Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #538611 > unrolled thread
| Started by | SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-11 09:06 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-12-26 13:53 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 172 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Do neutrinos really have masses? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 09:06 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? omnilobe@gmail.com - 2015-12-11 09:59 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 10:05 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 12:25 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 13:57 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 22:48 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 12:27 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 15:31 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 22:47 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-14 04:54 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 05:28 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 08:36 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-15 00:54 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 07:20 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 07:18 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 09:39 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 11:44 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-16 03:15 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 11:47 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 13:45 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 16:06 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 16:08 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 16:09 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? dobri karagorgov <dobrikarate.gov@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 14:15 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 02:16 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-16 03:05 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 06:59 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-17 02:42 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 09:43 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-17 14:12 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 08:42 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-16 03:30 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 07:34 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 15:54 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 09:04 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 16:25 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-17 02:34 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 09:13 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 21:21 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 14:46 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 22:03 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 15:46 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 23:22 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 17:14 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 10:44 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 07:56 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 09:16 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 17:21 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 09:44 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 01:26 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 21:25 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 14:47 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 22:22 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 15:49 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 22:58 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-18 00:31 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 08:00 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 07:50 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Ezra Farrow <ezrafa@dubtechno.org> - 2015-12-18 15:12 +0000
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 08:16 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Ezra Farrow <ezrafa@dubtechno.org> - 2015-12-18 16:53 +0000
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 01:32 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 23:50 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Ezra Farrow <ezrafa@dubtechno.org> - 2015-12-18 23:19 +0000
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 01:35 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 09:32 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 15:04 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 12:09 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 14:47 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 13:22 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 15:42 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 16:02 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 18:54 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-26 07:06 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 09:03 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 18:21 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Ezra Farrow <ezrafa@dubtechno.org> - 2015-12-19 10:15 +0000
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 12:44 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Ezra Farrow <ezrafa@dubtechno.org> - 2015-12-20 12:44 +0000
