Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #526315 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-16 08:03 +1100 |
| Last post | 2015-10-20 22:07 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 145 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-16 08:03 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> - 2015-10-15 21:38 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-16 20:20 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-10-16 16:49 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-10-16 18:19 -0400
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 17:03 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-16 20:16 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 06:57 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-17 19:24 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 10:30 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 10:34 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-17 20:22 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 11:54 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 12:02 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 08:59 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-10-19 17:58 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 08:57 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Angelo <patrizio.pan-2002@libero.it> - 2015-10-19 09:11 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-20 09:43 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 18:39 -0500
was using HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-20 11:48 +1100
Re: was using Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 07:53 +0200
Re: was using Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 08:19 +0200
Re: was using Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 08:49 +0200
Re: was using Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 07:41 -0500
Re: was using HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-26 09:41 +1100
Re: was using Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 10:55 -0500
Re: was using HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-27 09:13 +1100
Re: was using Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 17:45 -0500
Re: was using Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-27 00:48 -0500
Re: was using HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-27 18:14 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 01:52 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-20 11:50 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 19:19 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 07:55 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-22 16:43 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 08:04 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-10-16 16:22 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-17 09:40 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 10:07 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-17 12:05 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 12:08 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-17 12:12 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 12:19 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 12:28 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-18 11:36 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 11:56 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-18 20:01 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 23:01 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 23:08 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 12:11 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 12:23 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-18 23:13 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 00:37 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 00:59 +0200
yes, or/and noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 19:22 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-19 09:06 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-19 20:26 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 20:10 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 11:43 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-20 09:44 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 01:53 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-20 11:52 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Jack Weidner <jackwd@webportal.au> - 2015-10-31 12:04 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Angelo <patrizio.pan-2002@libero.it> - 2015-10-17 03:41 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-17 20:02 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-17 11:58 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Angelo <patrizio.pan-2002@libero.it> - 2015-10-17 03:25 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-18 09:19 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 11:07 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-18 20:17 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-19 20:44 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-20 13:30 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-22 16:55 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 08:08 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-22 12:58 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-23 04:22 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-25 01:52 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-26 03:25 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-25 21:36 +0100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-26 09:34 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-26 09:44 +0100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-26 20:09 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-26 15:05 +0100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-27 09:04 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-27 20:15 +0100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-10-27 19:33 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Günther Huldiberaht <gunhu@allrportos.org> - 2015-10-27 20:22 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-28 09:31 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-10-27 21:24 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-28 20:53 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-28 09:09 +0100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-28 21:07 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-28 14:37 +0100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-29 04:48 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-28 20:52 +0100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-29 09:18 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-28 08:44 +0100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> - 2015-10-17 14:14 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 16:30 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> - 2015-10-17 14:39 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 16:41 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-18 09:29 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> - 2015-10-17 22:55 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-18 11:24 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Euclid Baumann <eubaum@parallelnetwork.org> - 2015-10-18 15:06 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-19 20:51 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Mitch Lacroix <mitch@dont-email.me> - 2015-10-19 16:37 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 18:50 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-19 17:33 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 14:25 -0700
