Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #533137 > unrolled thread

Do we need a new theory of gravity?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Do we need a new theory of gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 16:18 -0600
    Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-14 22:44 +0000
      Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 17:03 -0600
        Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-14 23:24 +0000
          Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 17:26 -0600
            Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-15 00:08 +0000
              Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 17:56 -0800
                Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 18:28 -0800
                  Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 22:18 -0800
                    Why won't HVAC admit his NAMBLA membership? benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 03:58 -0500
                  Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 04:17 -0500
                Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-15 02:32 +0000
                  Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 22:15 -0800
                    Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-15 15:24 +0000
                      Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 09:24 -0800
                        Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-16 01:08 +0000
                          Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 17:13 -0800
                            Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-16 16:14 +0000
                              Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 08:20 -0800
                                Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-16 16:59 +0000
                                Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 11:25 -0600
                                  Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 13:11 -0500
                                    Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 12:13 -0600
                                      Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 10:47 -0800
                                        Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 13:08 -0600
                                        Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 13:10 -0600
                                          Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 11:21 -0800
                                            Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 15:19 -0600
                                              Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 15:42 -0800
                                    Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 23:59 -0800
                            Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 15:48 -0800
                              Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 16:19 -0800
                                Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 00:05 -0800
                        Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 23:55 -0800
                  Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 00:54 -0800
                  Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 10:21 -0800
                Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 11:09 -0600
                  Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 11:46 -0800
                    Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 12:32 -0800
                    Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 15:28 -0600
                      Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 13:41 -0800
                        Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 14:48 -0800
                          Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 17:24 -0600
                            Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 16:53 -0800
                              Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 10:07 -0600
                            Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 00:27 -0800
                              Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? "Dave Smith" <invalid@exampll.com> - 2015-11-17 18:01 -0800
                      Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 00:24 -0800
                    Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-17 17:07 +0000
                      Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 11:11 -0800
                        Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 11:28 -0800
                          Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 14:00 -0600
                            Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 12:11 -0800
                              Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 14:45 -0600
                                Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 14:51 -0600
                                  Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 15:00 -0600
                          Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-17 20:30 +0000
                        Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 13:44 -0600
                        Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-17 20:23 +0000
                          Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 12:46 -0800
                      Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 14:00 -0800
              Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? xxein1@att.net - 2015-11-14 22:36 -0800
                Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-15 06:58 +0000
                  Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? xxein1@att.net - 2015-11-14 23:21 -0800
                    Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-15 07:26 +0000
                      Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-15 07:40 +0000
                        Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? xxein1@att.net - 2015-11-15 00:10 -0800
                          Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-15 21:54 +0000
                            Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? xxein1@att.net - 2015-11-17 11:35 -0800
    Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-14 22:47 +0000
    Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 01:02 -0800
    Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-15 14:13 -0600
      Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 00:00 -0800
    Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? xxein1@att.net - 2015-11-17 11:28 -0800
      Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 13:46 -0600
        Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? xxein1@att.net - 2015-11-17 15:06 -0800
        Re: Do we need a new theory of gravity? xxein1@att.net - 2015-11-17 15:36 -0800

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#533627

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 4:29:01 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/16/2015 1:46 PM, john wrote:
> > Electrostatic attraction occurs because
> > charged particles curve in
> > circles when they travel.
> 
> Not on their own they don't.
> 
> > You've probably never seen a
> > bubble chamber, but when subatomic
> > particles are created they don't just
> > fly off in a straight line; they go around
> > and around like boomerangs.
> 
> That's because there's a giant electromagnet surrounding the bubble 
> chamber. Charged particles go in circles when they're traveling in a 
> transverse magnetic field.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwiKRis145E
> Turn off the magnetic field, and the curved paths aren't curved anymore.
> 
> 
> > That's why it's a "short-range" phenomenon.
> > But-since words mean whatever you
> > want them to- this will be "word-salad"
> > for both you and Moroney.
> > By the way- you two should get your
> > stories straight! He just said that
> > there ARE no "established facts" in
> > Science, while you said quite a few of
> > the Standard Model absurdities are
> > established fact.
> 
> Nothing that is established as fact is an absurdity.
> Some of the things you mentioned are as established as atoms, John, and 
> those are pretty darned established.
> 
> > You two are so DINOSAUR
> >
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