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 14:10 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 10:39 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 11:47 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 15:20 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 07:48 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-18 15:29 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 01:00 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 00:54 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 18:11 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-16 03:41 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 10:42 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-17 02:47 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 20:55 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? dobri karagorgov <dobrikarate.gov@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 12:24 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-18 15:30 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 10:47 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-12-15 13:53 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-16 03:33 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 09:59 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-15 03:37 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 17:42 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 20:57 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 12:07 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 10:03 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? NoeDOTNatDOTNoe <dedanoe@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 10:24 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 12:41 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 02:30 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-14 04:44 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 06:36 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-20 09:46 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 18:58 +0100
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-22 10:16 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-23 13:00 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-23 15:57 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-26 07:45 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-27 09:01 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 12:24 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-27 16:51 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 20:13 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-27 23:58 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-28 06:55 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-28 08:37 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-28 20:31 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 08:25 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 08:30 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-29 08:45 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 10:50 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-29 09:22 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 11:28 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-29 09:59 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 10:34 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 12:48 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-29 11:38 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 13:52 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 11:50 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-29 10:18 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 12:50 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-29 11:45 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 13:54 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-29 13:20 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 16:53 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 16:13 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-29 16:20 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 18:23 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 17:49 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "Sam Jones" <invalid@example.com> - 2015-12-30 20:38 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 05:55 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-31 09:45 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 13:04 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 16:25 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-30 11:31 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 10:55 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 13:04 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? dobri karagorgov <dobrikarate.gov@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 11:24 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 09:14 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 09:53 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 09:49 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-29 08:11 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 11:40 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-31 08:35 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-31 16:11 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-31 14:34 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 02:57 -0500
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? SEKI <seki.hajime01@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 07:25 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 13:32 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 14:23 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 09:35 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 11:47 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 10:24 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 13:28 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 16:33 -0600
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 10:09 -0800
Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 13:53 -0600
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-15 16:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4q2s9$fg1$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539446 |
