Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #697062 > unrolled thread
| Started by | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-08-05 02:13 -0400 |
| Last post | 2018-08-08 05:44 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 248 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 02:13 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-08-05 00:19 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tson Ylor <uo@srsysts.sd> - 2018-08-05 12:08 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-08-05 10:08 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 13:06 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 12:10 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 18:57 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:33 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 18:07 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 17:23 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 22:43 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 04:39 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 13:45 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 08:38 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 16:56 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 20:11 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 15:24 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 08:42 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-08 11:49 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 13:07 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 17:02 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 12:51 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 13:06 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 17:27 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 12:50 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 10:32 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 17:58 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 12:11 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 09:43 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-05 08:27 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tson Ylor <uo@srsysts.sg> - 2018-08-05 14:13 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 08:12 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 12:19 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 06:38 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 12:23 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tson Ylor <uo@srsysts.sg> - 2018-08-05 17:47 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:32 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hp> - 2018-08-06 18:05 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 17:15 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hn> - 2018-08-07 09:21 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-08-07 08:36 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 12:17 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 18:57 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 13:31 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 20:40 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 16:19 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-06 04:29 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:55 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:43 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 18:17 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 17:25 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 22:43 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 04:42 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 13:45 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 12:52 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 17:23 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 20:18 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-06 04:27 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 06:13 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:55 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-06 15:17 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 11:59 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:09 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-06 15:31 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:47 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-06 16:01 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 14:11 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-06 16:22 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 17:29 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-06 21:29 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 14:34 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-06 16:48 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-06 21:49 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-06 18:01 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 04:46 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 13:49 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 12:54 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 17:23 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 20:18 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 15:55 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 13:00 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 09:53 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 09:57 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 17:23 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 18:00 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 22:22 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 17:54 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 15:05 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 15:24 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 19:53 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-09 11:49 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 18:27 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 22:47 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 19:11 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 15:08 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 12:30 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 16:43 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 15:05 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 18:30 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 23:05 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-11 03:12 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-11 03:15 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-11 13:55 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 10:25 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 06:52 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-10 09:36 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-07 01:58 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 21:45 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 09:48 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-07 17:29 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 21:29 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 09:46 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 06:44 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:41 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:39 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-06 19:22 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 18:14 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 01:49 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 18:55 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 04:54 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-06 22:17 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-05 18:41 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-06 08:59 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 16:24 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-06 11:20 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 06:40 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 14:27 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-05 22:50 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:51 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-06 13:08 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-08-05 12:23 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 19:31 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-08-05 13:09 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-08-07 11:40 +1000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 01:49 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 04:53 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hn> - 2018-08-07 10:02 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-07 08:55 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 13:05 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-07 11:24 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 16:56 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 20:04 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-08 09:05 +0200
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-08-08 17:14 +1000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 10:34 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 07:45 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 11:18 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-08 20:16 +0200
