Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #546552 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-19 14:53 -0600 |
| Last post | 2016-01-22 07:29 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 99 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 14:53 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 13:06 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 17:21 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 15:28 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 18:07 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 16:34 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 18:43 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 16:50 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-19 19:50 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 07:07 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 18:09 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-20 03:47 +0000
Re: Questions for John Sefton James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 20:40 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 07:30 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 05:58 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 11:15 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 16:32 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 22:47 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 10:11 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 14:06 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 17:56 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 20:11 -0800
Questions for John Sefton jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-20 05:41 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 07:52 -0600
Questions for John Sefton HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 07:03 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 09:24 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-20 10:03 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 12:29 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 13:55 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-21 07:58 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 10:26 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-29 12:26 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 15:02 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 12:50 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 13:15 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 13:44 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-20 10:07 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 09:55 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-20 12:53 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 16:40 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 15:23 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-20 19:22 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 05:38 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 08:41 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 07:01 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 09:18 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 09:26 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 09:01 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 20:37 -0500
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 11:12 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-21 18:00 +0000
Re: Questions for John Sefton "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 11:49 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 06:55 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 11:52 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 12:29 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 14:46 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-21 10:25 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 08:55 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 12:45 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 14:56 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 14:01 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 16:23 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 15:27 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 17:39 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 16:27 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-21 21:56 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 07:47 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 18:04 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 20:43 -0500
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 07:32 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-22 08:43 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 06:56 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 08:59 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 07:34 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 10:22 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 08:45 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 08:51 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 11:05 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 09:44 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 11:51 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 10:10 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 12:31 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 10:50 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 02:17 -0500
Re: Questions for John Sefton moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-22 19:01 +0000
Re: Questions for John Sefton john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 12:03 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 12:02 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 11:00 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 15:06 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 13:59 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 16:18 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 15:22 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 17:31 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 16:21 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 07:53 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 16:32 -0600
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 13:06 -0600
Questions for John Sefton john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 17:45 -0800
Re: Questions for John Sefton Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 07:29 -0600
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 14:53 -0600 |
| Subject | Questions for John Sefton |
| Message-ID | <n7m7o9$1knl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