On 12/15/2015 3:45 PM, john wrote: > Odd maintained > "Well, ok, but that's YOU. YOU believe that everything that exists must > be matter, must have substance, must have internal structure, must have > shape, must have a boundary. Why you have that belief, nobody knows. > It's just something you believe, evidence or no. You call it logic. I > call it an empty, uninformed belief without substantiation. " > Well- list some things that don't have > those attributes, Odd Light (no any of that) Electric fields (no any of that) Atoms (no boundary) Clouds (no boundary) Electrons (no shape, no internal structure) How many of these things do you want to say don't exist? It's an EMPTY, UNINFORMED BELIEF WITHOUT SUBSTANTIATION. Just because dogs, oranges, and a tree have those traits doesn't mean EVERYTHING does. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-15 16:08 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4q30o$fg1$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539456 |
On 12/15/2015 4:06 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 12/15/2015 3:45 PM, john wrote: >> Odd maintained >> "Well, ok, but that's YOU. YOU believe that everything that exists must >> be matter, must have substance, must have internal structure, must have >> shape, must have a boundary. Why you have that belief, nobody knows. >> It's just something you believe, evidence or no. You call it logic. I >> call it an empty, uninformed belief without substantiation. " >> Well- list some things that don't have >> those attributes, Odd > > Light (no any of that) > > Electric fields (no any of that) > > Atoms (no boundary) > > Clouds (no boundary) > > Electrons (no shape, no internal structure) > > > How many of these things do you want to say don't exist? > > It's an EMPTY, UNINFORMED BELIEF WITHOUT SUBSTANTIATION. > Just because dogs, oranges, and a tree have those traits doesn't mean > EVERYTHING does. > > Do you see, John, the difference between logic and empty, uninformed belief without substantiation? Or do those two things still mean the same thing to you? That if you believe it, it must be logical? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-15 16:09 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4q331$fg1$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539458 |
On 12/15/2015 4:08 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 12/15/2015 4:06 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 12/15/2015 3:45 PM, john wrote: >>> Odd maintained >>> "Well, ok, but that's YOU. YOU believe that everything that exists must >>> be matter, must have substance, must have internal structure, must have >>> shape, must have a boundary. Why you have that belief, nobody knows. >>> It's just something you believe, evidence or no. You call it logic. I >>> call it an empty, uninformed belief without substantiation. " >>> Well- list some things that don't have >>> those attributes, Odd >> >> Light (no any of that) >> >> Electric fields (no any of that) >> >> Atoms (no boundary) >> >> Clouds (no boundary) >> >> Electrons (no shape, no internal structure) >> >> >> How many of these things do you want to say don't exist? >> >> It's an EMPTY, UNINFORMED BELIEF WITHOUT SUBSTANTIATION. >> Just because dogs, oranges, and a tree have those traits doesn't mean >> EVERYTHING does. >> >> > > Do you see, John, the difference between logic and empty, uninformed > belief without substantiation? Or do those two things still mean the > same thing to you? That if you believe it, it must be logical? > You BELIEVE that a movie about an alien autopsy was real, even though the maker of that movie said that he duped you. Now, is that belief or is that logic? Or are those the same to you? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dobri karagorgov <dobrikarate.gov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-15 14:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f864a120-d6f3-48a6-b362-9e6141ab5cdf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #539458 |
On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:08:31 PM UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 12/15/2015 4:06 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 12/15/2015 3:45 PM, john wrote: > >> Odd maintained > >> "Well, ok, but that's YOU. YOU believe that everything that exists must > >> be matter, must have substance, must have internal structure, must have > >> shape, must have a boundary. Why you have that belief, nobody knows. > >> It's just something you believe, evidence or no. You call it logic. I > >> call it an empty, uninformed belief without substantiation. " > >> Well- list some things that don't have > >> those attributes, Odd > > > > Light (no any of that) > > > > Electric fields (no any of that) > > > > Atoms (no boundary) > > > > Clouds (no boundary) > > > > Electrons (no shape, no internal structure) > > > > > > How many of these things do you want to say don't exist? > > > > It's an EMPTY, UNINFORMED BELIEF WITHOUT SUBSTANTIATION. > > Just because dogs, oranges, and a tree have those traits doesn't mean > > EVERYTHING does. > > > > > > Do you see, John, the difference between logic and empty, uninformed > belief without substantiation? Or do those two things still mean the > same thing to you? That if you believe it, it must be logical? > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables that if you believe it, it must be logical... but then again you all have logical law that forbids the third logical states of being paradox or fourth logical states of being absurd yet logic cannot do without them (it can be either true or false not both in position or opposition you say).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 02:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4b3aaf98-9811-4c48-bf8e-f5e49819a6cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #539392 |