So OB what are your areas of interest in today's Physics Research?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533647

So, OB, cosmic rays also curve as a
result of galactic magnetism.
RIGHT???
Electrostatics are mediated by similarly
trajectified particles.
They are short-range and can be
attractive while still pushing because
of this.
NOT ALL PARTICLE/WAVES GO STRAIGHT.
Because of magnetic fields.
Just as you said. Thank you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533654

On 11/16/2015 4:48 PM, john wrote:
> So, OB, cosmic rays also curve as a
> result of galactic magnetism.
> RIGHT???

Yes, very weakly, because the magnetic field is so weak. Got any idea 
what the radius of curvature for those particles is?

> Electrostatics are mediated by similarly
> trajectified particles.

Not charged particles, no. Only charged particles bend in a magnetic 
field. Electrostatics are mediated by photons, which are not charged.

The radius of curvature of those charged particles is given by
r = mv/qB.
The earth's magnetic field is about 40 microteslas.

So let's say you have two charged ping-pong balls separated by 10 cm. 
You are saying that the charged particles come from behind. So what's 
the speed of the electrons, by the formula above, that come around from 
behind, bent by the Earth's magnetic field?


> They are short-range and can be
> attractive while still pushing because
> of this.

And so why do the same particles that come from behind STOP coming from 
behind when you change the sign of the charge of one of the objects and 
the two objects now repel?

> NOT ALL PARTICLE/WAVES GO STRAIGHT.
> Because of magnetic fields.
> Just as you said. Thank you.
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533676

Odd, what are the wavelengths of
light that are being used to attract
things in electrostatic charge, and
do they also curve to achieve this?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533779

On 11/16/2015 6:53 PM, john wrote:
> Odd, what are the wavelengths of
> light that are being used to attract
> things in electrostatic charge, and
> do they also curve to achieve this?
>

Light does not curve in a magnetic field.
The wavelengths of light are in a spectrum, falling with frequency.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533735

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 1:24:33 AM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/16/2015 4:48 PM, john wrote:
> > So, OB, cosmic rays also curve as a
> > result of galactic magnetism.
> > RIGHT???
> 
> Yes, very weakly, because the magnetic field is so weak. Got any idea 
> what the radius of curvature for those particles is?
> 
> > Electrostatics are mediated by similarly
> > trajectified particles.
> 
> Not charged particles, no. Only charged particles bend in a magnetic 
> field. Electrostatics are mediated by photons, which are not charged.
> 
> The radius of curvature of those charged particles is given by
> r = mv/qB.
> The earth's magnetic field is about 40 microteslas.
> 
> So let's say you have two charged ping-pong balls separated by 10 cm. 
> You are saying that the charged particles come from behind. So what's 
> the speed of the electrons, by the formula above, that come around from 
> behind, bent by the Earth's magnetic field?
> 
> 
> > They are short-range and can be
> > attractive while still pushing because
> > of this.
> 
> And so why do the same particles that come from behind STOP coming from 
> behind when you change the sign of the charge of one of the objects and 
> the two objects now repel?
> 
> > NOT ALL PARTICLE/WAVES GO STRAIGHT.
> > Because of magnetic fields.
> > Just as you said. Thank you.
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

===========================
see the Y Circlon mechanism 
blockhead crook parrot 
2
see the historic thread 
'THE MOMENT THAT CURVED SPACE DIED '
=================================
Y.Porat

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533890

Get a brain, you delusional twat-nozzle.

"Y.Porat"  wrote in message 
news:2709473a-94d7-4ca6-80ac-abdf8cf02c55@googlegroups.com...

