE fantasy. What does "times" mean? None of this is > >> physics. Physics would ask what is a force? What is mass? How do they > >> seem related. Until you get the physics knowing the math even in words > >> is meaningless. > > > > Sorry you are close, but no cigar. The mathematics and measurements > > are the elements that make modern physics. You cannot truly know the > > physics without at least some knowledge of the mathematics. > > > > Remember Lord Kelvin. > > ed > > You have misinterpreted what I'm saying (deliberately?). I did not say > mathematics was useless in science. However the statement that one can > only know physics if one knows mathematics is clearly wrong. You need both right Roy Masters... You don't have either... Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 20:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ppm6am$1emn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707047 |
On 10/10/2018 6:14 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 10/10/2018 11:59 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> benj >>>> “Proof? Odd's proof is he gets out textbooks and thumps them. It's his >>>> version of bible thumping. What's yours? ” >>>> ed and Odd are stuck in an epicycle >>>> >>> >>> Just grab any word handy that sounds awful. Lib, epicycle, polyunsaturated. >>> Something’s gonna stick, right? >>> >> Typical Odd. He thinks science is all about political debate. He thinks >> you do science by arguing about words. He's even worse than the people >> who think science is all about how complex and indecipherable your >> mathematics are. Odd doesn't even have mathematics. Just words. >> > > I don’t find mathematics indecipherable. Maybe you and John do. Maybe you > think this is somehow unfair, like John does. John wants no science that a > third grader can’t follow. > I have never heard you explain any of your so-called "science" either in words OR math. Einstein said one should be able to explain science to anyone. You can't explain your science to anyone who speaks both science AND math. YOU just then explain that by saying that THEY are uneducated and stupid. What is the flaw in your thinking? John at least understands the IDEA behind his theories. yeah, sometimes he's wrong, but at least he knows what the idea he had was. You on the other hand have NO ideas. You can't explain anything. For you it's all in details and jargon you've memorized. You just repeat what others have said without understanding a word of it. You are just like a lawyer in a courtroom where guilt or innocence does not matter, it's all about one's skill in using words to create arguments.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 00:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3476aa93-4863-4dd5-b2a0-6852f8c94fab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #707061 |
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 3:43:08 AM UTC+3, benj wrote: > On 10/10/2018 6:14 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 10/10/2018 11:59 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> benj > >>>> “Proof? Odd's proof is he gets out textbooks and thumps them. It's his > >>>> version of bible thumping. What's yours? ” > >>>> ed and Odd are stuck in an epicycle > >>>> > >>> > >>> Just grab any word handy that sounds awful. Lib, ep > >> who think science is all about how complex and indecipherable your > >> mathematics are. Odd doesn't even have mathematics. Just words. > >> > > > > I don’t find mathematics indecipherable. Maybe you and John do. Maybe you > > think this is somehow unfair, like John does. John wants no science that a > > third grader can’t follow. > > > I have never heard you explain any of your so-called "science" either in > > where guilt or innocence does not matter, it's all about one's skill in > using words to create arguments. ===================== the fact that you are blockhead parrot is not my fault !! you cant learn something new 2 what is for instance your big contributions to innovate anything ?? == TIA Y.P =================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 12:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppnfmc$1fa6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707061 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/10/2018 6:14 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 10/10/2018 11:59 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> benj >>>>> “Proof? Odd's proof is he gets out textbooks and thumps them. It's his >>>>> version of bible thumping. What's yours? ” >>>>> ed and Odd are stuck in an epicycle >>>>> >>>> >>>> Just grab any word handy that sounds awful. Lib, epicycle, polyunsaturated. >>>> Something’s gonna stick, right? >>>> >>> Typical Odd. He thinks science is all about political debate. He thinks >>> you do science by arguing about words. He's even worse than the people >>> who think science is all about how complex and indecipherable your >>> mathematics are. Odd doesn't even have mathematics. Just words. >>> >> >> I don’t find mathematics indecipherable. Maybe you and John do. Maybe you >> think this is somehow unfair, like John does. John wants no science that a >> third grader can’t follow. >> > I have never heard you explain any of your so-called "science" either in > words OR math. Einstein said one should be able