On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 7:47:39 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 12/15/2015 9:18 AM, john wrote: > > This is a GREAT post, Yousuf, thank you > > > > On 12/14/2015 11:54 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote: > >> Yet, what is this fabric of spacetime made of? Why can it bend, if it > >> wasn't particulate? > >> > > Yousuf wrote extremely logical stuff, so > > Odd is on him like ugly on an old satyr: > >> This was one of the earliest logical arguments for the existence of > >> atoms in the ancient world. Greek philosopher, Democritus, hypothesized > >> that all objects must be made of a smallest unit of them, which he > >> called the atom. This atom is what allowed objects to flex, warp, and > >> swirl, etc. Many thousands of years later, his hypothesis was proved > >> correct. The same logic can be applied to spacetime itself. If spacetime > >> is a fabric, then it is an object, and if it can deform, then it must be > >> made of a smallest unit. > >> > >> Yousuf Khan > > Odd said > > -I think you are making some claim that physical -properties can only > > -belong to material things, and material stuff is ----made of particles. I > > -would question that assumption. > > Of course you would. > > But you believe in Nothing. > > No, "Nothing" is YOUR label. Empty space is not Nothing. Empty space > does have physical properties. Calling it "Nothing" does not make those > properties disappear as if by magic. Incantation with words does not > alter reality. > > > QM taught you that. > > You believe atoms have Nothing as > > a structure. > > What?? I've never said that. Neither have physicists. > > > You believe the Universe came from > > Nothing ( is expanding into Nothing). > > What?? The universe isn't "expanding into" anything. The universe has no > boundary. How can something without a boundary be expanding into > something else? It's YOU who insists that if it's expanding it must have > a boundary, because your brain is incapable of conceiving of what > expansion means WITHOUT a boundary. > > > You believe the amount of volume in > > an electron is Nothing. > > There is no volume to an electron. It's just not a property of an electron. > > > You believe > > enormous amounts of matter collapsed > > at every point where there is a Black Hole > > and became so small we can see > > Nothing. > > No, that's not what's claimed. A black hole has a finite size, John. > It's called an event horizon. Look it up. Nothing inside that finite > event horizon can be seen, not because it's too small, but because light > can't get out. If you're going to talk about black holes, John, you > should learn what they really are like first. > > > So. > > You believe in Nothing. > > > > I don't believe in Nothing. I believe > > that nothing is Nothing. > > Well, ok, but that's YOU. YOU believe that everything that exists must > be matter, must have substance, must have internal structure, must have > shape, must have a boundary. Why you have that belief, nobody knows. > It's just something you believe, evidence or no. You call it logic. I > call it an empty, uninformed belief without substantiation. > > But people like you believe whatever you want to believe. You believe > the stories in supermarket tabloids are true, even when there is a > disclaimer that it's all satire and fiction. You believe that alien > autopsy movies are true, even when the MAKER of the movie says it was > all a scam. And I'm sure you believe in the power of magnetic insoles > and crystal necklaces. > > > > > Everything has structure. > > Where you see no structure, that > > structure is simply too small to be > > seen. > > This is the case for Space. The stuff > > making it up is simply too small to > > interact with OUR emr. > > That invisible stuff > > is the next fractal layer down and > > all the rest below it, and it and they > > have their OWN emr spectra- because > > they create them- but they are far > > too small and too high-frequency for us > > to detect, so we say there is "nothing " > > there. > > None of OUR stuff is there. So we > > can't see it. But it does > > interact GRAVITATIONALLY. > > And it does conduct light. > > And it does, when spinning very fast, > > rip our matter to shreds and eject it > > as jets going at .9c. > > > > So. > > There's that! > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables ====================== yes indeed Bodkin = Paul Draper (P D is nothing but a f en incurable parrot space is nothing it has no properties whatsoever it is mass that is the mother of all forces the blockhead Parrot didnt understand the historic thread 'To which direction space will curve '' a blockhead remains a block head and may be even worse a shameless *business man* - crock book seller =========================== Y.Porat ============================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 03:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <G4udnbOmUcqohuzLnZ2dnUU7-T-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #539306 |
On 15/12/2015 8:20 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 12/14/2015 11:54 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote: >> Yet, what is this fabric of spacetime made of? Why can it bend, if it >> wasn't particulate? >> >> This was one of the earliest logical arguments for the existence of >> atoms in the ancient world. Greek philosopher, Democritus, hypothesized >> that all objects must be made of a smallest unit of them, which he >> called the atom. This atom is what allowed objects to flex, warp, and >> swirl, etc. Many thousands of years later, his hypothesis was proved >> correct. The same logic can be applied to spacetime itself. If spacetime >> is a fabric, then it is an object, and if it can deform, then it must be >> made of a smallest unit. >> >> Yousuf Khan > > I think you are making some claim that physical properties can only > belong to material things, and material stuff is made of particles. I > would question that assumption. Under Newton, spacetime couldn't bend, warp, or deform in any way whatsoever. Spacetime was simply an empty background, upon which matter and energy played. Spacetime had no properties of its own. Under Einstein, spacetime acquired the ability to deform. That's a property, something that spacetime never had before. Spacetime now gets affected by matter-energy, and in return it affects matter-energy. Never happened under Newton. Whether or not spacetime is "a thing" is no longer a debate, that ship sailed away a long time ago, 100 years ago actually, there is no doubt that spacetime is a thing. Even Superstring and M-theory, whether it's right or wrong, treats spacetime as a thing similar in a way to the particles that exist underneath it. They call it an M-brane. So a lot of theories have been going along this path towards turning spacetime into an active actor in the universe too. Yousuf Khan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 06:59 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4rn7i$qte$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539550 |