See the Y Circlon mechanism - it's in my bottom.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533733

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 11:29:01 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/16/2015 1:46 PM, john wrote:
> > Electrostatic attraction occurs because
> > charged particles curve in
> > circles when they travel.
> 
> Not on their own they don't.
> 
> > You've probably never seen a
> > bubble chamber, but when subatomic
> > particles are created they don't just
> > fly off in a straight line; they go around
> > and around like boomerangs.
> 
> That's because there's a giant electromagnet surrounding the bubble 
> chamber. Charged particles go in circles when they're traveling in a 
> transverse magnetic field.
====================================
yet there is there some circular motion
THAT CANT BE EXPLAINED 
MIND YOU
CIRCULAR MOTION CAN  BE IN 3D !!!!!! 3D !!!
of which you and not only
but all those flat paper mathematicians like you 
are a complete impotent s 

so so some of it
cannot be explained  or even noticed 
by current theory 

Y.Porat
================================

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwiKRis145E
> Turn off the magnetic field, and the curved paths aren't curved anymore.
> 
> 
> > That's why it's a "short-range" phenomenon.
> > But-since words mean whatever you
> > want them to- this will be "word-salad"
> > for both you and Moroney.
> > By the way- you two should get your
> > stories straight! He just said that
> > there ARE no "established facts" in
> > Science, while you said quite a few of
> > the Standard Model absurdities are
> > established fact.
> 
> Nothing that is established as fact is an absurdity.
> Some of the things you mentioned are as established as atoms, John, and 
> those are pretty darned established.
> 
> > You two are so DINOSAUR
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533792

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Electrostatic attraction occurs because
>charged particles curve in
>circles when they travel.
>You've probably never seen a
>bubble chamber, but when subatomic
>particles are created they don't just
>fly off in a straight line; they go around
>and around like boomerangs.

That's because bubble chambers employ powerful magnets to MAKE the 
particles curve.  F=Bq x v.  Otherwise the particles would fly off in
straight lines and there would be no way to determine their charge or
their charge/mass ratio (how much the magnet makes them curve).

>That's why it's a "short-range" phenomenon.

Electromagnetism has an infinite range.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533808

The point is
Odd and Michael
that some travelling energies CURVE in the
presence of magnetism (which is
fuckn EVERYWHERE)
and some don't.
If one then allows that smaller (fractal)
energies exist- and you have no proof
that they don't- this is how short-range
attractions can happen by PUSHING.
They curve.

So, Odd, there's your answer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533812

https://books.google.ca/books?id=knoZBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=electric+field+short-range&source=bl&ots=o8PlutlbAS&sig=VdqUExISlIP_PRdKSxRRjSjuuJc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDcQ6AEwCGoVChMI4N31m5eYyQIVlEeICh1Glwpg#v=onepage&q=electric%20field%20short-range&f=false
Here, Michael-
short-range (electric)
long-range (gravitational)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533819

On 11/17/2015 1:28 PM, john wrote:
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=knoZBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=electric+field+short-range
> &source=bl&ots=o8PlutlbAS&sig=VdqUExISlIP_PRdKSxRRjSjuuJc&hl=en
> &sa=X&ved=0CDcQ6AEwCGoVChMI4N31m5eYyQIVlEeICh1Glwpg#v=onepage&q=electric%20field%20short-range&f=false
> Here, Michael-
> short-range (electric)
> long-range (gravitational)
>


I think you should read more than a paragraph or two when you cite a 
book. Click forward two or three pages and you'll see the section 
entitled Comparison Between Electrostatic and Gravitational Forces.

There you will see, right there on the page, that the electrostatic and 
gravitational forces BOTH have identical behavior in falling off like 
the inverse of the distance squared.

You can also read in that same section where he shows that the 
electrostatic force is much, much, much, much stronger than gravity, and 
this ratio is independent of distance (see page 6-7).

Now, you might ask why this author would say something in one sentence 
and then say the opposite later. This you can only get by READING.