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-08-09 09:15 +1000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 19:57 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-08-09 11:48 +1000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 11:02 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-08 11:08 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 13:23 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-08 20:26 +0200
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 14:52 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 20:06 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-09 10:15 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 12:48 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-11 23:37 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenvhw.ho> - 2018-08-12 11:31 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenvhw.ho> - 2018-08-12 11:34 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-12 10:09 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-12 21:29 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-13 10:53 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 11:41 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-15 18:56 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 17:24 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 14:32 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 13:22 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 18:59 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 20:19 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 00:59 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 06:33 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 11:33 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 08:53 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 16:00 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 09:19 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 16:46 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 10:30 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 20:54 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 14:13 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 13:43 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 20:54 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 13:37 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 10:52 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 20:54 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 11:17 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 12:09 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 20:58 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 15:19 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 22:33 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 15:55 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 14:11 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 07:22 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 15:56 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 11:03 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 18:32 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 14:21 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 00:15 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 17:35 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 02:38 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 02:54 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 19:15 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 14:01 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-19 22:20 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:29 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 16:31 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 15:44 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 21:57 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 20:02 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:21 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 00:15 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 22:03 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 20:05 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:39 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:22 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 19:44 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 16:30 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 00:15 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 22:01 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 14:01 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 12:39 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 18:35 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:12 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 19:44 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 20:15 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 05:43 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 07:23 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:25 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 15:38 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 16:06 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 02:38 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 20:54 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 15:24 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 20:01 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 23:55 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 10:58 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 15:26 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 12:36 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 17:53 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 12:21 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 21:49 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 19:28 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 15:08 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 07:01 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hn> - 2018-08-08 11:12 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 05:44 -0700
Page 8 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-07 16:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pkcivi$1uni$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697435 |
Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On 8/7/18 3:53 AM, benj wrote: >> Are you talking mathematics or physics? > > Both -- the mathematical structure of current physical theories and models. > >> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no charges and >> hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid of fields but actually is >> filled with an electric (an other types) of fields whose value is simply zero? > > Yes. Because if you believe Maxwell's equations apply, or if you believe that > QED applies, then you are FORCED to conclude there is a corresponding > electromagnetic field everywhere, including regions in which it is zero (which > really never happens). > > As I said before, this is INHERENT in what "field" means. > > Tom Roberts > To which Ben might reply that he knowingly rejects his training on how physicists define fields (which negates his frequent claim to status as a “trained scientist”), and is instead using a concept that appeals to his intuition and makes sense (to him). And that any scientist who does not share his idea of fields is either insane or a philosopher. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-07 20:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pkdc26$15qf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697435 |
On 8/7/2018 12:24 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 8/7/18 3:53 AM, benj wrote: >> Are you talking mathematics or physics? > > Both -- the mathematical structure of current physical theories and models. > >> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no >> charges and hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid of >> fields but actually is filled with an electric (an other types) of >> fields whose value is simply zero? > > Yes. Because if you believe Maxwell's equations apply, or if you believe > that QED applies, then you are FORCED to conclude there is a > corresponding electromagnetic field everywhere, including regions in > which it is zero (which really never happens). > > As I said before, this is INHERENT in what "field" means. > > Tom Roberts What you mean is that it is INHERENT in the definition what a vector field is, mathematically. (Note you must use the term vector field because otherwise the term can be confused with an algebraic field which is something else entirely, right?) A vector field starts with a region of some mathematical space and a vector quantity is assigned to each point (an infinite number of them) in that subspace. Therefore, by definition the vector field exists (assuming I have chosen to define one) even though all vectors at every point are zero. You and Odd win, right? Of course if I choose NOT to define a field in that space (reality is determined by my imagination, right?) then there is no field in that subspace only a coordinate system, unless I choose not to define one of those either, in which case there is no subspace existing at all and I win, right? Wrong. Mathematics is not more real than reality. In reality and in Maxwell theory in particular, the mathematics is only