On 12/16/2015 2:05 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote: > On 15/12/2015 8:20 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 12/14/2015 11:54 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote: >>> Yet, what is this fabric of spacetime made of? Why can it bend, if it >>> wasn't particulate? >>> >>> This was one of the earliest logical arguments for the existence of >>> atoms in the ancient world. Greek philosopher, Democritus, hypothesized >>> that all objects must be made of a smallest unit of them, which he >>> called the atom. This atom is what allowed objects to flex, warp, and >>> swirl, etc. Many thousands of years later, his hypothesis was proved >>> correct. The same logic can be applied to spacetime itself. If spacetime >>> is a fabric, then it is an object, and if it can deform, then it must be >>> made of a smallest unit. >>> >>> Yousuf Khan >> >> I think you are making some claim that physical properties can only >> belong to material things, and material stuff is made of particles. I >> would question that assumption. > > Under Newton, spacetime couldn't bend, warp, or deform in any way > whatsoever. Spacetime was simply an empty background, upon which matter > and energy played. Spacetime had no properties of its own. Correct, and then question is not answerable with philosophy. It is, however, answerable with experiment. > > Under Einstein, spacetime acquired the ability to deform. That's a > property, something that spacetime never had before. Spacetime now gets > affected by matter-energy, and in return it affects matter-energy. Never > happened under Newton. Whether or not spacetime is "a thing" is no > longer a debate, that ship sailed away a long time ago, 100 years ago > actually, there is no doubt that spacetime is a thing. Even earlier, when in fact it was discovered that empty space had permittivity, permeability, and impedance. > > Even Superstring and M-theory, whether it's right or wrong, treats > spacetime as a thing similar in a way to the particles that exist > underneath it. They call it an M-brane. So a lot of theories have been > going along this path towards turning spacetime into an active actor in > the universe too. > > Yousuf Khan > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 02:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <KsSdnc1oGOT2-u_LnZ2dnUU7-YfOydjZ@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #539575 |
On 16/12/2015 7:59 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 12/16/2015 2:05 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote: >> Under Newton, spacetime couldn't bend, warp, or deform in any way >> whatsoever. Spacetime was simply an empty background, upon which matter >> and energy played. Spacetime had no properties of its own. > > Correct, and then question is not answerable with philosophy. It is, > however, answerable with experiment. Or if not with experiment, with observation. Most of what we know about spacetime comes from observations, not through direct experiments on it. The difference between observations and experiments is that observations just come to us without our help or input. >> Under Einstein, spacetime acquired the ability to deform. That's a >> property, something that spacetime never had before. Spacetime now gets >> affected by matter-energy, and in return it affects matter-energy. Never >> happened under Newton. Whether or not spacetime is "a thing" is no >> longer a debate, that ship sailed away a long time ago, 100 years ago >> actually, there is no doubt that spacetime is a thing. > > Even earlier, when in fact it was discovered that empty space had > permittivity, permeability, and impedance. Sure, classical electromagnetism pointed us to a lot of previously unknown properties of spacetime, but nobody realized that they were properties of spacetime, yet, until Einstein codified it. In fact, at that time people were thinking these properties were the properties of something called the Aether, the Aether existed inside spacetime, like matter did, but it wasn't supposed to be spacetime itself. Spacetime was just simple dimensions, nothing else, at that point in time. The entire of the 20th century was spent showing that these properties didn't need to be that of something separate from spacetime (The Aether), they were the properties of spacetime itself. That's because spacetime is a something, it's an object of its own. Yousuf Khan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 09:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4ul7q$c15$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539774 |