John, you do yourself a disservice by having some vague preconception 
and then doing a search that supports your preconception and then 
reading ONLY the sentences that appear to support your notion and then 
NOT READING FURTHER. I don't know what your aversion is to reading, but 
it should be especially embarrassing when the one reference you do pull 
up flies directly in the face of what you were claiming. I would think 
this would encourage you to read more thoroughly, but in your case I 
think it inclines you to read even less.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533822

Odd
I have heard many professional people
say that gravitation is long range
while electric fields are short range.
Perhaps you'd like to cut n paste
something that says otherwise?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533829

On 11/17/2015 2:11 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> I have heard many professional people
> say that gravitation is long range
> while electric fields are short range.

Who are they and where did they say this?

> Perhaps you'd like to cut n paste
> something that says otherwise?

Sure.

Coulomb's law and Newton's law are both inverse-square force laws...
However, they differ in two crucial respects. Firstly, the force due to 
gravity is always attractive (there is no such thing as a negative 
mass). Secondly, the magnitudes of the two forces are vastly different.
From: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node28.html

Coulomb's law describes a force of infinite range which obeys the 
inverse square law, and is of the same form as the gravity force.
From: http://ummalqura-phy.com/HYPER1/elefor.html

Electromagnetism is infinite-ranged like gravity, but vastly stronger, 
and therefore describes a number of macroscopic phenomena of everyday 
experience such as friction, rainbows, lightning, and all human-made 
devices using electric current, such as television, lasers, and computers.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

The electromagnetic force is a force of infinite range which obeys the 
inverse square law, and is of the same form as the gravity force.
From: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html

Not to mention the book that YOU cited and which I invited you to read.



-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533832

On 11/17/2015 2:45 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/17/2015 2:11 PM, john wrote:
>> Odd
>> I have heard many professional people
>> say that gravitation is long range
>> while electric fields are short range.

I just want to reiterate, John, that when you state what you think you 
remember what someone might have said to you, but you can't recall who 
said it to you or where you read it, then it's very likely you don't 
remember accurately what they said. This is why it's good to CHECK what 
you think you know by READING. This way, you can always go back to what 
you read and refer to it again to see if you remember it wrong.

>
> Who are they and where did they say this?
>
>> Perhaps you'd like to cut n paste
>> something that says otherwise?
>
> Sure.
>
> Coulomb's law and Newton's law are both inverse-square force laws...
> However, they differ in two crucial respects. Firstly, the force due to
> gravity is always attractive (there is no such thing as a negative
> mass). Secondly, the magnitudes of the two forces are vastly different.
> From: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node28.html
>
> Coulomb's law describes a force of infinite range which obeys the
> inverse square law, and is of the same form as the gravity force.
> From: http://ummalqura-phy.com/HYPER1/elefor.html
>
> Electromagnetism is infinite-ranged like gravity, but vastly stronger,
> and therefore describes a number of macroscopic phenomena of everyday
> experience such as friction, rainbows, lightning, and all human-made
> devices using electric current, such as television, lasers, and computers.
> From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction
>
> The electromagnetic force is a force of infinite range which obeys the
> inverse square law, and is of the same form as the gravity force.
> From: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html
>
> Not to mention the book that YOU cited and which I invited you to read.
>
>
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533833

On 11/17/2015 2:51 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/17/2015 2:45 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 11/17/2015 2:11 PM, john wrote:
>>> Odd
>>> I have heard many professional people
>>> say that gravitation is long range
>>> while electric fields are short range.
>
> I just want to reiterate, John, that when you state what you think you
> remember what someone might have said to you, but you can't recall who
> said it to you or where you read it, then it's very likely you don't
> remember accurately what they said. This is why it's good to CHECK what
> you think you know by READING. This way, you can always go back to what
> you read and refer to it again to see if you remember it wrong.
>
>>
>> Who are they and where did they say this?
>>

And just to make sure that we round-trip this, you are fond of saying 
that much of physics makes no logical sense. This is another way of you 
saying that it goes against your intuition. But your INTUITION also 
tells you that the electrostatic interaction is short-ranged and gravity 
is long-ranged, and on this front your intuition is simply flat wrong. 
So I would think you would now take a stern look at your intuition and 
tell it, "You've been lying to me." I think that's what any sensible 
person would do.