a model to describe what seems to be force field like phenomena produced by charges. People (Odd's textbooks) love to talk about "fields" as if they were real physical things. They are NOT. Forces are real, models are fantasy. Hence when charges are missing, there are no forces present in the subspace. People use the terminology that there are no "fields" there but as seen above that is mathematically wrong on several counts if someone has defined a null vector field there. And if a charge is suddenly placed in that subspace it is known that forces from it will NOT be measured immediately at a distance from it (unless we are talking ESP interactions) as the actions travel away from the source at velocity c. I certainly can DEFINE my "field" to not be present until that force arrives. My model. My fantasy. Generally people do this. In fact it's worse than this because EM fields are NOT quite the mathematical ones. Because forces must be measured with a "test" charge. And means there are interactions on both charges. So how can one define a "force field" from just a single charge? As Jackson points out, one must use a calculus-like limit operation to obtain that for the field values. And Lo, that means that all those values that you are using are in truth total fantasy and not reality at all because of that calculation! So now it's little wonder that genius Odd (and you) have decided that in your lib fantasy worlds what only what you can imagine is the only thing that is real? Needless to say this is the polar opposite of real science. Does this set you guys straight? Yeah, I didn't really think it would.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-08 09:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <692c18c1-cc4e-9c46-8e35-756a425e8693@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #697523 |
benj wrote: > On 8/7/2018 12:24 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 8/7/18 3:53 AM, benj wrote: >>> Are you talking mathematics or physics? >> Both -- the mathematical structure of current physical theories and models. >> >>> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no >>> charges and hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid of >>> fields but actually is filled with an electric (an other types) of >>> fields whose value is simply zero? >> >> Yes. Because if you believe Maxwell's equations apply, or if you believe >> that QED applies, then you are FORCED to conclude there is a >> corresponding electromagnetic field everywhere, including regions in >> which it is zero (which really never happens). >> >> As I said before, this is INHERENT in what "field" means. > > What you mean is that it is INHERENT in the definition what a vector > field is, mathematically. No, there are also scalar fields. For example, the temperature in a room at a certain time can be modeled as a scalar field. A vector has a magnitude and a direction. A temperature at a certain time in a certain place is not a vector, it is a scalar; it is a number (with a unit), and has no direction. (You could make it a vector field if you consider how much the temperature has changed instead or how much it differs from neighboring points [gradient field].) > (Note you must use the term vector field because otherwise the term > can be confused with an algebraic field which is something else entirely, > right?) Wrong. You have no clue what you are talking about. > A vector field starts with a region of some mathematical space No, it starts with a COMPLETE mathematical space. (You do not even know what that is, do you?) > and a vector quantity is assigned to each point (an infinite number of them) … of the SPACE. ONLY THEN the field is a vector field. If the quantity is NOT a vector (a rank-1 tensor), then the corresponding field is NOT a vector field. If the quantity is a scalar (a rank-0 tensor), then it is a SCALAR field. If the quantity is a matrix (a rank-2 tensor), then it is a MATRIX field. If the quantity is a tensor (a generalization that includes all of the above), then it is a TENSOR field. And so on. > in that subspace. No. BY DEFINITION, a field is EVERYWHERE (in that mathematical space). THEREFORE an INFINITE number of points (as you happened to state correctly). > [ex falso quodlibet] > > Does this set you guys straight? Yeah, I didn't really think it would. Only because it is all NONSENSE. You have only acquired decent HALF-WIT knowledge about things. When you get your knowledge only from Wikipedia articles, and I know that you did because in the places where you were correct you practically quoted Wikipedia, then you need to read those articles more carefully, COMPREHENSIVELY, or you will forever be producing only WORD SALAD. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-08 17:14 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fsvjj0FcqkhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #697523 |
On 8/08/2018 10:04 AM, benj wrote: > On 8/7/2018 12:24 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 8/7/18 3:53 AM, benj wrote: >>> Are you talking mathematics or physics? >> >> Both -- the mathematical structure of current physical theories and >> models. >> >>> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no >>> charges and hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid of >>> fields but actually is filled with an electric (an other types) of >>> fields whose value is simply zero? >> >> Yes. Because if you believe Maxwell's equations apply, or if you >> believe that QED applies, then you are FORCED to conclude there is a >> corresponding electromagnetic field everywhere, including regions in >> which it is zero (which really never happens). >> >> As I said before, this is INHERENT in what "field" means. >> >> Tom Roberts > > What you mean is that it is INHERENT in the definition what a vector > field is, mathematically. (Note you must use the term vector field > because otherwise the term can be confused with an algebraic field which > is something else entirely, right?) > > A vector field starts with a region of some mathematical space and a > vector quantity is assigned to each point (an infinite number of them) > in that subspace. Therefore, by definition the vector field exists > (assuming I have chosen to define one) even though all vectors at every > point are zero. You and Odd win, right? Of course if I choose NOT to > define a field in that space (reality is determined by my imagination, > right?) then there is no field in that subspace only a coordinate > system, unless I choose not to define one of those either, in which case > there is no subspace existing at all and I win, right? > > Wrong. Mathematics is not more real than reality. In reality and in > Maxwell theory in particular, the mathematics is only a model to > describe what seems to be force field like phenomena produced by > charges. People (Odd's textbooks) love to talk about "fields" as if they > were real physical things. They are NOT. Forces are real, models are > fantasy. Hence when charges are missing, there are no forces present in > the subspace. People use the terminology that there are no "fields" > there but as seen above that is mathematically wrong on several counts > if someone has defined a null vector field there. And if a charge is > suddenly placed in that subspace it is known that forces from it will > NOT be measured immediately at a distance from it (unless we are talking > ESP interactions) as the actions travel away from the source at velocity c. > > Forces are as much models as fields are. Can you grab a force, and take one home? All we ever have are models. Reality, if it exists, is forever out of our reach. Even what we think we're perceiving through our senses is nothing but an extrapolation that the brain makes based on models. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-08 10:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pkev1m$1i19$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697557 |