On 12/17/2015 1:42 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote: > On 16/12/2015 7:59 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 12/16/2015 2:05 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote: >>> Under Newton, spacetime couldn't bend, warp, or deform in any way >>> whatsoever. Spacetime was simply an empty background, upon which matter >>> and energy played. Spacetime had no properties of its own. >> >> Correct, and then question is not answerable with philosophy. It is, >> however, answerable with experiment. > > Or if not with experiment, with observation. Most of what we know about > spacetime comes from observations, not through direct experiments on it. > The difference between observations and experiments is that observations > just come to us without our help or input. True enough. > >>> Under Einstein, spacetime acquired the ability to deform. That's a >>> property, something that spacetime never had before. Spacetime now gets >>> affected by matter-energy, and in return it affects matter-energy. Never >>> happened under Newton. Whether or not spacetime is "a thing" is no >>> longer a debate, that ship sailed away a long time ago, 100 years ago >>> actually, there is no doubt that spacetime is a thing. >> >> Even earlier, when in fact it was discovered that empty space had >> permittivity, permeability, and impedance. > > Sure, classical electromagnetism pointed us to a lot of previously > unknown properties of spacetime, but nobody realized that they were > properties of spacetime, yet, until Einstein codified it. In fact, at > that time people were thinking these properties were the properties of > something called the Aether, the Aether existed inside spacetime, like > matter did, but it wasn't supposed to be spacetime itself. Spacetime was > just simple dimensions, nothing else, at that point in time. > > The entire of the 20th century was spent showing that these properties > didn't need to be that of something separate from spacetime (The > Aether), they were the properties of spacetime itself. That's because > spacetime is a something, it's an object of its own. That's also true. I think the thing to note though is that what got observed first were the properties. It was supposed for a while that some of the properties were associated with one thing and some other properties were associated with something else possibly, but the great simplification came with realizing that the properties all belong to one thing. > > Yousuf Khan -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 14:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ho-dna_i0uKxlO7LnZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #539812 |
On 17/12/2015 10:43 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 12/17/2015 1:42 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote: >> On 16/12/2015 7:59 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 12/16/2015 2:05 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote: >>>> Under Newton, spacetime couldn't bend, warp, or deform in any way >>>> whatsoever. Spacetime was simply an empty background, upon which matter >>>> and energy played. Spacetime had no properties of its own. >>> >>> Correct, and then question is not answerable with philosophy. It is, >>> however, answerable with experiment. >> >> Or if not with experiment, with observation. Most of what we know about >> spacetime comes from observations, not through direct experiments on it. >> The difference between observations and experiments is that observations >> just come to us without our help or input. > > True enough. > >> >>>> Under Einstein, spacetime acquired the ability to deform. That's a >>>> property, something that spacetime never had before. Spacetime now gets >>>> affected by matter-energy, and in return it affects matter-energy. >>>> Never >>>> happened under Newton. Whether or not spacetime is "a thing" is no >>>> longer a debate, that ship sailed away a long time ago, 100 years ago >>>> actually, there is no doubt that spacetime is a thing. >>> >>> Even earlier, when in fact it was discovered that empty space had >>> permittivity, permeability, and impedance. >> >> Sure, classical electromagnetism pointed us to a lot of previously >> unknown properties of spacetime, but nobody realized that they were >> properties of spacetime, yet, until Einstein codified it. In fact, at >> that time people were thinking these properties were the properties of >> something called the Aether, the Aether existed inside spacetime, like >> matter did, but it wasn't supposed to be spacetime itself. Spacetime was >> just simple dimensions, nothing else, at that point in time. >> >> The entire of the 20th century was spent showing that these properties >> didn't need to be that of something separate from spacetime (The >> Aether), they were the properties of spacetime itself. That's because >> spacetime is a something, it's an object of its own. > > That's also true. I think the thing to note though is that what got > observed first were the properties. It was supposed for a while that > some of the properties were associated with one thing and some other > properties were associated with something else possibly, but the great > simplification came with realizing that the properties all belong to one > thing. So, we're in violent agreement then? :) Yousuf Khan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-15 08:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <CIednatTN81Lu-3LnZ2dnUU7-XWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #539273 |
On 12/14/15 11:54 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote: > On 14/12/2015 9:36 AM, Sam Wormley wrote: >> Just because spacetime warps there is no need to assign it particle >> status as warping of individual particles in the standard model is >> not a measurable property. The traditional view is the mass and energy >> of particles warps the "fabric" of spacetime. > > Yet, what is this fabric of spacetime made of? Why can it bend, if it > wasn't particulate? > > This was one of the earliest logical arguments for the existence of > atoms in the ancient world. Greek philosopher, Democritus, hypothesized > that all objects must be made of a smallest unit of them, which he > called the atom. This atom is what allowed objects to flex, warp, and > swirl, etc. Many thousands of years later, his hypothesis was proved > correct. The same logic can be applied to spacetime itself. If spacetime > is a fabric, then it is an object, and if it can deform, then it must be > made of a smallest unit. > > Yousuf Khan Well, let's not make something up, but have some patience for physics research and associated theory to shed light on the "fabric of spacetime". -- 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 | Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 03:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <KpSdnRk16vGDvOzLnZ2dnUU7-I-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #539336 |