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Mitch Lacroix <mitch@dont-email.me> - 2015-10-19 21:48 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-20 09:54 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 18:40 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-20 11:59 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-20 07:45 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-22 17:04 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 09:22 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-27 09:09 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 17:44 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-27 18:11 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 07:38 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-28 08:52 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 17:06 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-28 11:49 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 11:34 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-29 05:05 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 16:59 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-29 19:47 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 10:06 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-10-30 04:57 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 13:22 -0500
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-01 16:27 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:46 -0600
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-02 04:56 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 13:00 -0600
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-02 08:20 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 08:51 -0600
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-20 02:54 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-20 09:47 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Scott Finnegan <scofi@NNTPSwitch.org> - 2015-10-19 23:07 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-20 11:55 +1100
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Scott Finnegan <scofi@NNTPSwitch.org> - 2015-10-20 14:55 +0000
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-20 22:14 +0200
Re: Electric Potential of Planets and Moons? Scott Finnegan <scofi@NNTPSwitch.org> - 2015-10-20 22:07 +0000
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 18:11 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <6f8u2bh0n3ve8hie8cd5ajo04jqk65tpvc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #528378 |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 17:44:18 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >On 10/26/2015 5:09 PM, HGW wrote: >> Well, I think it is correct to say that doped semi conductors are already doing >> it to some extent > >An extent very much smaller than one in ten atoms. That does not matter. The fact that it can happen does. >> and don't explode. They should exert forces on each other >> though...but I doubt if anyone has checked that. > >How much force do you think would be exerted by any excess charge in a >semiconductor that doesn't result in explosion? Well it isn't hard to work that out. If two adjacent atoms in a crystal were inonized and you know hte distance between them you simply apply coulomb's law and compare that with the young's modulus divided by the number of atims per unit area. There Bodkin, I have done your homework for you today... >>> If you can't do this calculation, then why speculate on how to produce >>> forces? >> >> The calculation is fairly easy...but crystals are strong things. > >Not as strong as you apparently think. >Calculation? Well i am not a compulsive crystal breaker so I wouldn't know. >>> What do you think the excess charge fraction is in a silicon chip? >>> Any idea how to do that calculation? >> >> I don't know the extent of the doping. Or the typical separation of the >> 'holes'. >> > > >OK, so you don't know how to do the calculation. I have told you how to do it...and I am so pleased to have your interest in this important matter. It might be the breakthrough that physics needs to take it out of the Einstein debacle.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 07:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0nr7q$8cd$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #528439 |
On 10/27/2015 2:11 AM, HGW wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 17:44:18 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 10/26/2015 5:09 PM, HGW wrote: > >>> Well, I think it is correct to say that doped semi conductors are already doing >>> it to some extent >> >> An extent very much smaller than one in ten atoms. > > That does not matter. The fact that it can happen does. Well, it happens with ping-pong balls too, as I pointed out. So that's nothing special. What I was responding to was your claim that *huge* forces could be generated by extending such an ordinary thing to the level of one atom in ten being ionized, and where you made the cavalier and completely unchecked claim that this should be very feasible. > >>> and don't explode. They should exert forces on each other >>> though...but I doubt if anyone has checked that. >> >> How much force do you think would be exerted by any excess charge in a >> semiconductor that doesn't result in explosion? > > Well it isn't hard to work that out. > If two adjacent atoms in a crystal were inonized and you know hte distance > between them you simply apply coulomb's law and compare that with the young's > modulus divided by the number of atims per unit area. So what number do you get? > > There Bodkin, I have done your homework for you today... > >>>> If you can't do this calculation, then why speculate on how to produce >>>> forces? >>> >>> The calculation is fairly easy...but crystals are strong things. >> >> Not as strong as you apparently think. >> Calculation? > > Well i am not a compulsive crystal breaker so I wouldn't know. Obviously you don't know. So when you say crystals are strong things, do you mean stronger than Jell-O? > >>>> What do you think the excess charge fraction is in a silicon chip? >>>> Any idea how to do that calculation? >>> >>> I don't know the extent of the doping. Or the typical separation of the >>> 'holes'. >>> >> >> >> OK, so you don't know how to do the calculation. > > I have told you how to do it...and I am so pleased to have your interest in > this important matter. It might be the breakthrough that physics needs to take > it out of the Einstein debacle. > What on earth does charging up objects to generate a force between them have to do with relativity? Are you obsessed? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 08:52 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <enrv2b57ckkdsta3pufm8jg5reg31526pc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #528459 |