1. Mathematics is a descriptive language used by physicists to explain their models. You opt not to learn that language, but instead feel free to complain that physicists have not explained things in language you already know. What's the source of your resistance to learning some mathematics? 2. You say that the money that has been spent on dark matter is a waste of money and effort and should be stopped after a certain line of expense or time has been spent. And yet you propose a "smaller form" of matter, 10^31 times smaller than anything that's been seen, and which would therefore be many orders of magnitude harder to see or test in experiment. Why do you think YOUR idea is worth investing in, when it is so much harder to test and is many, many more years further away in even possible confirmation? 3. You say the scientific method is useless because the people who do the experiments to test the theories are scientists and are therefore not to be trusted with objectivity. What else, then, would YOU propose as a method to determine if a scientific idea is correct or not? And if you have no alternative approach other than the scientific method, why are you spending so much time on a newsgroup for fans of the scientific method? 4. You say that a rule of nature that makes sense to you is that all real objects MUST have volume and structure as properties. But how do you know this rule is correct? And if you can't say why you know, do you think it's sensible for you to try to dictate to reality how it is, rather than finding out ways to ask reality whether it is that way or not? As you can see, these are straightforward self-awareness questions that maybe you can't answer for yourself, let alone for me. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 13:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <210dcd57-e13c-4abc-a0b0-28b4e344144c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #546552 |
On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 12:53:35 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > 1. Mathematics is a descriptive language used by physicists to explain > their models. You opt not to learn that language, but instead feel free > to complain that physicists have not explained things in language you > already know. What's the source of your resistance to learning some > mathematics? Oddball: It is obviously too complicated for you to understand. Find another hobby.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 17:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7mgd7$35u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #546555 |
On 1/19/2016 3:06 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 12:53:35 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> 1. Mathematics is a descriptive language used by physicists to explain >> their models. You opt not to learn that language, but instead feel free >> to complain that physicists have not explained things in language you >> already know. What's the source of your resistance to learning some >> mathematics? > > Oddball: It is obviously too complicated for you to understand. Find another hobby. > What is too complicated for me to understand? The source of his resistance to learning some mathematics? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 15:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <beee7aa1-e22a-4a95-bf3a-ab01ab694fb5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #546581 |
On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 3:21:19 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > What is too complicated for me to understand? Address John's thinking directly, explicitly, or go find another hobby.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 18:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7mj36$6gn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #546589 |
On 1/19/2016 5:28 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 3:21:19 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> What is too complicated for me to understand? > > Address John's thinking directly, explicitly, or go find another hobby. > I wasn't responding to one of John's posts. I made a top-level post. Subject and content is of my own choosing and design. John is free to respond to the questions in the post. I don't believe he needs you to run interference with him, but if you can assure him that he's not competent to respond and needs you to do that for him, then by all means give that a shot with him. I'm asking him why he thinks the way he does, to see if he can muster enough introspection to formulate an answer. This is very similar to what you ask others to do. So you apparently feel it's ok for you to ask this of others, but it's really not ok for others to ask it of him. I wonder why. Or, if responding to that honestly is completely out of your wheelhouse, you can always spin your Wheel of Fortune to find some canned rejoinder from your limited repertoire. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 16:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56d0ff9f-fa80-4f57-8aa6-4a578970be08@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #546600 |
On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 4:07:08 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/19/2016 5:28 PM, James McGinn wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 3:21:19 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > >> What is too complicated for me to understand? > > > > Address John's thinking directly, explicitly, or go find another hobby. > > > > I wasn't responding to one of John's posts. I made a top-level post. > Subject and content is of my own choosing and design. John is free to > respond to the questions in the post. My point is you are a bird brain that can't muster an actual argument. So you just troll around pretending to be a know it all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 18:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7ml7d$8uj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #546611 |