On 8/8/2018 3:14 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 8/08/2018 10:04 AM, benj wrote: >> On 8/7/2018 12:24 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 8/7/18 3:53 AM, benj wrote: >>>> Are you talking mathematics or physics? >>> >>> Both -- the mathematical structure of current physical theories and >>> models. >>> >>>> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no >>>> charges and hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid >>>> of fields but actually is filled with an electric (an other types) >>>> of fields whose value is simply zero? >>> >>> Yes. Because if you believe Maxwell's equations apply, or if you >>> believe that QED applies, then you are FORCED to conclude there is a >>> corresponding electromagnetic field everywhere, including regions in >>> which it is zero (which really never happens). >>> >>> As I said before, this is INHERENT in what "field" means. >>> >>> Tom Roberts >> >> What you mean is that it is INHERENT in the definition what a vector >> field is, mathematically. (Note you must use the term vector field >> because otherwise the term can be confused with an algebraic field >> which is something else entirely, right?) >> >> A vector field starts with a region of some mathematical space and a >> vector quantity is assigned to each point (an infinite number of them) >> in that subspace. Therefore, by definition the vector field exists >> (assuming I have chosen to define one) even though all vectors at >> every point are zero. You and Odd win, right? Of course if I choose >> NOT to define a field in that space (reality is determined by my >> imagination, right?) then there is no field in that subspace only a >> coordinate system, unless I choose not to define one of those either, >> in which case there is no subspace existing at all and I win, right? >> >> Wrong. Mathematics is not more real than reality. In reality and in >> Maxwell theory in particular, the mathematics is only a model to >> describe what seems to be force field like phenomena produced by >> charges. People (Odd's textbooks) love to talk about "fields" as if >> they were real physical things. They are NOT. Forces are real, models >> are fantasy. Hence when charges are missing, there are no forces >> present in the subspace. People use the terminology that there are no >> "fields" there but as seen above that is mathematically wrong on >> several counts if someone has defined a null vector field there. And >> if a charge is suddenly placed in that subspace it is known that >> forces from it will NOT be measured immediately at a distance from it >> (unless we are talking ESP interactions) as the actions travel away >> from the source at velocity c. >> >> > > Forces are as much models as fields are. Can you grab a force, and take > one home? > > All we ever have are models. Reality, if it exists, is forever out of > our reach. Even what we think we're perceiving through our senses is > nothing but an extrapolation that the brain makes based on models. > > Sylvia. Oh so you really have no training in science and are a liberal journalist who believes that all reality exists ONLY in your imagination and drug-soaked fantasies. Well, welcome to the crowd. That describes nearly all of those here pretending to discuss science. Forces can be MODELED but they are not models. Forces can move your silly ass. Mathematics exists only in fantasy. While it is true we do not have direct access to our optical and other sensor arrays and therefore perceive the data as algorithmic output, that does not imply that reality only exists as algorithmic fantasy. Although glasses provide algorithmic transformation of the images coming to your eyes, putting on your glasses does not mean that the world out there is now total fantasy. Are you one of those "the moon does not exist until somebody looks at it" idiots? Mathematics is not more real than reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-08 07:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <146ca311-71c0-46f0-a757-09396e0cf826@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #697574 |
benj “Are you one of those "the moon does not exist until somebody looks at it" idiots? “ What about when the smell of rotting cat comes out of the box?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-08 11:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pkf1jt$1mue$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697578 |
On 8/8/2018 10:45 AM, john wrote: > benj > “Are you one of those "the moon does not exist until > somebody looks at it" idiots? “ > What about when the smell of rotting cat comes out of the box? :-) Sorry John, but modern physics has proved that there will be no rotting cat smell until the cat wavefunctions "collapse"! Then everyone can puke.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-08 20:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <73d2a69c-a7db-e7cf-67dc-d2e683889b45@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #697574 |
benj amok-crossposted nonsense: > On 8/8/2018 3:14 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> Forces are as much models as fields are. Can you grab a force, and take >> one home? >> >> All we ever have are models. Reality, if it exists, is forever out of >> our reach. Even what we think we're perceiving through our senses is >> nothing but an extrapolation that the brain makes based on models. > > Oh so you really have no training in science and are a liberal > journalist who believes that all reality exists ONLY in your imagination > and drug-soaked fantasies. […] ObRelativity: ,-<https://www.britannica.com/topic/Albert-Einstein-on-Space-Time-1987141> | | […] | | SPACE-TIME | | All our thoughts and concepts are called up by sense-experiences and have | a meaning only in reference to these sense-experiences. On the other hand, | however, they are products of the spontaneous activity of our minds; they | are thus in no wise logical consequences of the contents of these sense | experiences. If, therefore, we wish to grasp the essence of a complex of | abstract notions we must for the one part investigate the mutual | relationships between the concepts and the assertions made about them; for | the other, we must investigate how they are related to the experiences. | | […] I am aware that this will probably not convince you either that you have multiple misconceptions. But it nicely shows how very wrong you are when cluelessly labeling people “liberal journalists” (as if that would be an insult). F’up2 .relativity -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-09 09:15 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ft1bt1Fpgr4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #697574 |
On 9/08/2018 12:34 AM, benj wrote: > On 8/8/2018 3:14 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 8/08/2018 10:04 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 8/7/2018 12:24 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>> On 8/7/18 3:53 AM, benj wrote: >>>>> Are you talking mathematics or physics? >>>> >>>> Both -- the mathematical structure of current physical theories and >>>> models. >>>> >>>>> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no >>>>> charges and hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid >>>>> of fields but actually is filled with an electric (an other types) >>>>> of fields whose value is simply zero? >>>> >>>> Yes. Because if you believe Maxwell's equations apply, or if you >>>> believe that QED applies, then you are FORCED to conclude there is a >>>> corresponding electromagnetic field everywhere, including regions in >>>> which it is zero (which really never happens). >>>> >>>> As I said before, this is INHERENT in what "field" means. >>>> >>>> Tom Roberts >>> >>> What you mean is that it is INHERENT in the definition what a vector >>> field is, mathematically. (Note you must use the term vector field >>> because otherwise the term can be confused with an algebraic field >>> which is something else entirely, right?) >>> >>> A vector field starts with a region of some mathematical space and a >>> vector quantity is assigned to each point (an infinite number of them) >>> in that subspace. Therefore, by definition the vector field exists >>> (assuming I have chosen to define one) even though all vectors at >>> every point are zero. You and Odd win, right? Of course if I choose >>> NOT to define a field in that space (reality is determined by my >>> imagination, right?) then there is no field in that subspace only a >>> coordinate system, unless I choose not to define one of those either, >>> in which case there is no subspace existing at all and I win, right? >>> >>> Wrong. Mathematics is not more real than reality. In reality and in >>> Maxwell theory in particular, the mathematics is only a model to >>> describe what seems to be force field like phenomena produced by >>> charges. People (Odd's textbooks) love to talk about "fields" as if >>> they were real physical things. They are NOT. Forces are real, models >>> are fantasy. Hence when charges are missing, there are no forces >>> present in the subspace. People use the terminology that there are no >>> "fields" there but as seen above that is mathematically wrong on >>> several counts if someone has defined a null vector field there. And >>> if a charge is suddenly placed in that subspace it is known that >>> forces from it will NOT be measured immediately at a distance from it >>> (unless we are talking ESP interactions) as the actions travel away >>> from the source at velocity c. >>> >>> >> >> Forces are as much models as fields are. Can you grab a force, and >> take one home? >> >> All we ever have are models. Reality, if it exists, is forever out of >> our reach. Even what we think we're perceiving through our senses is >> nothing but an extrapolation that the brain makes based on models. >> >> Sylvia. > > Oh so you really have no training in science and are a liberal > journalist who believes that all reality exists ONLY in your imagination > and drug-soaked fantasies. Well, welcome to the crowd. That describes > nearly all of those here pretending to discuss science. > > Forces can be MODELED but they are not models. Forces can move your > silly ass. Mathematics exists only in fantasy. While it is true we do > not have direct access to our optical and other sensor arrays and > therefore perceive the data as algorithmic output, that does not imply > that reality only exists as algorithmic fantasy. Although glasses > provide algorithmic transformation of the images coming to your eyes, > putting on your glasses does not mean that the world out there is now > total fantasy. Are you one of those "the moon does not exist until > somebody looks at it" idiots? > > Mathematics is not more real than reality. > If you're going to engage in straw man argument and abuse, I can't be bothered with you. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-08 19:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pkg01c$19jp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697650 |