to explain science to > anyone. To a barmaid. That’s what he said. Then he wrote a book on relativity to barmaids. It had a tiny bit of math in it. Let’s ask John whether he’s read or made sense of something written for barmaids. This should tell us something about John vs barmaids. > You can't explain your science to anyone who speaks both science > AND math. This is a discussion forum. This is not an explanation forum. Discussion is between people who know something about the subject. It isn’t for someone who knows something about the subject to explain it to someone who doesn’t. Now, you say you know something about physics and you speak math. Wonderful. What would you like to discuss? > YOU just then explain that by saying that THEY are uneducated > and stupid. What is the flaw in your thinking? John at least understands > the IDEA behind his theories. yeah, sometimes he's wrong, but at least > he knows what the idea he had was. You on the other hand have NO ideas. > You can't explain anything. For you it's all in details and jargon > you've memorized. You just repeat what others have said without > understanding a word of it. Bullshit. I think it’s fine to refer to what others have done. In case you notice, this is the pattern in science. Now, what would you like to discuss? > You are just like a lawyer in a courtroom > where guilt or innocence does not matter, it's all about one's skill in > using words to create arguments. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 12:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ppnuuo$cdr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707136 |
On 10/11/2018 8:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 10/10/2018 6:14 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 10/10/2018 11:59 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> benj >>>>>> “Proof? Odd's proof is he gets out textbooks and thumps them. It's his >>>>>> version of bible thumping. What's yours? ” >>>>>> ed and Odd are stuck in an epicycle >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Just grab any word handy that sounds awful. Lib, epicycle, polyunsaturated. >>>>> Something’s gonna stick, right? >>>>> >>>> Typical Odd. He thinks science is all about political debate. He thinks >>>> you do science by arguing about words. He's even worse than the people >>>> who think science is all about how complex and indecipherable your >>>> mathematics are. Odd doesn't even have mathematics. Just words. >>>> >>> >>> I don’t find mathematics indecipherable. Maybe you and John do. Maybe you >>> think this is somehow unfair, like John does. John wants no science that a >>> third grader can’t follow. >>> >> I have never heard you explain any of your so-called "science" either in >> words OR math. Einstein said one should be able to explain science to >> anyone. > > To a barmaid. That’s what he said. Then he wrote a book on relativity to > barmaids. It had a tiny bit of math in it. Let’s ask John whether he’s read > or made sense of something written for barmaids. This should tell us > something about John vs barmaids. > >> You can't explain your science to anyone who speaks both science >> AND math. > > This is a discussion forum. This is not an explanation forum. Discussion is > between people who know something about the subject. It isn’t for someone > who knows something about the subject to explain it to someone who doesn’t. > Now, you say you know something about physics and you speak math. > Wonderful. What would you like to discuss? So you think this is a literature and language discussion? Why can you never discuss the IDEAS of science. You obviously have no ideas about anything but words and lawyerly persuasion. That's not science. >> YOU just then explain that by saying that THEY are uneducated >> and stupid. What is the flaw in your thinking? John at least understands >> the IDEA behind his theories. yeah, sometimes he's wrong, but at least >> he knows what the idea he had was. You on the other hand have NO ideas. >> You can't explain anything. For you it's all in details and jargon >> you've memorized. You just repeat what others have said without >> understanding a word of it. > > Bullshit. I think it’s fine to refer to what others have done. In case you > notice, this is the pattern in science. Now, what would you like to > discuss? John puts forth science ideas for discussion. Discussion means a discussion of the evidence for or against the idea. To you it's all about a a big political debate over the meaning of jargon, what dogma your textbooks promote and name-calling in place of actual science. You are just a fool and a loser. >> You are just like a lawyer in a courtroom >> where guilt or innocence does not matter, it's all about one's skill in >> using words to create arguments. I was right about you the above and I say it again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 16:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppnvi4$dib$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707188 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/11/2018 8:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 10/10/2018 6:14 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 10/10/2018 11:59 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> benj >>>>>>> “Proof? Odd's proof is he gets out textbooks and thumps them. It's his >>>>>>> version of bible thumping. What's yours? ” >>>>>>> ed and Odd are stuck in an epicycle >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Just grab any word handy that sounds awful. Lib, epicycle, polyunsaturated. >>>>>> Something’s gonna stick, right? >>>>>> >>>>> Typical Odd. He thinks science is all about political debate. He thinks >>>>> you do science by arguing about words. He's even worse than the people >>>>> who think science is all about how complex and indecipherable your >>>>> mathematics are. Odd doesn't even have mathematics. Just words. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don’t find mathematics indecipherable. Maybe you and John do. Maybe you >>>> think this is somehow unfair, like John does. John wants no science that a >>>> third grader can’t follow. >>>> >>> I have never heard you explain any of your so-called "science" either in >>> words OR math. Einstein said one should be able to explain science to >>> anyone. >> >> To a barmaid. That’s what he said. Then he wrote a book on relativity to >> barmaids. It had a tiny bit of math in it. Let’s ask John whether he’s read >> or made sense of something written for barmaids. This should tell us >> something about John vs barmaids. >> >>> You can't explain your science to anyone who speaks both science >>> AND math. >> >> This is a discussion forum. This is not an explanation forum. Discussion is >> between people who know something about the subject. It isn’t for someone >> who knows something about the subject to explain it to someone who doesn’t. >> Now, you say you know something about physics and you speak math. >> Wonderful. What would you like to discuss? > > So you think this is a literature and language discussion? Why can you > never discuss the IDEAS of science. You obviously have no ideas about > anything but words and lawyerly persuasion. That's not science. Alright, what IDEA do you want to discuss? > >>> YOU just then explain that by saying that THEY are uneducated >>> and stupid. What is the flaw in your thinking? John at least understands >>> the IDEA behind his theories. yeah, sometimes he's wrong, but at least >>> he knows what the idea he had was. You on the other hand have NO ideas. >>> You can't explain anything. For you it's all in details and jargon >>> you've memorized. You just repeat what others have said without >>> understanding a word of it. >> >> Bullshit. I think it’s fine to refer to what others have done. In case you >> notice, this is the pattern in science. Now, what would you like to >> discuss? > > John puts forth science ideas for discussion. Discussion means a > discussion of the evidence for or against the idea. Evidence for or against an idea is usually quantitative, not just qualitative. This would involve calculations. How would you propose to discuss quantitative tests of ideas without using math? So which idea of John’s would you like to discuss? How about discussing what a fractal is, since he loves that word. > To you it's all > about a a big political debate over the meaning of jargon, what dogma > your textbooks promote and name-calling in place of actual science. You > are just a fool and a loser. > >>> You are just like a lawyer in a courtroom >>> where guilt or innocence does not matter, it's all about one's skill in >>> using words to create arguments. > > I was right about you the above and I say it again. > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 18:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b320b27c-6811-4aa2-85ce-085521b00bdd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #707190 |
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 7:59:55 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 10/11/2018 8:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On 10/10/2018 6:14 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On 10/10/2018 11:59 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> benj > >>>>>>> “Proof? Odd's proof is he gets out textbooks and thumps them. It's his > >>>>>>> version of bible thumping. What's yours? ” > >>>>>>> ed and Odd are stuck in an epicycle > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Just grab any word handy that sounds awful. Lib, epicycle, polyunsaturated. > >>>>>> Something’s gonna stick, right? > >>>>>> > >>>>> Typical Odd. He thinks science is all about political debate. He thinks > >>>>> you do science by arguing about words. He's even worse than the people > >>>>> who think science is all about how complex and indecipherable your > >>>>> mathematics are. Odd doesn't even have mathematics. Just words. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I don’t find mathematics indecipherable. Maybe you and John do. Maybe you > >>>> think this is somehow unfair, like John does. John wants no science that a > >>>> third grader can’t follow. > >>>> > >>> I have never heard you explain any of your so-called "science" either in > >>> words OR math. Einstein said one should be able to explain science to > >>> anyone. > >> > >> To a barmaid. That’s what he said. Then he wrote a book on relativity to > >> barmaids. It had a tiny bit of math in it. Let’s ask John whether he’s read > >> or made sense of something written for barmaids. This should tell us > >> something about John vs barmaids. > >> > >>> You can't explain your science to anyone who speaks both science > >>> AND math. > >> > >> This is a discussion forum. This is not an explanation forum. Discussion is > >> between people who know something about the subject. It isn’t for someone > >> who knows something about the subject to explain it to someone who doesn’t. > >> Now, you say you know something about physics and you speak math. > >> Wonderful. What would you like to discuss? > > > > So you think this is a literature and language discussion? Why can you > > never discuss the IDEAS of science. You obviously have no ideas about > > anything but words and lawyerly persuasion. That's not science. > > Alright, what IDEA do you want to discuss? > > > > >>> YOU just then explain that by saying that THEY are uneducated > >>> and stupid. What is the flaw in your thinking? John at least understands > >>> the IDEA behind his theories. yeah, sometimes he's wrong, but at least > >>> he knows what the idea he had was. You on the other hand have NO ideas. > >>> You can't explain anything. For you it's all in details and jargon > >>> you've memorized. You just repeat what others have said without > >>> understanding a word of it. > >> > >> Bullshit. I think it’s fine to refer to what others have done. In case you > >> notice, this is the pattern in science. Now, what would you like to > >> discuss? > > > > John puts forth science ideas for discussion. Discussion means a > > discussion of the evidence for or against the idea. > > Evidence for or against an idea is usually quantitative, not just > qualitative. This would involve calculations. How would you propose to > discuss quantitative tests of ideas without using math? > > So which idea of John’s would you like to discuss? How about discussing > what a fractal is, since he loves that word. > > > To you it's all > > about a a big political debate over the meaning of jargon, what dogma > > your textbooks promote and name-calling in place of actual science. You > > are just a fool and a loser. > > > >>> You are just like a lawyer in a courtroom > >>> where guilt or innocence does not matter, it's all about one's skill in > >>> using words to create arguments. > > > > I was right about you the above and I say it again. > > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables ========================== that crock has no ideas ! the only thing he has in mind is how to steal innovations andpublishit in his book publishing business == Y.P ========================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-12 13:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppq7gt$1sln$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707345 |
<poraty149@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 7:59:55 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 10/11/2018 8:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 10/10/2018 6:14 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/10/2018 11:59 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> benj >>>>>>>>> Proof? Odd's proof is he gets out textbooks and thumps them. It's his >>>>>>>>> version of bible thumping. What's yours? >>>>>>>>> ed and Odd are stuck in an epicycle >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just grab any word handy that sounds awful. Lib, epicycle, polyunsaturated. >>>>>>>> Somethings gonna stick, right? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Typical Odd. He thinks science is all about political debate. He thinks >>>>>>> you do science by arguing about words. He's even worse than the people >>>>>>> who think science is all about how complex and indecipherable your >>>>>>> mathematics are. Odd doesn't even have mathematics. Just words. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I dont find mathematics indecipherable. Maybe you and John do. Maybe you >>>>>> think this is somehow unfair, like John does. John wants no science that a >>>>>> third grader cant follow. >>>>>> >>>>> I have never heard you explain any of your so-called "science" either in >>>>> words OR math. Einstein said one should be able to explain science to >>>>> anyone. >>>> >>>> To a barmaid. Thats what he said. Then he wrote a book on relativity to >>>> barmaids. It had a tiny bit of math in it. Lets ask John whether hes read >>>> or made sense of something written for barmaids. This should tell us >>>> something about John vs barmaids. >>>> >>>>> You can't explain your science to anyone who speaks both science >>>>> AND math. >>>> >>>> This is a discussion forum. This is not an explanation forum. Discussion is >>>> between people who know something about the subject. It isnt for someone >>>> who knows something about the subject to explain it to someone who doesnt. >>>> Now, you say you know something about physics and you speak math. >>>> Wonderful. What would you like to discuss? >>> >>> So you think this is a literature and language discussion? Why can you >>> never discuss the IDEAS of science. You obviously have no ideas about >>> anything but words and lawyerly persuasion. That's not science. >> >> Alright, what IDEA do you want to discuss? >> >>> >>>>> YOU just then explain that by saying that THEY are uneducated >>>>> and stupid. What is the flaw in your thinking? John at least understands >>>>> the IDEA behind his theories. yeah, sometimes he's wrong, but at least >>>>> he knows what the idea he had was. You on the other hand have NO ideas. >>>>> You can't explain anything. For you it's all in details and jargon >>>>> you've memorized. You just repeat what others have said without >>>>> understanding a word of it. >>>> >>>> Bullshit. I think its fine to refer to what others have done. In case you >>>> notice, this is the pattern in science. Now, what would you like to >>>> discuss? >>> >>> John puts forth science ideas for discussion. Discussion means a >>> discussion of the evidence for or against the idea. >> >> Evidence for or against an idea is usually quantitative, not just >> qualitative. This would involve calculations. How would you propose to >> discuss quantitative tests of ideas without using math? >> >> So which idea of Johns would you like to discuss? How about discussing >> what a fractal is, since he loves that word. >> >>> To you it's all >>> about a a big political debate over the meaning of jargon, what dogma >>> your textbooks promote and name-calling in place of actual science. You >>> are just a fool and a loser. >>> >>>>> You are just like a lawyer in a courtroom >>>>> where guilt or innocence does not matter, it's all about one's skill in >>>>> using words to create arguments. >>> >>> I was right about you the above and I say it again. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > =========================that crock has no ideas ! > the only thing he has in mind is > how to steal innovations > andpublishit in his > book publishing business > =Y.P > ======================== > Wrong guy. I don’t have a book publishing business. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-12 07:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c5f1712c-6b8c-4322-8c35-2cb0f76a7e70@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #707408 |
On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 4:28:03 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <poraty149@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 7:59:55 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On 10/11/2018 8:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On 10/10/2018 6:14 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On 10/10/2018 11:59 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> benj > >>>>>>>>> Proof? Odd's proof is he gets out textbooks and thumps them. It's his > >>>>>>>>> version of bible thumping. What's yours? > >>>>>>>>> ed and Odd are stuck in an epicycle > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Just grab any word handy that sounds awful. Lib, epicycle, polyunsaturated. > >>>>>>>> Something s gonna stick, right? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Typical Odd. He thinks science is all about political debate. He thinks > >>>>>>> you do science by arguing about words. He's even worse than the people > >>>>>>> who think science is all about how complex and indecipherable your > >>>>>>> mathematics are. Odd doesn't even have mathematics. Just words. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > > >>> > >>> I was right about you the above and I say it again. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > =========================that crock has no ideas ! > > the only thing he has in mind is > > how to steal innovations > > andpublishit in his > > book publishing business > > =Y.P > > ======================== > > > > Wrong guy. I don’t have a book publishing business. ========================== nevermind that is not the main issue that is in my mind what is more important to me : did you understand my logic analysis that the very fact that there is a lot of movement movement is a prove that there is a lot of empty space in our universe i dont say if that empty space is i one big ''block or is or jn tiny pieces but still all accumulating together must be in huge ''end less''' quantities ? (indeed unprecedented ida- but still.....) ========================================== TIA Y.P ======================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-12 12:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ppqge8$dd4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707408 |
On 10/12/2018 9:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <poraty149@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 7:59:55 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 10/11/2018 8:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 10/10/2018 6:14 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/10/2018 11:59 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> benj >>>>>>>>>> Proof? Odd's proof is he gets out textbooks and thumps them. It's his >>>>>>>>>> version of bible thumping. What's yours? >>>>>>>>>> ed and Odd are stuck in an epicycle >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Just grab any word handy that sounds awful. Lib, epicycle, polyunsaturated. >>>>>>>>> Somethings gonna stick, right? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Typical Odd. He thinks science is all about political debate. He thinks >>>>>>>> you do science by arguing about words. He's even worse than the people >>>>>>>> who think science is all about how complex and indecipherable your >>>>>>>> mathematics are. Odd doesn't even have mathematics. Just words. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I dont find mathematics indecipherable. Maybe you and John do. Maybe you >>>>>>> think this is somehow unfair, like John does. John wants no science that a >>>>>>> third grader cant follow. >>>>>>> >>>>>> I have never heard you explain any of your so-called "science" either in >>>>>> words OR math. Einstein said one should be able to explain science to >>>>>> anyone. >>>>> >>>>> To a barmaid. Thats what he said. Then he wrote a book on relativity to >>>>> barmaids. It had a tiny bit of math in it. Lets ask John whether hes read >>>>> or made sense of something written for barmaids. This should tell us >>>>> something about John vs barmaids. >>>>> >>>>>> You can't explain your science to anyone who speaks both science >>>>>> AND math. >>>>> >>>>> This is a discussion forum. This is not an explanation forum. Discussion is >>>>> between people who know something about the subject. It isnt for someone >>>>> who knows something about the subject to explain it to someone who doesnt. >>>>> Now, you say you know something about physics and you speak math. >>>>> Wonderful. What would you like to discuss? >>>> >>>> So you think this is a literature and language discussion? Why can you >>>> never discuss the IDEAS of science. You obviously have no ideas about >>>> anything but words and lawyerly persuasion. That's not science. >>> >>> Alright, what IDEA do you want to discuss? >>> >>>> >>>>>> YOU just then explain that by saying that THEY are uneducated >>>>>> and stupid. What is the flaw in your thinking? John at least understands >>>>>> the IDEA behind his theories. yeah, sometimes he's wrong, but at least >>>>>> he knows what the idea he had was. You on the other hand have NO ideas. >>>>>> You can't explain anything. For you it's all in details and jargon >>>>>> you've memorized. You just repeat what others have said without >>>>>> understanding a word of it. >>>>> >>>>> Bullshit. I think its fine to refer to what others have done. In case you >>>>> notice, this is the pattern in science. Now, what would you like to >>>>> discuss? >>>> >>>> John puts forth science ideas for discussion. Discussion means a >>>> discussion of the evidence for or against the idea. >>> >>> Evidence for or against an idea is usually quantitative, not just >>> qualitative. This would involve calculations. How would you propose to >>> discuss quantitative tests of ideas without using math? >>> >>> So which idea of Johns would you like to discuss? How about discussing >>> what a fractal is, since he loves that word. >>> >>>> To you it's all >>>> about a a big political debate over the meaning of jargon, what dogma >>>> your textbooks promote and name-calling in place of actual science. You >>>> are just a fool and a loser. >>>> >>>>>> You are just like a lawyer in a courtroom >>>>>> where guilt or innocence does not matter, it's all about one's skill in >>>>>> using words to create arguments. >>>> >>>> I was right about you the above and I say it again. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> =========================that crock has no ideas ! >> the only thing he has in mind is >> how to steal innovations >> andpublishit in his >> book publishing business >> =Y.P >> ======================== >> > > Wrong guy. I don’t have a book publishing business. > He keeps saying this Porat, but it's a lie. Today is a new era where an accusation is all we need as proof of guilt. Odd is guilty!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-13 22:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Oct.13--10.38pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #707136 |
Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. Whenever you hear an "Einstein" quote you can be pretty sure it's fake.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-13 23:39 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. |
| Message-ID | <c6c1f4e1-51b9-4249-9240-70cb8086c71a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #707851 |
On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 8:38:57 AM UTC+3, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. ======================== not exactly!! about 'curved space'' he was not much more than a bar maid !!!! moreover IT IS IDIOTIC !!! --------------------------- SR is right ! E=mc^2 is more than right !! it is history !! we should be very selective !! =================================== TIA Y.Porat ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-14 14:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. |
| Message-ID | <ppvkqt$921$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707851 |
<Jeff-Relf.Me @.> wrote: > Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. > > Whenever you hear an "Einstein" quote you can be pretty sure it's fake. > Quite right! It was Rutherford who made that comment. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-14 08:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. |
| Message-ID | <25e2d2f7-eff7-41cd-979c-2036e7d802a4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #707899 |
Odd “Quite right! It was Rutherford who made that comment. ” And none of them thought the electron doesn’t rapidly orbit the nucleus. One of them, maybe Rutherford, said the electron ‘slows down’ at each end of its orbital, which is exactly what happens with orthogonal, in phase, 1:2 spin.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web