On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 07:38:21 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >On 10/27/2015 2:11 AM, HGW wrote: >> That does not matter. The fact that it can happen does. > >Well, it happens with ping-pong balls too, as I pointed out. So that's >nothing special. Tell that to PA. He thinks the ping pong balls will attract each other when they are like charged. >What I was responding to was your claim that *huge* forces could be >generated by extending such an ordinary thing to the level of one atom >in ten being ionized, and where you made the cavalier and completely >unchecked claim that this should be very feasible. Bodkin, it should be quite obvious to anyone except a complete idiot that my intention was to produce large enough forces to achieve levitation. I had no desire to create some kind of electrostatic bomb....but now you mention it............????? Normally, the crystal would not contain so much charge that it exploded...but it could still quite easily contain enough to repel an object above it.. >> Well it isn't hard to work that out. >> If two adjacent atoms in a crystal were inonized and you know hte distance >> between them you simply apply coulomb's law and compare that with the young's >> modulus divided by the number of atims per unit area. > >So what number do you get? You are the one who wants to know, you do it. >>> Not as strong as you apparently think. >>> Calculation? >> >> Well i am not a compulsive crystal breaker so I wouldn't know. > >Obviously you don't know. >So when you say crystals are strong things, do you mean stronger than >Jell-O? It is quite obvious to me that the crystal would not blow apart just because it was repelling an object above itself. I have tried to pull a transistor apart and I cannot. Why don;t you try it instead of being difficult. ation. >> >> I have told you how to do it...and I am so pleased to have your interest in >> this important matter. It might be the breakthrough that physics needs to take >> it out of the Einstein debacle. >> > >What on earth does charging up objects to generate a force between them >have to do with relativity? Are you obsessed? Everything in physics today has to do with the fact that the whole discipline has been hijacked by Einstein and his group of merry men. That's why it has died and no kids are taking it on any more.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 17:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0osh6$pk5$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #528586 |
On 10/27/2015 4:52 PM, HGW wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 07:38:21 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 10/27/2015 2:11 AM, HGW wrote: > >>> That does not matter. The fact that it can happen does. >> >> Well, it happens with ping-pong balls too, as I pointed out. So that's >> nothing special. > > Tell that to PA. He thinks the ping pong balls will attract each other when > they are like charged. Depends on whether you put a conducting plate between them. > >> What I was responding to was your claim that *huge* forces could be >> generated by extending such an ordinary thing to the level of one atom >> in ten being ionized, and where you made the cavalier and completely >> unchecked claim that this should be very feasible. > > Bodkin, it should be quite obvious to anyone except a complete idiot that my > intention was to produce large enough forces to achieve levitation. I had no > desire to create some kind of electrostatic bomb....but now you mention > it............????? And you can levitate a balloon by charging it. Whether you can levitate a car is a different matter. That takes the calculations you don't know how to do. > > Normally, the crystal would not contain so much charge that it exploded...but > it could still quite easily contain enough to repel an object above it.. > Sure, it could repel a charged scrap of paper above it. > >>> Well it isn't hard to work that out. >>> If two adjacent atoms in a crystal were inonized and you know hte distance >>> between them you simply apply coulomb's law and compare that with the young's >>> modulus divided by the number of atims per unit area. >> >> So what number do you get? > > You are the one who wants to know, you do it. OK, so you don't know. And yet you say it should be easily possible to lift heavy objects this way. > > >>>> Not as strong as you apparently think. >>>> Calculation? >>> >>> Well i am not a compulsive crystal breaker so I wouldn't know. >> >> Obviously you don't know. >> So when you say crystals are strong things, do you mean stronger than >> Jell-O? > > It is quite obvious to me that the crystal would not blow apart just because it > was repelling an object above itself. I have tried to pull a transistor apart > and I cannot. Why don;t you try it instead of being difficult. > > ation. >>> >>> I have told you how to do it...and I am so pleased to have your interest in >>> this important matter. It might be the breakthrough that physics needs to take >>> it out of the Einstein debacle. >>> >> >> What on earth does charging up objects to generate a force between them >> have to do with relativity? Are you obsessed? > > Everything in physics today has to do with the fact that the whole discipline > has been hijacked by Einstein and his group of merry men. That's why it has > died and no kids are taking it on any more. When you say no kids are taking it on anymore, is the claim that PhDs and BSs in physics are in declining numbers? And what makes you think that all physicists are consumed by relativity? You perhaps know that the largest group of physicists are condensed matter physicists? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 11:49 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <1f603blf6lj8ovdrk6oikvj7kq4m431nqe@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #528599 |
On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:06:33 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >On 10/27/2015 4:52 PM, HGW wrote: >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 07:38:21 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 10/27/2015 2:11 AM, HGW wrote: >> >>>> That does not matter. The fact that it can happen does. >>> >>> Well, it happens with ping-pong balls too, as I pointed out. So that's >>> nothing special. >> >> Tell that to PA. He thinks the ping pong balls will attract each other when >> they are like charged. > >Depends on whether you put a conducting plate between them. If the plate is fully insulated it has no effect. >>> What I was responding to was your claim that *huge* forces could be >>> generated by extending such an ordinary thing to the level of one atom >>> in ten being ionized, and where you made the cavalier and completely >>> unchecked claim that this should be very feasible. >> >> Bodkin, it should be quite obvious to anyone except a complete idiot that my >> intention was to produce large enough forces to achieve levitation. I had no >> desire to create some kind of electrostatic bomb....but now you mention >> it............????? > >And you can levitate a balloon by charging it. >Whether you can levitate a car is a different matter. That takes the >calculations you don't know how to do. Well we know that electric forces are ordes of magnitude greater than gravitational ones so I have no doubt it would work in theory. All we need is a way to pump excess charge inside an INSULATOR and we can achieve free levitiation. >> Normally, the crystal would not contain so much charge that it exploded...but >> it could still quite easily contain enough to repel an object above it.. >> > >Sure, it could repel a charged scrap of paper above it. So you support my world shattering invention... Thankyou. >>>> Well it isn't hard to work that out. >>>> If two adjacent atoms in a crystal were inonized and you know hte distance >>>> between them you simply apply coulomb's law and compare that with the young's >>>> modulus divided by the number of atims per unit area. >>> >>> So what number do you get? >> >> You are the one who wants to know, you do it. > >OK, so you don't know. And yet you say it should be easily possible to >lift heavy objects this way. The word 'heavy' has relative connotations. >>> What on earth does charging up objects to generate a force between them >>> have to do with relativity? Are you obsessed? >> >> Everything in physics today has to do with the fact that the whole discipline >> has been hijacked by Einstein and his group of merry men. That's why it has >> died and no kids are taking it on any more. > >When you say no kids are taking it on anymore, is the claim that PhDs >and BSs in physics are in declining numbers? > >And what makes you think that all physicists are consumed by relativity? >You perhaps know that the largest group of physicists are condensed >matter physicists? I didn't know...but I do know that Einsteinian's are "it doesn't matter' physicists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 11:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0qtf9$vt0$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #528629 |