On 15/12/2015 9:42 AM, Sam Wormley wrote: > Well, let's not make something up, but have some patience for > physics research and associated theory to shed light on the > "fabric of spacetime". What in the world am I making up? I posed the questions quite logically. Physics research has shed quite a bit of light on what the fabric of spacetime is. It is the vacuum energy. The days of spacetime as "nothing" ended with the Newtonian era. Einstein started the ball rolling with the concept of the "spacetime fabric". The fathers of quantum physics (including Einstein himself), destroyed the concept of spacetime as nothing after that completely, when vacuum energy was discovered. We cannot describe spacetime as just a null set anymore. It now has properties, tons of properties, as a matter of fact. Something with so many properties cannot be nothing anymore. We just haven't gotten used to the idea of accepting spacetime as *not* nothing yet. We're stuck in Newton-land on this old idea of spacetime. No, spacetime is not matter or mass. Matter or mass are properties that emerge from spacetime energy. Yousuf Khan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 07:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4rp9u$lf$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539553 |
On 12/16/2015 2:30 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote: > We cannot describe spacetime as just a null set anymore. It now has > properties, tons of properties, as a matter of fact. Something with so > many properties cannot be nothing anymore. We just haven't gotten used > to the idea of accepting spacetime as *not* nothing yet. We're stuck in > Newton-land on this old idea of spacetime. That's a fair statement. The recourse is not to let the mind be dictated by assumptions, words, or philosophies, but by experiment. Let experiment tell you which of your previous assumptions are suspect, and then just. Let. Them. Go. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 15:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n4rtr9$2qc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #539577 |
On 12/16/2015 02:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 12/16/2015 2:30 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote: >> We cannot describe spacetime as just a null set anymore. It now has >> properties, tons of properties, as a matter of fact. Something with so >> many properties cannot be nothing anymore. We just haven't gotten used >> to the idea of accepting spacetime as *not* nothing yet. We're stuck in >> Newton-land on this old idea of spacetime. > > That's a fair statement. The recourse is not to let the mind be dictated > by assumptions, words, or philosophies, but by experiment. Let > experiment tell you which of your previous assumptions are suspect, and > then just. Let. Them. Go. > There is need to be distinguished the space and the space metric. The former is very close to be the vacuum, while the latter is space-time as 4D math object as vacuum metric. While the space=vacuum has permitivity, permeability, impedance, virtual pair creations/anihilation ( electron magnetic momentum anomaly, Lamb shift, Casimir effect and more ) etc, but it is not curved. What is curved is space=space-time metric, that on the other hand does not have the attributes above. E.g. the radius of the Sun is about 0.5 meter shorter than its circumference divided by 2.pi. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant. Eventual Wikipedia articles are provided with intention of a convenient reference, not as an evidence, argument, and usually not as a primary source of my knowledge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 09:04 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4ruhe$esq$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539583 |
On 12/16/2015 8:54 AM, Poutnik wrote: > On 12/16/2015 02:34 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 12/16/2015 2:30 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote: >>> We cannot describe spacetime as just a null set anymore. It now has >>> properties, tons of properties, as a matter of fact. Something with so >>> many properties cannot be nothing anymore. We just haven't gotten used >>> to the idea of accepting spacetime as *not* nothing yet. We're stuck in >>> Newton-land on this old idea of spacetime. >> >> That's a fair statement. The recourse is not to let the mind be dictated >> by assumptions, words, or philosophies, but by experiment. Let >> experiment tell you which of your previous assumptions are suspect, and >> then just. Let. Them. Go. >> > > There is need to be distinguished the space and the space metric. > > The former is very close to be the vacuum, > while the latter is space-time as 4D math object as vacuum metric. > > While the space=vacuum has permitivity, permeability, impedance, > virtual pair creations/anihilation ( electron magnetic momentum anomaly, > Lamb shift, Casimir effect and more ) etc, but it is not curved. > > What is curved is space=space-time metric, > that on the other hand does not have the attributes above. > > E.g. the radius of the Sun is about 0.5 meter shorter > than its circumference divided by 2.pi. > I don't buy this. Light bends as it travels in vacuum from one material body to another, passing near another material body. The light's propagation through this vacuum is determined by the vacuum's permittivity and its permeability. Its bend is determined by another property of the same vacuum -- its intrinsic curvature. I don't believe that light's behavior in the vacuum is a reflection of its interaction with two different things. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 16:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n4rvle$9s6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #539586 |