This then leaves you with a choice. Now that it's established that your 
intuition is pretty worthless, what other avenues are available to you 
to determine what is actually real and sensible?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533826

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>https://books.google.ca/books?id=knoZBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=electric+field+short-range&source=bl&ots=o8PlutlbAS&sig=VdqUExISlIP_PRdKSxRRjSjuuJc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDcQ6AEwCGoVChMI4N31m5eYyQIVlEeICh1Glwpg#v=onepage&q=electric%20field%20short-range&f=false
>Here, Michael-
>short-range (electric)
>long-range (gravitational)

That section is poorly written.  In the real world, electromagnetism is
"short range" only due to the fact that opposites attract and like repels
like, therefore electromagnetism tends to cancel out, while gravity only
accumulates.  The electromagnetism cancelling out is mention later but
that is not connected to the short-rangeness of electromagnetism on that
page.  Also it is mentioned (on the very next page!) that electromagnetism
obeys the inverse square law, which has an infinite range, contradicting
the short-range claim, and is also EXACTLY the law obeyed by gravity.

You need to learn to read for comprehension.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533817

On 11/17/2015 1:11 PM, john wrote:
> The point is
> Odd and Michael
> that some travelling energies CURVE in the
> presence of magnetism (which is
> fuckn EVERYWHERE)
> and some don't.

Yes, charged ones do, and uncharged ones don't.
And in the presence of weak magnetism (which is what's present 
everywhere), the bend is very small. Numbers matter.

> If one then allows that smaller (fractal)
> energies exist- and you have no proof
> that they don't- this is how short-range
> attractions can happen by PUSHING.
> They curve.

But small *charged* bodies would be pretty easily detectable even if 
they're small. Up to now, you've been talking about something like 
sub-photons, which are neutral and DON'T bend in magnetism. As soon as 
you imagine something that is small but CHARGED, now it's going to stick 
out like a sore thumb experimentally. And so yes, we've got a pretty 
good idea that small CHARGED entities don't exist.

>
> So, Odd, there's your answer
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533825

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>The point is
>Odd and Michael
>that some travelling energies CURVE in the
>presence of magnetism (which is
>fuckn EVERYWHERE)

Yes, and in most places it is very weak, and most times the magnetism is 
small enough to be neglected.

>If one then allows that smaller (fractal)
>energies exist- and you have no proof
>that they don't-

That's not how science works, John.  If I say gravity is due to invisible
pink fairies pushing matter around, I cannot say "Prove that invisible
pink fairies don't exist!"  I have to give some sort of evidence of
those invisible pink fairies.  Same goes for your fractal crap.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#533831

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 12:23:39 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >The point is
> >Odd and Michael
> >that some travelling energies CURVE in the
> >presence of magnetism (which is
> >fuckn EVERYWHERE)
> 
> Yes, and in most places it is very weak, and most times the magnetism is 
> small enough to be neglected.
> 
> >If one then allows that smaller (fractal)
> >energies exist- and you have no proof
> >that they don't-
> 
> That's not how science works, John.  If I say gravity is due to invisible
> pink fairies pushing matter around, I cannot say "Prove that invisible
> pink fairies don't exist!"  I have to give some sort of evidence of
> those invisible pink fairies.  Same goes for your fractal crap.


There's no Maxwell daemon because 
he'd only make work for himself.

Basically we're looking at 
"Maxwell's Gypsy".

"Brownian ratchet" would build 
pressure against itself.

"Martingale":  breaks banks.

Borel vs. Combinatorics, anyone?

Can you explains how bosons are 
different than fermions as that is 
just observational that they seem 
to follow "different statistics"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web