On 10/27/2015 7:49 PM, HGW wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:06:33 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 10/27/2015 4:52 PM, HGW wrote: >>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 07:38:21 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/27/2015 2:11 AM, HGW wrote: >>> >>>>> That does not matter. The fact that it can happen does. >>>> >>>> Well, it happens with ping-pong balls too, as I pointed out. So that's >>>> nothing special. >>> >>> Tell that to PA. He thinks the ping pong balls will attract each other when >>> they are like charged. >> >> Depends on whether you put a conducting plate between them. > > If the plate is fully insulated it has no effect. You mean covered in rubber? Are you QUITE sure of that? I think you should rethink. What happens to the free charges in the conductor when a charged object is brought near? > >>>> What I was responding to was your claim that *huge* forces could be >>>> generated by extending such an ordinary thing to the level of one atom >>>> in ten being ionized, and where you made the cavalier and completely >>>> unchecked claim that this should be very feasible. >>> >>> Bodkin, it should be quite obvious to anyone except a complete idiot that my >>> intention was to produce large enough forces to achieve levitation. I had no >>> desire to create some kind of electrostatic bomb....but now you mention >>> it............????? >> >> And you can levitate a balloon by charging it. >> Whether you can levitate a car is a different matter. That takes the >> calculations you don't know how to do. > > Well we know that electric forces are ordes of magnitude greater than > gravitational ones so I have no doubt it would work in theory. All we need is a > way to pump excess charge inside an INSULATOR and we can achieve free > levitiation. As I said, with a balloon it's easy. But for larger solid objects, it's harder. Remember that what holds a solid together is also an electromagnetic interaction. Put in too much excess charge, and now its solidity gets compromised. Also remember that the atoms in the air will break down if you accumulate too much charge in one place, and then you won't have that excess charge on the object any more. > >>> Normally, the crystal would not contain so much charge that it exploded...but >>> it could still quite easily contain enough to repel an object above it.. >>> >> >> Sure, it could repel a charged scrap of paper above it. > > So you support my world shattering invention... Thankyou. I'm so glad you think that science demonstrations for 5-year-olds are world-shattering inventions. > >>>>> Well it isn't hard to work that out. >>>>> If two adjacent atoms in a crystal were inonized and you know hte distance >>>>> between them you simply apply coulomb's law and compare that with the young's >>>>> modulus divided by the number of atims per unit area. >>>> >>>> So what number do you get? >>> >>> You are the one who wants to know, you do it. >> >> OK, so you don't know. And yet you say it should be easily possible to >> lift heavy objects this way. > > The word 'heavy' has relative connotations. > > >>>> What on earth does charging up objects to generate a force between them >>>> have to do with relativity? Are you obsessed? >>> >>> Everything in physics today has to do with the fact that the whole discipline >>> has been hijacked by Einstein and his group of merry men. That's why it has >>> died and no kids are taking it on any more. >> >> When you say no kids are taking it on anymore, is the claim that PhDs >> and BSs in physics are in declining numbers? >> >> And what makes you think that all physicists are consumed by relativity? >> You perhaps know that the largest group of physicists are condensed >> matter physicists? > > I didn't know...but I do know that Einsteinian's are "it doesn't matter' > physicists. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 05:05 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <un223blpnh8m0pqt7faa84tnhs0uuddhqi@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #528724 |
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:34:51 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >On 10/27/2015 7:49 PM, HGW wrote: >>>>> Well, it happens with ping-pong balls too, as I pointed out. So that's >>>>> nothing special. >>>> >>>> Tell that to PA. He thinks the ping pong balls will attract each other when >>>> they are like charged. >>> >>> Depends on whether you put a conducting plate between them. >> >> If the plate is fully insulated it has no effect. > >You mean covered in rubber? Are you QUITE sure of that? I think you >should rethink. What happens to the free charges in the conductor when a >charged object is brought near? No I don't mean that. I mean the plate is electrically ISOLATED from the rest of the universe by being supported by a perfect insulator. Any physicist would have known that. >>>> Bodkin, it should be quite obvious to anyone except a complete idiot that my >>>> intention was to produce large enough forces to achieve levitation. I had no >>>> desire to create some kind of electrostatic bomb....but now you mention >>>> it............????? >>> >>> And you can levitate a balloon by charging it. >>> Whether you can levitate a car is a different matter. That takes the >>> calculations you don't know how to do. >> >> Well we know that electric forces are ordes of magnitude greater than >> gravitational ones so I have no doubt it would work in theory. All we need is a >> way to pump excess charge inside an INSULATOR and we can achieve free >> levitiation. > >As I said, with a balloon it's easy. Do you know of anyone who has demonstrated electrostatic levitation with a balloon? I am not aware of any. But i have heard plenty about MAGNETIC levitation. >But for larger solid objects, it's harder. 