On 8/8/2018 7:15 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 9/08/2018 12:34 AM, benj wrote: >> On 8/8/2018 3:14 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 8/08/2018 10:04 AM, benj wrote: >>>> On 8/7/2018 12:24 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>> On 8/7/18 3:53 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>> Are you talking mathematics or physics? >>>>> >>>>> Both -- the mathematical structure of current physical theories and >>>>> models. >>>>> >>>>>> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no >>>>>> charges and hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid >>>>>> of fields but actually is filled with an electric (an other types) >>>>>> of fields whose value is simply zero? >>>>> >>>>> Yes. Because if you believe Maxwell's equations apply, or if you >>>>> believe that QED applies, then you are FORCED to conclude there is >>>>> a corresponding electromagnetic field everywhere, including regions >>>>> in which it is zero (which really never happens). >>>>> >>>>> As I said before, this is INHERENT in what "field" means. >>>>> >>>>> Tom Roberts >>>> >>>> What you mean is that it is INHERENT in the definition what a vector >>>> field is, mathematically. (Note you must use the term vector field >>>> because otherwise the term can be confused with an algebraic field >>>> which is something else entirely, right?) >>>> >>>> A vector field starts with a region of some mathematical space and a >>>> vector quantity is assigned to each point (an infinite number of them) >>>> in that subspace. Therefore, by definition the vector field exists >>>> (assuming I have chosen to define one) even though all vectors at >>>> every point are zero. You and Odd win, right? Of course if I choose >>>> NOT to define a field in that space (reality is determined by my >>>> imagination, right?) then there is no field in that subspace only a >>>> coordinate system, unless I choose not to define one of those >>>> either, in which case there is no subspace existing at all and I >>>> win, right? >>>> >>>> Wrong. Mathematics is not more real than reality. In reality and in >>>> Maxwell theory in particular, the mathematics is only a model to >>>> describe what seems to be force field like phenomena produced by >>>> charges. People (Odd's textbooks) love to talk about "fields" as if >>>> they were real physical things. They are NOT. Forces are real, >>>> models are fantasy. Hence when charges are missing, there are no >>>> forces present in the subspace. People use the terminology that >>>> there are no "fields" there but as seen above that is mathematically >>>> wrong on several counts if someone has defined a null vector field >>>> there. And if a charge is suddenly placed in that subspace it is >>>> known that forces from it will NOT be measured immediately at a >>>> distance from it (unless we are talking ESP interactions) as the >>>> actions travel away from the source at velocity c. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Forces are as much models as fields are. Can you grab a force, and >>> take one home? >>> >>> All we ever have are models. Reality, if it exists, is forever out of >>> our reach. Even what we think we're perceiving through our senses is >>> nothing but an extrapolation that the brain makes based on models. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> Oh so you really have no training in science and are a liberal >> journalist who believes that all reality exists ONLY in your >> imagination and drug-soaked fantasies. Well, welcome to the crowd. >> That describes nearly all of those here pretending to discuss science. >> >> Forces can be MODELED but they are not models. Forces can move your >> silly ass. Mathematics exists only in fantasy. While it is true we do >> not have direct access to our optical and other sensor arrays and >> therefore perceive the data as algorithmic output, that does not imply >> that reality only exists as algorithmic fantasy. Although glasses >> provide algorithmic transformation of the images coming to your eyes, >> putting on your glasses does not mean that the world out there is now >> total fantasy. Are you one of those "the moon does not exist until >> somebody looks at it" idiots? >> >> Mathematics is not more real than reality. >> > > If you're going to engage in straw man argument and abuse, I can't be > bothered with you. > > Sylvia. Translation. You have nothing so you turn tail and run. (As you will recall (but certainly will lie about and deny) the abuse was started by YOU, If you can't stand the heat then get out of the kitchen and get a career in government)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-09 11:48 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ft1kqgFr7u9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #697658 |
On 9/08/2018 9:57 AM, benj wrote: > On 8/8/2018 7:15 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 9/08/2018 12:34 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 8/8/2018 3:14 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 8/08/2018 10:04 AM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 8/7/2018 12:24 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>> On 8/7/18 3:53 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>> Are you talking mathematics or physics? >>>>>> >>>>>> Both -- the mathematical structure of current physical theories >>>>>> and models. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no >>>>>>> charges and hence produces no forces on test charges is not >>>>>>> devoid of fields but actually is filled with an electric (an >>>>>>> other types) of fields whose value is simply zero? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. Because if you believe Maxwell's equations apply, or if you >>>>>> believe that QED applies, then you are FORCED to conclude there is >>>>>> a corresponding electromagnetic field everywhere, including >>>>>> regions in which it is zero (which really never happens). >>>>>> >>>>>> As I said before, this is INHERENT in what "field" means. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tom Roberts >>>>> >>>>> What you mean is that it is INHERENT in the definition what a >>>>> vector field is, mathematically. (Note you must use the term vector >>>>> field because otherwise the term can be confused with an algebraic >>>>> field which is something else entirely, right?) >>>>> >>>>> A vector field starts with a region of some mathematical space and >>>>> a vector quantity is assigned to each point (an infinite number of >>>>> them) >>>>> in that subspace. Therefore, by definition the vector field exists >>>>> (assuming I have chosen to define one) even though all vectors at >>>>> every point are zero. You and Odd win, right? Of course if I choose >>>>> NOT to define a field in that space (reality is determined by my >>>>> imagination, right?) then there is no field in that subspace only a >>>>> coordinate system, unless I choose not to define one of those >>>>> either, in which case there is no subspace existing at all and I >>>>> win, right? >>>>> >>>>> Wrong. Mathematics is not more real than reality. In reality and in >>>>> Maxwell theory in particular, the mathematics is only a model to >>>>> describe what seems to be force field like phenomena produced by >>>>> charges. People (Odd's textbooks) love to talk about "fields" as if >>>>> they were real physical things. They are NOT. Forces are real, >>>>> models are fantasy. Hence when charges are missing, there are no >>>>> forces present in the subspace. People use the terminology that >>>>> there are no "fields" there but as seen above that is >>>>> mathematically wrong on several counts if someone has defined a >>>>> null vector field there. And if a charge is suddenly placed in that >>>>> subspace it is known that forces from it will NOT be measured >>>>> immediately at a distance from it (unless we are talking ESP >>>>> interactions) as the actions travel away from the source at >>>>> velocity c. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Forces are as much models as fields are. Can you grab a force, and >>>> take one home? >>>> >>>> All we ever have are models. Reality, if it exists, is forever out >>>> of our reach. Even what we think we're perceiving through our senses >>>> is nothing but an extrapolation that the brain makes based on models. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> Oh so you really have no training in science and are a liberal >>> journalist who believes that all reality exists ONLY in your >>> imagination and drug-soaked fantasies. Well, welcome to the crowd. >>> That describes nearly all of those here pretending to discuss science. >>> >>> Forces can be MODELED but they are not models. Forces can move your >>> silly ass. Mathematics exists only in fantasy. While it is true we do >>> not have direct access to our optical and other sensor arrays and >>> therefore perceive the data as algorithmic output, that does not >>> imply that reality only exists as algorithmic fantasy. Although >>> glasses provide algorithmic transformation of the images coming to >>> your eyes, putting on your glasses does not mean that the world out >>> there is now total fantasy. Are you one of those "the moon does not >>> exist until somebody looks at it" idiots? >>> >>> Mathematics is not more real than reality. >>> >> >> If you're going to engage in straw man argument and abuse, I can't be >> bothered with you. >> >> Sylvia. > > Translation. You have nothing so you turn tail and run. > > (As you will recall (but certainly will lie about and deny) the abuse > was started by YOU, If you can't stand the heat then get out of the > kitchen and get a career in government) Yeah, that might have worked with a teenager. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-09 11:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pkhl26$ari$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697667 |