On 1/19/2016 6:34 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 4:07:08 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/19/2016 5:28 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 3:21:19 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> >>>> What is too complicated for me to understand? >>> >>> Address John's thinking directly, explicitly, or go find another hobby. >>> >> >> I wasn't responding to one of John's posts. I made a top-level post. >> Subject and content is of my own choosing and design. John is free to >> respond to the questions in the post. > > My point is you are a bird brain that can't muster an actual argument. I have no argument to make with you, because you're not worth the effort of an argument and you don't deserve the attention required to muster an argument. You've done absolutely nothing to earn it. > So you just troll around pretending to be a know it all. I have never, ever made any claim that I know it all, nor have I implied it. The post you are responding to asks a number of QUESTIONS of John Sefton. If I knew it all, why would I bother asking him questions? If for just one moment you could hurdle your profound and crippling insecurities, you might consider rationally what you were about to say BEFORE you said it. But seeing as that's not the case.... -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 16:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0d3208d7-bb71-44d9-839f-15a05927de1a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #546614 |
On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 4:43:34 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/19/2016 6:34 PM, James McGinn wrote: You are a nitwit that barely understands much of this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 19:50 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7mp6c$ct1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #546616 |
On 1/19/2016 6:50 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 4:43:34 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/19/2016 6:34 PM, James McGinn wrote: > > You are a nitwit that barely understands much of this. > .....and the Winner is: Odd Bonkin, by a knockout ! Command of English Language + Intellegence, OddB = 87, JamesM = 9 OddB is 9.67 times as smart as JamesM Quotable Statement : "It's hard to sharpen your wits, Jim, when you've confused wits with a meatloaf."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-20 07:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7o0q2$3na$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #546616 |
On 1/19/2016 6:50 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 4:43:34 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/19/2016 6:34 PM, James McGinn wrote: > > You are a nitwit that barely understands much of this. > When you say "this", to what are you referring? As I said previously, I've asked John a number of questions. It's HIS thinking I'm asking him to defend. If the "this" to which you are referring is your own goofy misunderstanding of the phases of water, then I'll ask you to not hijack this thread and take your silly self-promotion to a different thread. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 18:09 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7mj8c$6gn$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #546589 |
On 1/19/2016 5:28 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 3:21:19 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> What is too complicated for me to understand? > > Address John's thinking directly, explicitly, or go find another hobby. > It's hard to sharpen your wits, Jim, when you've confused wits with a meatloaf. If you would like to attempt some at least creative rejoinder, take a week or so to try to think of one. But I'll understand if that doesn't happen. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-20 03:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7n010$lpr$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #546602 |
I, too, am interested in seeing how John responds to Odd's questions. John doesn't need you to argue with Odd for him. He's a big boy now, he can reply for himself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 20:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6b0d36fa-9e62-4a0b-a006-0638233dd544@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #546649 |
On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 7:47:59 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: > I, too, am interested in seeing how John responds to Odd's questions. John > doesn't need you to argue with Odd for him. He's a big boy now, he can > reply for himself. I wouldn't know. I only read the first sentence of Odd's post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-20 07:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7o25a$5v5$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #546665 |
On 1/19/2016 10:40 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 7:47:59 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote: >> I, too, am interested in seeing how John responds to Odd's questions. John >> doesn't need you to argue with Odd for him. He's a big boy now, he can >> reply for himself. > > I wouldn't know. I only read the first sentence of Odd's post. > Well, that explains the pointlessness of your responses. I have a dog. He pees on bushes just because another dog peed on it earlier, not really thinking about it but just out of reflex. You, sir, are an unthinking dog. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-20 05:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a3f198d1-b355-4fdb-a150-655107c5c734@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #546710 |
Can we deal with one thing at a time? Odd. How old are you? Having lived your whole life feeling the contours of things, feeling the weight of things, looking at things- why would you think that there are "things" that have no volume? That can't be seen (obviously), because they present no silhouette? In Medicine we are taught about all the diseases that relate to a symptom- then we diagnose. But first, we review HOW OFTEN that symptom is seen with one disease compared to another. Then we usually exclude, at least at first, the rarely-seen ones. But you are accepting the idea of zero-volume entities, in spite of them having NEVER been encountered by ANYONE. And this is in spite of living on this earth and seeing something get so far away that it is too small to see, and looking in a microscope and seeing things that a naked eye can't see. You understand scale, but you refuse to diagnose it- you prefer to entertain the completely illogical idea of "no volume". (Please don't tell me again how worthless Logic is.) That's one question answered. Want another?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-20 11:15 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7ofau$ua5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #546716 |