'Larger', 'harder'...both relative descriptions....Naughty Bodkin! >Remember that what holds a >solid together is also an electromagnetic interaction. I had remembered that even before I started. >Put in too much >excess charge, and now its solidity gets compromised. I had also remembered that. >Also remember that >the atoms in the air will break down if you accumulate too much charge >in one place, and then you won't have that excess charge on the object >any more. I do remember...and you remind me of another world shattering invention of mine. If air is ionized in some way so that is becomes conducting, it should be possible to make it move by applying a magnetic field the right way. I actually tried something like that using AC in conducting water but could not generate any observable movement. Anyone who finds a way to move a fluid without using some kind of mechanical impeller will be far more famous than your little god. >>>> Normally, the crystal would not contain so much charge that it exploded...but >>>> it could still quite easily contain enough to repel an object above it.. >>>> >>> >>> Sure, it could repel a charged scrap of paper above it. >> >> So you support my world shattering invention... Thankyou. > >I'm so glad you think that science demonstrations for 5-year-olds are >world-shattering inventions. > >> >>>>>> Well it isn't hard to work that out. >>>>>> If two adjacent atoms in a crystal were inonized and you know hte distance >>>>>> between them you simply apply coulomb's law and compare that with the young's >>>>>> modulus divided by the number of atims per unit area. >>>>> >>>>> So what number do you get? >>>> >>>> You are the one who wants to know, you do it. >>> >>> OK, so you don't know. And yet you say it should be easily possible to >>> lift heavy objects this way. >> >> The word 'heavy' has relative connotations. >> >> >>>>> What on earth does charging up objects to generate a force between them >>>>> have to do with relativity? Are you obsessed? >>>> >>>> Everything in physics today has to do with the fact that the whole discipline >>>> has been hijacked by Einstein and his group of merry men. That's why it has >>>> died and no kids are taking it on any more. >>> >>> When you say no kids are taking it on anymore, is the claim that PhDs >>> and BSs in physics are in declining numbers? >>> >>> And what makes you think that all physicists are consumed by relativity? >>> You perhaps know that the largest group of physicists are condensed >>> matter physicists? >> >> I didn't know...but I do know that Einsteinian's are "it doesn't matter' >> physicists. >>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 16:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0rgft$dhm$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #528745 |
On 10/28/2015 1:05 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:34:51 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 10/27/2015 7:49 PM, HGW wrote: > >>>>>> Well, it happens with ping-pong balls too, as I pointed out. So that's >>>>>> nothing special. >>>>> >>>>> Tell that to PA. He thinks the ping pong balls will attract each other when >>>>> they are like charged. >>>> >>>> Depends on whether you put a conducting plate between them. >>> >>> If the plate is fully insulated it has no effect. >> >> You mean covered in rubber? Are you QUITE sure of that? I think you >> should rethink. What happens to the free charges in the conductor when a >> charged object is brought near? > > No I don't mean that. I mean the plate is electrically ISOLATED from the rest > of the universe by being supported by a perfect insulator. Any physicist would > have known that. Then you're still wrong. I think you should check again on freshman electrostatics. This is 19th century physics you're not doing so well with. > > >>>>> Bodkin, it should be quite obvious to anyone except a complete idiot that my >>>>> intention was to produce large enough forces to achieve levitation. I had no >>>>> desire to create some kind of electrostatic bomb....but now you mention >>>>> it............????? >>>> >>>> And you can levitate a balloon by charging it. >>>> Whether you can levitate a car is a different matter. That takes the >>>> calculations you don't know how to do. >>> >>> Well we know that electric forces are ordes of magnitude greater than >>> gravitational ones so I have no doubt it would work in theory. All we need is a >>> way to pump excess charge inside an INSULATOR and we can achieve free >>> levitiation. >> >> As I said, with a balloon it's easy. > > Do you know of anyone who has demonstrated electrostatic levitation with a > balloon? I am not aware of any. But i have heard plenty about MAGNETIC > levitation. You're kidding, right? > >> But for larger solid objects, it's harder. > > 'Larger', 'harder'...both relative descriptions....Naughty Bodkin! > >> Remember that what holds a >> solid together is also an electromagnetic interaction. > > I had remembered that even before I started. > >> Put in too much >> excess charge, and now its solidity gets compromised. > > I had also remembered that. > >> Also remember that >> the atoms in the air will break down if you accumulate too much charge >> in one place, and then you won't have that excess charge on the object >> any more. > > I do remember...and you remind me of another world shattering invention of > mine. If air is ionized in some way so that is becomes conducting, it should be > possible to make it move by applying a magnetic field the right way. OMG, a world-shattering deflection of an ionization arc in a magnetic field. Let's see .... http://www-d0.fnal.gov/results/publications_talks/thesis/snyder/html/node21.html > > I actually tried something like that using AC in conducting water but could not > generate any observable movement. Anyone who finds a way to move a fluid > without using some kind of mechanical impeller will be far more famous than > your little god. Uh-huh. > >>>>> Normally, the crystal would not contain so much charge that it exploded...but >>>>> it could still quite easily contain enough to repel an object above it.. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sure, it could repel a charged scrap of paper above it. >>> >>> So you support my world shattering invention... Thankyou. >> >> I'm so glad you think that science demonstrations for 5-year-olds are >> world-shattering inventions. See above again for your ionization arc in a magnetic field. >> >>> >>>>>>> Well it isn't hard to work that out. >>>>>>> If two adjacent atoms in a crystal were inonized and you know hte distance >>>>>>> between them you simply apply coulomb's law and compare that with the young's >>>>>>> modulus divided by the number of atims per unit area. >>>>>> >>>>>> So what number do you get? >>>>> >>>>> You are the one who wants to know, you do it. >>>> >>>> OK, so you don't know. And yet you say it should be easily possible to >>>> lift heavy objects this way. >>> >>> The word 'heavy' has relative connotations. >>> >>> >>>>>> What on earth does charging up objects to generate a force between them >>>>>> have to do with relativity? Are you obsessed? >>>>> >>>>> Everything in physics today has to do with the fact that the whole discipline >>>>> has been hijacked by Einstein and his group of merry men. That's why it has >>>>> died and no kids are taking it on any more. >>>> >>>> When you say no kids are taking it on anymore, is the claim that PhDs >>>> and BSs in physics are in declining numbers? >>>> >>>> And what makes you think that all physicists are consumed by relativity? >>>> You perhaps know that the largest group of physicists are condensed >>>> matter physicists? >>> >>> I didn't know...but I do know that Einsteinian's are "it doesn't matter' >>> physicists. >>> > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 19:47 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <67n33bho9suli45h7jhutaik8hrq6puvf2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #528798 |
On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:59:28 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: "I know nothing about physics"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 10:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0tclf$5gt$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #528884 |
On 10/29/2015 3:47 AM, HGW wrote: > On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:59:28 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: "I > know nothing about physics" > Henry, what do fabrications like this do for you? What do you get out of compulsive lying? Has it ever served you well? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 04:57 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <n9n43bp7ctvfl5v54qn8gait0bo7d2tl61@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #528910 |