On 12/16/2015 04:04 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 12/16/2015 8:54 AM, Poutnik wrote: >>> >> >> There is need to be distinguished the space and the space metric. >> >> The former is very close to be the vacuum, >> while the latter is space-time as 4D math object as vacuum metric. >> >> While the space=vacuum has permitivity, permeability, impedance, >> virtual pair creations/anihilation ( electron magnetic momentum anomaly, >> Lamb shift, Casimir effect and more ) etc, but it is not curved. >> >> What is curved is space=space-time metric, >> that on the other hand does not have the attributes above. >> >> E.g. the radius of the Sun is about 0.5 meter shorter >> than its circumference divided by 2.pi. >> > > I don't buy this. Light bends as it travels in vacuum from one material > body to another, passing near another material body. > > The light's propagation through this vacuum is determined by the > vacuum's permittivity and its permeability. Its bend is determined by > another property of the same vacuum -- its intrinsic curvature. > > I don't believe that light's behavior in the vacuum is a reflection of > its interaction with two different things. > You have just said you do believe in that. But it is not an interaction. I guess it is better to involve SPR group as well, I bet Tom Roberts would have more to say about that. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 02:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2qKdnW-8Ga77-O_LnZ2dnUU7-I-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #539583 |
On 16/12/2015 9:54 AM, Poutnik wrote: > There is need to be distinguished the space and the space metric. The space metric is just yet another property of spacetime. Before, in Newton's time, it was considered spacetime itself, but now it's considered just a property of a far more complex spacetime. Spacetime as object. Yousuf Khan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 09:13 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4ujee$6pg$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539773 |
On 12/17/2015 1:34 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote: > On 16/12/2015 9:54 AM, Poutnik wrote: >> There is need to be distinguished the space and the space metric. > > The space metric is just yet another property of spacetime. Before, in > Newton's time, it was considered spacetime itself, but now it's > considered just a property of a far more complex spacetime. Spacetime as > object. > > Yousuf Khan The metric is a PROPERTY of the vacuum not a thing separate from the vacuum. Just like permittivity is a property of the vacuum, not a think separate from it. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 21:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n4v5bs$p51$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #539806 |
Dne 17/12/2015 v 16:13 Odd Bodkin napsal(a): > On 12/17/2015 1:34 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote: >> On 16/12/2015 9:54 AM, Poutnik wrote: >>> There is need to be distinguished the space and the space metric. >> >> The space metric is just yet another property of spacetime. Before, in >> Newton's time, it was considered spacetime itself, but now it's >> considered just a property of a far more complex spacetime. Spacetime as >> object. >> >> Yousuf Khan > > The metric is a PROPERTY of the vacuum not a thing separate from the > vacuum. Just like permittivity is a property of the vacuum, not a think > separate from it. > As space has more than 1 meaning, 2 attributes of space need not to belong to the same object. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 14:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4v6v7$n28$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539889 |
On 12/17/2015 2:21 PM, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 17/12/2015 v 16:13 Odd Bodkin napsal(a): >> On 12/17/2015 1:34 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote: >>> On 16/12/2015 9:54 AM, Poutnik wrote: >>>> There is need to be distinguished the space and the space metric. >>> >>> The space metric is just yet another property of spacetime. Before, in >>> Newton's time, it was considered spacetime itself, but now it's >>> considered just a property of a far more complex spacetime. Spacetime as >>> object. >>> >>> Yousuf Khan >> >> The metric is a PROPERTY of the vacuum not a thing separate from the >> vacuum. Just like permittivity is a property of the vacuum, not a think >> separate from it. >> > > As space has more than 1 meaning, > 2 attributes of space need not to belong to the same object. > Now I think we're in aether land again. Let's say there are material objects at certain locations and we have cataloged them all. Now we say that there is something that represents the background in which those objects sit. Or we don't even have to go that far, we can just talk about what lies between the material objects. This is what scientists might colloquially, loosely refer to as "the vacuum". Now you might ask, is the vacuum really TWO things that occupy the same volume? Or is it just "the vacuum" that has a variety of properties? If you say, it's really TWO things that occupy the volume, the next obvious question would be, "How, other than arbitrarily assigning some properties to one and other properties to the other, would you distinguish these two PHYSICALLY?" I'll give you an analogy. Let's take a zebra. You might say that the zebra is really TWO animals: There's the white-zebra animal and the black-zebra animal. And in this case what I'm calling the zebra, you might say is a combination of black-zebra and white-zebra. But I would then ask, how would you physically distinguish the two animals here, OTHER THAN the properties black and white? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web