On 8/8/2018 9:48 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 9/08/2018 9:57 AM, benj wrote: >> On 8/8/2018 7:15 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 9/08/2018 12:34 AM, benj wrote: >>>> On 8/8/2018 3:14 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> On 8/08/2018 10:04 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>> On 8/7/2018 12:24 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/7/18 3:53 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>> Are you talking mathematics or physics? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Both -- the mathematical structure of current physical theories >>>>>>> and models. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no >>>>>>>> charges and hence produces no forces on test charges is not >>>>>>>> devoid of fields but actually is filled with an electric (an >>>>>>>> other types) of fields whose value is simply zero? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes. Because if you believe Maxwell's equations apply, or if you >>>>>>> believe that QED applies, then you are FORCED to conclude there >>>>>>> is a corresponding electromagnetic field everywhere, including >>>>>>> regions in which it is zero (which really never happens). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As I said before, this is INHERENT in what "field" means. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tom Roberts >>>>>> >>>>>> What you mean is that it is INHERENT in the definition what a >>>>>> vector field is, mathematically. (Note you must use the term >>>>>> vector field because otherwise the term can be confused with an >>>>>> algebraic field which is something else entirely, right?) >>>>>> >>>>>> A vector field starts with a region of some mathematical space and >>>>>> a vector quantity is assigned to each point (an infinite number of >>>>>> them) >>>>>> in that subspace. Therefore, by definition the vector field exists >>>>>> (assuming I have chosen to define one) even though all vectors at >>>>>> every point are zero. You and Odd win, right? Of course if I >>>>>> choose NOT to define a field in that space (reality is determined >>>>>> by my imagination, right?) then there is no field in that subspace >>>>>> only a coordinate system, unless I choose not to define one of >>>>>> those either, in which case there is no subspace existing at all >>>>>> and I win, right? >>>>>> >>>>>> Wrong. Mathematics is not more real than reality. In reality and >>>>>> in Maxwell theory in particular, the mathematics is only a model >>>>>> to describe what seems to be force field like phenomena produced >>>>>> by charges. People (Odd's textbooks) love to talk about "fields" >>>>>> as if they were real physical things. They are NOT. Forces are >>>>>> real, models are fantasy. Hence when charges are missing, there >>>>>> are no forces present in the subspace. People use the terminology >>>>>> that there are no "fields" there but as seen above that is >>>>>> mathematically wrong on several counts if someone has defined a >>>>>> null vector field there. And if a charge is suddenly placed in >>>>>> that subspace it is known that forces from it will NOT be measured >>>>>> immediately at a distance from it (unless we are talking ESP >>>>>> interactions) as the actions travel away from the source at >>>>>> velocity c. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Forces are as much models as fields are. Can you grab a force, and >>>>> take one home? >>>>> >>>>> All we ever have are models. Reality, if it exists, is forever out >>>>> of our reach. Even what we think we're perceiving through our >>>>> senses is nothing but an extrapolation that the brain makes based >>>>> on models. >>>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>>> Oh so you really have no training in science and are a liberal >>>> journalist who believes that all reality exists ONLY in your >>>> imagination and drug-soaked fantasies. Well, welcome to the crowd. >>>> That describes nearly all of those here pretending to discuss science. >>>> >>>> Forces can be MODELED but they are not models. Forces can move your >>>> silly ass. Mathematics exists only in fantasy. While it is true we >>>> do not have direct access to our optical and other sensor arrays and >>>> therefore perceive the data as algorithmic output, that does not >>>> imply that reality only exists as algorithmic fantasy. Although >>>> glasses provide algorithmic transformation of the images coming to >>>> your eyes, putting on your glasses does not mean that the world out >>>> there is now total fantasy. Are you one of those "the moon does not >>>> exist until somebody looks at it" idiots? >>>> >>>> Mathematics is not more real than reality. >>>> >>> >>> If you're going to engage in straw man argument and abuse, I can't be >>> bothered with you. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> Translation. You have nothing so you turn tail and run. >> >> (As you will recall (but certainly will lie about and deny) the abuse >> was started by YOU, If you can't stand the heat then get out of the >> kitchen and get a career in government) > > Yeah, that might have worked with a teenager. > > Sylvia. Total avoidance of all salient questions noted. (Especially the one of who began the abuse) So how old are you anyway? Don't worry. In just a short time both you and Nads will be teens!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-08 11:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ibCdnZPZuekUiPbGnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #697523 |
On 8/7/18 7:04 PM, benj wrote: > On 8/7/2018 12:24 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 8/7/18 3:53 AM, benj wrote: >>> Are you talking mathematics or physics? >> Both -- the mathematical structure of current physical theories and models. >>> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no charges and >>> hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid of fields but actually >>> is filled with an electric (an other types) of fields whose value is simply >>> zero? >> Yes. Because if you believe Maxwell's equations apply, or if you believe that >> QED applies, then you are FORCED to conclude there is a corresponding >> electromagnetic field everywhere, including regions in which it is zero (which >> really never happens). >> >> As I said before, this is INHERENT in what "field" means. > > What you mean is that it is INHERENT in the definition what a vector field is, > mathematically. No. There are fields other than vector fields; I gave examples earlier. > (Note you must use the term vector field because otherwise the > term can be confused with an algebraic field which is something else entirely, > right?) Not in this context, which is physics and the mathematics of physics. The word also won't be confused with a flat area on which a farmer grows wheat. Context matters. > A vector field starts with a region of some mathematical space and a vector > quantity is assigned to each point (an infinite number of them) > in that subspace. Hmmm. A vector field is actually A LOT more complicated than that, but the details don't matter. Ditto for scalar and tensor fields.... > [... more nonsense] > Mathematics is not more real than reality. Hmmm. You don't know what "reality" is. All you know, and all you CAN know, is various MODELS of reality. Mathematics is the same "level" as your models of reality -- i.e. both are pure thought. A map is a representation of a model; the model itself comes alive in your mind when you look at the map and think about it. > In reality and in Maxwell > theory in particular, the mathematics is only a model to describe what seems to > be force field like phenomena produced by charges. People (Odd's textbooks) love > to talk about "fields" as if they were real physical things. They are NOT. Of course not -- but they have a name, and that ineluctably means they are part of some model. But it is conventional to not bother mentioning "in the model" in every sentence, because such pedantry would obscure more important things being discussed. > Forces are real, models are fantasy. Forces are PART OF THE MODEL. Models of the world are not mere "fantasy", because they are supported by and derived from experimental observations of the world. You cannot find your bed at night without a (mental) model of your domicile -- you mentally traverse the model from where you are currently located to your