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 10:06:24 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >On 10/29/2015 3:47 AM, HGW wrote: >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:59:28 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: "I >> know nothing about physics" >> > >Henry, what do fabrications like this do for you? What do you get out of >compulsive lying? Has it ever served you well? Bodkin, your crappy messages deserve such treatment. The good thing about 19th century physics is that it is still usable and correct. Most of post 1905 physics is a load of useless academic mathematical bulldust.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 13:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0to4d$43b$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #528928 |
On 10/29/2015 12:57 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 10:06:24 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 10/29/2015 3:47 AM, HGW wrote: >>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:59:28 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: "I >>> know nothing about physics" >>> >> >> Henry, what do fabrications like this do for you? What do you get out of >> compulsive lying? Has it ever served you well? > > Bodkin, your crappy messages deserve such treatment. The good thing about 19th > century physics is that it is still usable and correct. Most of post 1905 > physics is a load of useless academic mathematical bulldust. > Certainly true that a lot of 19th century physics is still usable in a broad set of applications. Not all applications, but a lot of them. Too bad you're not any good at either 19th century physics or more modern physics. You get elementary electrodynamics wrong, elementary mechanics wrong, elementary optics wrong, elementary thermodynamics wrong. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 16:27 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <jh8b3bpk0c5c082o8etc9i4qetlrtqsslf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #528936 |
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 13:22:07 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Henry, what do fabrications like this do for you? What do you get out of >>> compulsive lying? Has it ever served you well? >> >> Bodkin, your crappy messages deserve such treatment. The good thing about 19th >> century physics is that it is still usable and correct. Most of post 1905 >> physics is a load of useless academic mathematical bulldust. >> > >Certainly true that a lot of 19th century physics is still usable in a >broad set of applications. Not all applications, but a lot of them. > >Too bad you're not any good at either 19th century physics or more >modern physics. You get elementary electrodynamics wrong, elementary >mechanics wrong, elementary optics wrong, elementary thermodynamics wrong. Paul Andersen got it all wrong. His first experiment and his analysis of it were laughable. You are simply too scientifically illiterate to see why.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 07:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <782dneGkEqkDiqvLnZ2dnUU7-SudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #529640 |
On 11/1/15 12:27 AM, HGW wrote: > > Paul Andersen got it all wrong. His first experiment and his analysis of it > were laughable. You are simply too scientifically illiterate to see why. > Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, who is neither a Henry, Henri, nor a Wilson, should read this paper: Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity and reference frames > http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109.pdf?origin=publication_detail > This article reports on an investigation of student understanding of > the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research tasks > are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student reasoning of > fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The results indicate > that after standard instruction students at all academic levels have > serious difficulties with the relativity of simultaneity and with the > role of observers in inertial reference frames. Evidence is presented > that suggests many students construct a conceptual framework in which > the ideas of absolute simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity > harmoniously co-exist. > Conclusions > This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that > students have with the definition of the time of an event and the > role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of > physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in physics are > unable to apply the construct of a reference frame in determining > whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many students interpret > the phrase “relativity of simultaneity” as implying that the > simultaneity of events is determined by an observer on the basis of > the reception of light signals. They often attribute the relativity > of simultaneity to the difference in signal travel time for different > observers. In this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity > of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to > confront the startling ideas of special relativity. > Experienced instructors know that students often have trouble > relating measurements made by observers in different reference > frames. It is not surprising that students, even at advanced levels, > do not fully understand the implications of the invariance of the > speed of light. What is surprising is that most students apparently > fail to recognize even the basic issues that are being addressed. > Students at all levels have significant difficulties with the ideas > that form the foundations of the concept of a reference frame. In > particular, many students do not think of a reference frame as a > system of observers that determine the same time for any given event. > Such difficulties appear to impede not only their understanding of > the relativity of simultaneity, but also their ability to apply > correctly the Lorentz transformations. > Special relativity offers instructors an opportunity to channel > student interest in modern physics into a challenging intellectual > experience. For most people, the implications of special relativity > are in strong conflict with their intuition. For students to > recognize the conflict and appreciate its resolution, they need to > have a functional understanding of some very basic concepts. > Formulating an appropriate measurement procedure for the time of an > event involves recognizing the inherently local nature of > measurement, applying a well-defined measurement procedure in a given > reference frame, and understanding the relationship between > measurements made by different observers. These ideas are crucial in > contexts ranging from the rolling of a steel ball on a level track to > the motion of objects in the vicinity of massive stars. This > investigation documents prevalent modes of reasoning with these > fundamental concepts as a first step toward making special relativity > meaningful to students. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 04:56 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nvjc3bd7fq4nnvf4f26mfl9g0bqnuddml8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #529681 |