On 1/20/2016 7:58 AM, john wrote: > Can we deal with one thing at a time? Sure, as long as you go after all of them eventually. > Odd. > How old are you? Having lived your whole > life feeling the contours of things, feeling > the weight of things, looking at things- > why would you think that there are "things" > that have no volume? That can't be seen > (obviously), because they present no > silhouette? > > In Medicine we are taught about all the > diseases that relate to a symptom- then we > diagnose. But first, we review HOW OFTEN > that symptom is seen with one disease > compared to another. Then we usually exclude, > at least at first, the rarely-seen ones. > > But you are accepting the idea of zero-volume > entities, in spite of them having NEVER > been encountered by ANYONE. > And this is in spite of living on this earth and > seeing something get so far away that it is > too small to see, and looking in a microscope > and seeing things that a naked eye can't see. > You understand scale, but you refuse to > diagnose it- you prefer to entertain the > completely illogical idea of "no volume". > (Please don't tell me again how worthless > Logic is.) > > That's one question answered. > Want another? > So let's summarize. You are saying that people have never *seen* zero-volume entities with their five senses. You are saying that people have experience their WHOLE LIVES with their five senses telling them about things that have volume, and so the assumption you're making is that nature should be consistent with what their senses tell them. I think there's a small point to be made here that might seed further introspection. Our five senses, and the mental concepts that are driven by them, sample only a very narrow slice of reality. The band of wavelength of light that our eyes can receive is incredibly narrow, and anything that is smaller than that range of wavelengths is literally impossible for us to bring into our senses. But the really stunning part is that our perceptive slice into nature is NOT REPRESENTATIVE. That is, MOST of reality is COMPLETELY UNLIKE the stuff we sense. And so our minds make constructs about nature based on our senses, and those constructs end up being lies. Some examples of this: - Your senses tell you that light travels in straight lines but doesn't go around corners; it tells you that sound goes around corners. The truth is that light DOES go around corners just like light, but there is a difference in degree that has to do with the difference in wavelengths. But the MIND makes the mistaken unilateral decision that light travels in straight lines and doesn't go around corners. - Your senses tell you that parallel lines do not intersect. But this is because our senses only capture a small distance from our eyes, and so in that small domain, space seems flat. This is why common experience led people to think the Earth was flat! But not only is the Earth not flat, but SPACE isn't flat. It's our MIND that makes the leap from "looks flat here" to "the whole of reality is flat" when it is not. Bottom line, John, is that reality on the whole is much different than what your senses have been telling you your whole life, because your senses do not get a representative slice of reality. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-20 16:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n7p1sv$1uen$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #546716 |
On 1/20/2016 7:58 AM, john wrote: > you prefer to entertain the > completely illogical idea of "no volume". > (Please don't tell me again how worthless > Logic is.) As I've said before, "no volume" is not illogical. But I've never said logic is worthless. What I've said is that Common Sense is worthless and is too fallible to rely on. I've also said that "no volume" is counter to Common Sense. But you make the repeated mistake of confusing logic with Common Sense. Do you know the difference between these two things, John? Do you know that if someone makes a statement that you believe because it is consistent with your experience, and you then say, "Well, that's logical," that you're not actually using the word the right way? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-19 22:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <621d924a-9e28-4cdf-b034-3edeb5d1e8cf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #546649 |
On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 5:47:59 AM UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > I, too, am interested in seeing how John responds to Odd's questions. John > doesn't need you to argue with Odd for him. He's a big boy now, he can > reply for himself. ================================ Moroney belongs to the old corrupted click as the anonymous Paul Draper P D you see that right from the beginning Moroney and PD are the same hired gangsters c clock thatis a disaster for real advance in physics --- Jhone is right that a lot of current ruling physics is corrupted he is right that MATHEMATICS BY ITSELF CANNOT BE LEADER OF PHYSICS !! HE UNDERSTANDS THAT =============================================== NO MASS THE ONLY MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !! ============================================== he understands that particles must have of course mass but moreover all particles are 3D structures )no F en 'point particles no particles that do not have volumes actually 3D volumes !! space is nothing and have no properties except hosting mass ie not curved and not schmjerved ' while IT IS **MASS* THAT IS THE MAIN ''HERO ' OF PHYSICS !! and is responsible for all forces INCLUDING GRAVITY !! etc etc etc so John keep going we are with you and the crocks gangs- will not prevail for ever!! ============================== you can cheat someone forever you can cheat everyone just once !! BUT YOU CANT CHEAT EVERY BODY = FOREVER !!!! =========================================== ATB Eng Y.Porat =====================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 10:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c376537b-cd3d-4084-8910-ffbe531af39d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #546589 |
On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 3:28:18 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: > On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 3:21:19 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > What is too complicated for me to understand? > > Address John's thinking directly, explicitly, or go find another hobby.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 14:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8ggnh$12a$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #549140 |
On 1/29/2016 12:11 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote: > On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 3:28:18 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: >> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 3:21:19 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >>> > > What is too complicated for me to understand? >> >> Address John's thinking directly, explicitly, or go find another hobby. > Having an episode, Jim? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web