bed, and then manipulate your body to follow that path. Where do you think that model came from? How accurately do you think that model corresponds to the real world? (For instance, does your model include each and every atom of each and every object?) Here's a general rule: if something has a name, it is part of a model, even though it may be modeling some aspect of the world. > [... more nonsense] > I certainly can DEFINE my "field" to not be present until that force arrives. But then you cannot expect other people to understand your private definitions. Language has two purposes: 1) to assist us in thinking about ideas, and 2) to communicate those ideas to others. By just making stuff up like this you compromise BOTH -- your "thinking" here is quite fuzzy. > [... more nonsense] > Forces can be MODELED but they are not models. Forces can move your silly ass. Hmmm. AS USUAL, you are mixing up model and world. We all do that, because keeping them straight would involve so many circumlocutions and pedantic interjections that thinking and communication would be so bogged down and encumbered in minutiae and irrelevancies that they become essentially impossible. Forces are part of the model, even though the phenomena to which they correspond in the world "can move your silly ass". See the above general rule. Ask yourself: HOW would you think about or discuss whatever it is that "can move your silly ass", WITHOUT words and WITHOUT a model. You will find that you cannot do so -- all you can discuss are models, because all your mind can process is thoughts (including the words corresponding to those thoughts). Thoughts are NOT something that "can move your silly ass", but they can model such somethings. (Thoughts can also induce you to manipulate your body to "move your silly ass", but that is quite different.) Note this includes my 'whatever it is that "can move your silly ass"' -- THINK about which model that belongs to.... Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-08 13:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pkf8ul$4ok$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697590 |
On 8/8/2018 12:08 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 8/7/18 7:04 PM, benj wrote: >> On 8/7/2018 12:24 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 8/7/18 3:53 AM, benj wrote: >>>> Are you talking mathematics or physics? >>> Both -- the mathematical structure of current physical theories and >>> models. >>>> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no >>>> charges and hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid >>>> of fields but actually is filled with an electric (an other types) >>>> of fields whose value is simply zero? >>> Yes. Because if you believe Maxwell's equations apply, or if you >>> believe that QED applies, then you are FORCED to conclude there is a >>> corresponding electromagnetic field everywhere, including regions in >>> which it is zero (which really never happens). >>> >>> As I said before, this is INHERENT in what "field" means. >> >> What you mean is that it is INHERENT in the definition what a vector >> field is, mathematically. > > No. There are fields other than vector fields; I gave examples earlier. Stop thinking what you are going to say next and read what people are writing. >> (Note you must use the term vector field because otherwise the term >> can be confused with an algebraic field which is something else >> entirely, right?) > > Not in this context, which is physics and the mathematics of physics. > The word also won't be confused with a flat area on which a farmer grows > wheat. Context matters. Nonsense babble. >> A vector field starts with a region of some mathematical space and a >> vector quantity is assigned to each point (an infinite number of them) >> in that subspace. > > Hmmm. A vector field is actually A LOT more complicated than that, but > the details don't matter. Ditto for scalar and tensor fields.... Trying to show off how much you know rather than discussing the issue in question? Nobody cares what you know.l >> [... more nonsense] > >> Mathematics is not more real than reality. > > Hmmm. You don't know what "reality" is. All you know, and all you CAN > know, is various MODELS of reality. Mathematics is the same "level" as > your models of reality -- i.e. both are pure thought. So you think reality is "pure thought". What a liberal viewpoint! And what is your evidence that no material reality actually exists? None. The fact that reality cannot be precisely nailed down at present is no prove it does not exist. Odd can never be precisely nailed down but I'm pretty sure he exists. So you are convinced that ESP astral planes and all the rest truly exist, right? So if everything is "pure thought" then what does "pure thought" consist of? > A map is a representation of a model; the model itself comes > alive in your mind when you look at the map and think about it. And thus te model is reality once you look at it and think about it. That is real "science" for sure. >> In reality and in Maxwell theory in particular, the mathematics is >> only a model to describe what seems to be force field like phenomena >> produced by charges. People (Odd's textbooks) love to talk about >> "fields" as if they were real physical things. They are NOT. > > Of course not -- but they have a name, and that ineluctably means they > are part of some model. But it is conventional to not bother mentioning > "in the model" in every sentence, because such pedantry would obscure > more important things being discussed. I already made this point if you were to listen instead of try to show how much you "know". And yes, the underlying definitions ARE taken to be "understood" without repeating them, The problem is when people start to to forget the assumptions and leap to erroneous conclusions. >> Forces are real, models are fantasy. > > Forces are PART OF THE MODEL. Models of the world are not mere > "fantasy", because they are supported by and derived from experimental > observations of the world. Yes the goal is to make the models reflect reality as closely as possible, and none are ever perfect (so far). So how does that mean that reality is only a figment of your imagination? > You cannot find your bed at night without a (mental) model of > your domicile -- you mentally traverse the model from where > you are currently located to your bed, and then manipulate > your body to follow that path. Where do you think that model > came from? How accurately do you think that model corresponds > to the real world? (For instance, does your model include each > and every atom of each and every object?) So that means my bed is only a figment of my imagination? How nuts are you? > Here's a general rule: if something has a name, it is part of a model, > even though it may be modeling some aspect of the world. Wait a minute. Now you are saying there are models and the "world". A second ago you said there was no world, only models. Babbling drool. >> [... more nonsense] >> I certainly can DEFINE my "field" to not be present until that force >> arrives. > > But then you cannot expect other people to understand your private > definitions. No, but does that make my fantasy "reality" any less valid than yours? I'm sure according to your theories all fantasies are equally valid. > Language has two purposes: 1) to assist us in thinking about ideas, and > 2) to communicate those ideas to others. By just making stuff up like > this you compromise BOTH -- your "thinking" here is quite fuzzy. > >> [... more nonsense] > >> Forces can be MODELED but they are not models. Forces can move your >> silly ass. > > Hmmm. AS USUAL, you are mixing up model and world. We all do that, > because keeping them straight would involve so many circumlocutions and > pedantic interjections that thinking and communication would be so > bogged down and encumbered in minutiae and irrelevancies that they > become essentially impossible. No, YOU are mixing them up because YOU think that models ARE the world. That is patent nonsense. > Forces are part of the model, even though the phenomena to which they > correspond in the world "can move your silly ass". See the above general > rule. > > Ask yourself: HOW would you think about or discuss whatever it > is that "can move your silly ass", WITHOUT words and WITHOUT a > model. You will find that you cannot do so -- all you can discuss > are models, because all your mind can process is thoughts > (including the words corresponding to those thoughts). Thoughts > are NOT something that "can move your silly ass", but they can > model such somethings. (Thoughts can also induce you to manipulate > your body to "move your silly ass", but that is quite different.) > > Note this includes my 'whatever it is that "can move your silly > ass"' -- THINK about which model that belongs to.... A force on your ass is NOT caused by a model. The Model can help "explain" the force and it's effects but is certainly is NOT the force unless you agree that psychokinesis is real and thoughts can can bend spoons and cause forces. You accept that idea, right? > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-08 20:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1977138d-1a40-e9a9-3a87-a6d771283776@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #697609 |