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 07:46:05 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: >On 11/1/15 12:27 AM, HGW wrote: >> >> Paul Andersen got it all wrong. His first experiment and his analysis of it >> were laughable. You are simply too scientifically illiterate to see why. >> > > > > > > This article reports on an investigation of student understanding of > > the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research tasks > > are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student reasoning of > > fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The results indicate > > that after standard instruction students at all academic levels have > > serious difficulties with the relativity of simultaneity and with the > > role of observers in inertial reference frames. Evidence is presented > > that suggests many students construct a conceptual framework in which > > the ideas of absolute simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity > > harmoniously co-exist. > > > Conclusions > > > This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that > > students have with the definition of the time of an event and the > > role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of > > physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in physics are > > unable to apply the construct of a reference frame in determining > > whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many students interpret > > the phrase “relativity of simultaneity” as implying that the > > simultaneity of events is determined by an observer on the basis of > > the reception of light signals. They often attribute the relativity > > of simultaneity to the difference in signal travel time for different > > observers. In this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity > > of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to > > confront the startling ideas of special relativity. > > > Experienced instructors know that students often have trouble > > relating measurements made by observers in different reference > > frames. It is not surprising that students, even at advanced levels, > > do not fully understand the implications of the invariance of the > > speed of light. What is surprising is that most students apparently > > fail to recognize even the basic issues that are being addressed. > > Students at all levels have significant difficulties with the ideas > > that form the foundations of the concept of a reference frame. In > > particular, many students do not think of a reference frame as a > > system of observers that determine the same time for any given event. > > Such difficulties appear to impede not only their understanding of > > the relativity of simultaneity, but also their ability to apply > > correctly the Lorentz transformations. > > > Special relativity offers instructors an opportunity to channel > > student interest in modern physics into a challenging intellectual > > experience. For most people, the implications of special relativity > > are in strong conflict with their intuition. For students to > > recognize the conflict and appreciate its resolution, they need to > > have a functional understanding of some very basic concepts. > > Formulating an appropriate measurement procedure for the time of an > > event involves recognizing the inherently local nature of > > measurement, applying a well-defined measurement procedure in a given > > reference frame, and understanding the relationship between > > measurements made by different observers. These ideas are crucial in > > contexts ranging from the rolling of a steel ball on a level track to > > the motion of objects in the vicinity of massive stars. This > > investigation documents prevalent modes of reasoning with these > > fundamental concepts as a first step toward making special relativity > > meaningful to students. On reading such nonsense, I really feel sorry for all dingleberries. The obvious reason for student confusion is that they can immediately recognize pure bullshit when they see it. For instance, any intelligent student who watched Brian Cox's TV documentary about relativity would have laughed his head off at his Light Clock explanation. I'm sure students have no trouble in understanding the true principle of relativity that even Galileo knew all about. It is only Einsteiniana they reject because it is obvious crap from start to finish and more like a comedy show that a part of science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 13:00 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <8OadnZvPpr_2_KvLnZ2dnUU7-X0AAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #529723 |
On 11/1/15 11:56 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 07:46:05 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 11/1/15 12:27 AM, HGW wrote: >>> >>> Paul Andersen got it all wrong. His first experiment and his analysis of it >>> were laughable. You are simply too scientifically illiterate to see why. >>> >> >> >> >> >>> This article reports on an investigation of student understanding of >>> the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research tasks >>> are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student reasoning of >>> fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The results indicate >>> that after standard instruction students at all academic levels have >>> serious difficulties with the relativity of simultaneity and with the >>> role of observers in inertial reference frames. Evidence is presented >>> that suggests many students construct a conceptual framework in which >>> the ideas of absolute simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity >>> harmoniously co-exist. >> >>> Conclusions >> >>> This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that >>> students have with the definition of the time of an event and the >>> role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of >>> physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in physics are >>> unable to apply the construct of a reference frame in determining >>> whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many students interpret >>> the phrase “relativity of simultaneity” as implying that the >>> simultaneity of events is determined by an observer on the basis of >>> the reception of light signals. They often attribute the relativity >>> of simultaneity to the difference in signal travel time for different >>> observers. In this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity >>> of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to >>> confront the startling ideas of special relativity. >> >>> Experienced instructors know that students often have trouble >>> relating measurements made by observers in different reference >>> frames. It is not surprising that students, even at advanced levels, >>> do not fully understand the implications of the invariance of the >>> speed of light. What is surprising is that most students apparently >>> fail to recognize even the basic issues that are being addressed. >>> Students at all levels have significant difficulties with the ideas >>> that form the foundations of the concept of a reference frame. In >>> particular, many students do not think of a reference frame as a >>> system of observers that determine the same time for any given event. >>> Such difficulties appear to impede not only their understanding of >>> the relativity of simultaneity, but also their ability to apply >>> correctly the Lorentz transformations. >> >>> Special relativity offers instructors an opportunity to channel >>> student interest in modern physics into a challenging intellectual >>> experience. For most people, the implications of special relativity >>> are in strong conflict with their intuition. For students to >>> recognize the conflict and appreciate its resolution, they need to >>> have a functional understanding of some very basic concepts. >>> Formulating an appropriate measurement procedure for the time of an >>> event involves recognizing the inherently local nature of >>> measurement, applying a well-defined measurement procedure in a given >>> reference frame, and understanding the relationship between >>> measurements made by different observers. These ideas are crucial in >>> contexts ranging from the rolling of a steel ball on a level track to >>> the motion of objects in the vicinity of massive stars. This >>> investigation documents prevalent modes of reasoning with these >>> fundamental concepts as a first step toward making special relativity >>> meaningful to students. > > On reading such nonsense, I really feel sorry for all dingleberries. The > obvious reason for student confusion is that they can immediately recognize > pure bullshit when they see it. For instance, any intelligent student who > watched Brian Cox's TV documentary about relativity would have laughed his head > off at his Light Clock explanation. > > I'm sure students have no trouble in understanding the true principle of > relativity that even Galileo knew all about. It is only Einsteiniana they > reject because it is obvious crap from start to finish and more like a comedy > show that a part of science. > How can Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, who claims a DSc in his handle be so ignorant of one of the most fruitful tools in physics, relativity. And why so militant anti-science? -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 08:20 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <pc0d3b1padg5e0qrauc55srpnj6qd7tvm5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #529733 |
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:00:59 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: >On 11/1/15 11:56 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >> On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 07:46:05 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 11/1/15 12:27 AM, HGW wrote: >>>> >>>> Paul Andersen got it all wrong. His first experiment and his analysis of it >>>> were laughable. You are simply too scientifically illiterate to see why. >>> >>>> Special relativity offers instructors an opportunity to channel >>>> student interest in modern physics into a challenging intellectual >>>> experience. For most people, the implications of special relativity >>>> are in strong conflict with their intuition. For students to >>>> recognize the conflict and appreciate its resolution, they need to >>>> have a functional understanding of some very basic concepts. >>>> Formulating an appropriate measurement procedure for the time of an >>>> event involves recognizing the inherently local nature of >>>> measurement, applying a well-defined measurement procedure in a given >>>> reference frame, and understanding the relationship between >>>> measurements made by different observers. These ideas are crucial in >>>> contexts ranging from the rolling of a steel ball on a level track to >>>> the motion of objects in the vicinity of massive stars. This >>>> investigation documents prevalent modes of reasoning with these >>>> fundamental concepts as a first step toward making special relativity >>>> meaningful to students. >> >> On reading such nonsense, I really feel sorry for all dingleberries. The >> obvious reason for student confusion is that they can immediately recognize >> pure bullshit when they see it. For instance, any intelligent student who >> watched Brian Cox's TV documentary about relativity would have laughed his head >> off at his Light Clock explanation. >> >> I'm sure students have no trouble in understanding the true principle of >> relativity that even Galileo knew all about. It is only Einsteiniana they >> reject because it is obvious crap from start to finish and more like a comedy >> show that a part of science. >> > > How can Henry Wilson DSc., who claims a DSc in his handle be so > ignorant of one of the most fruitful tools in physics, relativity. And > why so militant anti-science? I accept TRUE relativity, not Einstein's fantasy version. Only people why don't know how to detect absolute rotation are anti-science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 08:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n17t90$p35$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #529768 |
On 11/1/2015 3:20 PM, HGW wrote: > I accept TRUE relativity, not Einstein's fantasy version. Only people why don't > know how to detect absolute rotation are anti-science. I think this is hysterical. It's like Henry announcing that he's discovered how to find the corners of a sphere. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 02:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n04act$g5l$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #526962 |
HGW <xxx@....> writes: >>No, Henry is correct (for once!). Henry describes how a van de Graff ... >> Do you have an aversion to learning anything? Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, it is you who has an aversion to learning anything, Ralph. Ralph Rabbidge, I have told you over and over and over again, Ralph, not to edit my quotes, Mr. Rabbidge. Ralph Rabbidge, you already know that whenever you edit my quotes, Ralph M. Rabbidge, you will get a response just like this one, Ralph, where I repeatedly use your real name, which is Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, over and over and over again, Ralph. Ralph M. Rabbidge, I know you hate it, Ralph, when I use your name, which is Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, when I respond to you, Ralph. Ralph, so why haven't you learned not to edit my quotes, Ralph? >No, why can't a solid be created in which a surplus charge exists throughout >and not just on the surface.? Have you heard of ball lightning? Ionized >air...and it doesn't explode. Ralph, that is theoretically possible, Ralph, however the substance must be a perfect insulator, Ralph, otherwise the charges will move and migrate to the surface, Mr. Rabbidge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <xxx@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 09:47 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <klsa2btp1eboj0gu8801tqpavteaqlgp4u@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #526856 |
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:37:26 +0000 (UTC), Mitch Lacroix <mitch@dont-email.me> wrote: >HGW wrote: > >> Insulated spherical objects can be pumped with electrons by transfering >> high volftage charges to a collector inside the sphere where there is >> near zero potential according to Gauss's law. That is how the sphere >> ends up with a surplus of -ve charge. Since the potential is zero inside >> the sphere, all the surplus charge ends up on the outer surface. > >No it cannot. You just said that it cannot. If you push an electron into a >conductor, another electron must pop out of that conductor. This is how >metallic conductors work, sort of queue LILO, if you wish. You cannot >charge a piece of conducting metal, idiot. Do do that you need a >dielectric or a misalignment somewhere in the system. A conduction metal >is homogeneous and in balance, always. Do you have an aversion to learning anything?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web