benj wrote: > On 8/8/2018 12:08 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 8/7/18 7:04 PM, benj wrote: >>> What you mean is that it is INHERENT in the definition what a vector >>> field is, mathematically. >> No. There are fields other than vector fields; I gave examples earlier. > > Stop thinking what you are going to say next and read what people are > writing. What you wrote was wrong, period. A reasonable person would accept the possibility of having been wrong and learn from it, so as not to repeat the same mistake in the future. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-08 14:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <036eb832-a023-48c2-bc86-39a437885757@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #697609 |
On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 1:23:39 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 8/8/2018 12:08 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > > Hmmm. You don't know what "reality" is. All you know, and all you CAN > > know, is various MODELS of reality. Mathematics is the same "level" as > > your models of reality -- i.e. both are pure thought. > > So you think reality is "pure thought". What a liberal viewpoint! And > what is your evidence that no material reality actually exists? None. > The fact that reality cannot be precisely nailed down at present is no > prove it does not exist. Odd can never be precisely nailed down but I'm > pretty sure he exists. So you are convinced that ESP astral planes and > all the rest truly exist, right? So if everything is "pure thought" then > what does "pure thought" consist of? “You’re very sure of your facts,” he said at last, “I couldn’t trust the thinking of a man who takes the Universe – if there is one – for granted.” Enjoy, Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-08 20:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pkg0hj$1abh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697639 |
On 8/8/2018 5:52 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 1:23:39 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: >> On 8/8/2018 12:08 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > >>> Hmmm. You don't know what "reality" is. All you know, and all you CAN >>> know, is various MODELS of reality. Mathematics is the same "level" as >>> your models of reality -- i.e. both are pure thought. >> >> So you think reality is "pure thought". What a liberal viewpoint! And >> what is your evidence that no material reality actually exists? None. >> The fact that reality cannot be precisely nailed down at present is no >> prove it does not exist. Odd can never be precisely nailed down but I'm >> pretty sure he exists. So you are convinced that ESP astral planes and >> all the rest truly exist, right? So if everything is "pure thought" then >> what does "pure thought" consist of? > > “You’re very sure of your facts,” he said at last, “I couldn’t trust the thinking of a man who takes the Universe – if there is one – for granted.” > > > Enjoy, > Ed > Dude! Go on the Tube and listen to Scott Adams (Dilbert creator) giving his exposition of doing mushrooms and having a vision where what you think is reality suddenly merges with what is "behind" that reality while that objective reality still exists you also see the fantasy that creates it. He said it becomes clear that there is no reality except the fantasies in your own head! Yeah, mushroom induced hallucinations. Now that is what REALLY explains physics! Dood, Have you ever just LOOKED at your own hand? I mean REALLY LOOKED at it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-09 10:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <-oSdnTAdvsYMx_HGnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #697609 |
On 8/8/18 12:23 PM, benj wrote: > On 8/8/2018 12:08 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> Mathematics is not more real than reality. >> Hmmm. You don't know what "reality" is. All you know, and all you CAN know, is >> various MODELS of reality. Mathematics is the same "level" as your models of >> reality -- i.e. both are pure thought. > > So you think reality is "pure thought". Take your own advice and READ what other people write. I said NOTHING like that. > [... complete nonsense omitted] >> You cannot find your bed at night without a (mental) model of >> your domicile -- you mentally traverse the model from where >> you are currently located to your bed, and then manipulate >> your body to follow that path. Where do you think that model >> came from? How accurately do you think that model corresponds >> to the real world? (For instance, does your model include each >> and every atom of each and every object?) > > So that means my bed is only a figment of my imagination? Take your own advice and READ what other people write. I said NOTHING like that. > How nuts are you? Not nearly as nuts as you -- making stuff up like you do here is HOPELESS. > [... repetitions of the same inability to read] There's no point in continuing. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-09 12:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pkhr9g$lq1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697728 |
On 8/9/2018 11:15 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 8/8/18 12:23 PM, benj wrote: >> On 8/8/2018 12:08 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>> Mathematics is not more real than reality. >>> Hmmm. You don't know what "reality" is. All you know, and all you CAN >>> know, is various MODELS of reality. Mathematics is the same "level" >>> as your models of reality -- i.e. both are pure thought. >> >> So you think reality is "pure thought". > > Take your own advice and READ what other people write. I said NOTHING > like that. I read what you are saying. You are saying that mathematical models of reality and my perception of reality are both "pure thought". And on the surface that is obviously true. However there is the third component here which is reality itself. Does it actually exist? The problem with your view is that you don't recognize this third component. My perception of reality does not depend ALONE on my fantasies. Reality sends information back to my perception be cause it clearly seems to be a third entity here with it's own laws and rules which my (our) perception attempt to codify and understand. You an Odd all deny the existence of this third component based upon your religious beliefs. >> [... complete nonsense omitted] You are right. It is a waste of time to try to discuss science with insane fanatics. >>> You cannot find your bed at night without a (mental) model of >>> your domicile -- you mentally traverse the model from where >>> you are currently located to your bed, and then manipulate >>> your body to follow that path. Where do you think that model >>> came from? How accurately do you think that model corresponds >>> to the real world? (For instance, does your model include each >>> and every atom of each and every object?) >> >> So that means my bed is only a figment of my imagination? > > Take your own advice and READ what other people write. I said NOTHING > like that. > >> How nuts are you? > > Not nearly as nuts as you -- making stuff up like you do here is HOPELESS. > >> [... repetitions of the same inability to read] > > There's no point in continuing. > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-11 23:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <NeednXLGa-APJPLGnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #697747 |
On 8/9/18 11:48 AM, benj wrote: > On 8/9/2018 11:15 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 8/8/18 12:23 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 8/8/2018 12:08 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>> Mathematics is not more real than reality. >>>> Hmmm. You don't know what "reality" is. All you know, and all you >>>> CAN know, is various MODELS of reality. Mathematics is the same >>>> "level" as your models of reality -- i.e. both are pure thought. >>> >>> So you think reality is "pure thought". >> >> Take your own advice and READ what other people write. I said NOTHING >> like that. > > I read what you are saying. You are saying that mathematical models of > reality and my perception of reality are both "pure thought". And on the > surface that is obviously true. However there is the third component > here which is reality itself. Does it actually exist? Sure it exists. We have direct physical contact with it using our bodies, but our minds have no such connection, and everything we think about the world is removed from it; such thoughts are models, not the real thing. > The problem with your view is that you don't recognize this third > component. Nonsense! You have no idea what I do or don't think. > My perception of reality does not depend ALONE on my > fantasies. Reality sends information back to my perception be cause it > clearly seems to be a third entity here with it's own laws and rules > which my (our) perception attempt to codify and understand. Certainly. That's what science is -- making models and verifying them experimentally, and improving and refining them. > You an Odd > all deny the existence of this third component based upon your religious > beliefs. NONSENSE! You have no idea what I do or don't think. Ditto for Odd. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web