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

Groups > sci.physics > #546552 > unrolled thread

Questions for John Sefton

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  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 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

#546596

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.
>

So let's just go over the limited repertoire of unimaginative rejoinders 
that Jim McGinn employs. From memory, perhaps paraphrased:

"It's a pity that the internet cannot support your imagination."
"Find another hobby."
"Maybe a pet."
"I can't imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you're right 
but incapable of explaining why."
"Go fuck yourself."
"Address my theory or go away."
"It is amazing that you are so trapped by confirmation bias."
"If you have all that data, surely you can muster an argument then."
"Why do you think they are hiding this evidence from you?"
"I wonder why only you can see the evidence."
"The book you cite is only in your imagination."

It's a small dartboard to choose from.

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

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

#546654

Everybody but John has responded, so it's my turn.

On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 3:53:35 PM UTC-5, 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?

Entirely wrong point. John makes animated graphics, his math language
skills are far better than your odd characterizations of them.

> 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?

Money money MONEY. Yawn yawn YAWN. Physics, like the Universe, is ChaChing!
 
> 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?

Easy, get rid of those them untrusty ones that call themselves scientists.

> 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?

Yes, a mirror projects all nightmares. Show me a mass that does not
occupy either space or time. Make me walk to a physical library,

> As you can see, these are straightforward self-awareness questions that 
> maybe you can't answer for yourself, let alone for me.

For you Odd? Do your parents and friends call you Odd? Out loud?!
 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Take It To The Limits, Eagles Fre(y).”

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

#546713

Odd..
> 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?

This is a delusion that many theoretical physicists are guilty of.
For starters maths is only quantitive. It tells us how much, but 
not how. For instance does F=ma tell us what F is mechanically?
Do all the complex maths of GR, the pre-copernican like standard 
model or Newtons r^2 tell us what gravity is physically or how 
it interacts to produce acceleration etc?
Do any of maxwells equations tell us what medium that the wave is
travelling in is made of? No to all the above. 
I think thats why we are at a dead end in physics with problems
like >90% of the mass of  the universe undetected and unexplained
with the rest nowhere near understood. Redshift not compatible
with maxwell, superconductivity not understood, etc. Because 
physicists are essentially visually and conceptually illiterate. 
They cannot visualize 3 dimensional objects in space and time. 
An essential skill for any scientist.
Anyone can use a calculator or do "the maths" with a few minutes
of coaching or the right reference. But very few people can 
analyse a problem in their head with eyes closed and no external crutches
like paper,  pencil, pc calculator etc. You cant read that skill up in 5 minutes.
It takes years of training. So now we have the lamentable situation of all the
universities physics departments churning out idiots whose only skill is to use a 
calculator. If our civilization gets through its current intellectual crisis, 
the last 100 years of math obsessed physics will be regarded as the dark 
ages in our scientific  history. Worse even than the period up to copernicus.

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

#546715

On 1/20/16 7:41 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Do any of maxwells equations tell us what medium that the wave is
> travelling in is made of? No


   No medium is required, Jay.

Propagating through Empty Space

   Bullet doesn't need a medium
   Grain of Sand doesn't need a medium
   Proton doesn't need a medium
   Electron doesn't need a medium
   Photon doesn't need a medium

   Wave?particle duality
 > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave?particle_duality




-- 

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]

#546721

I think thats why we are at a dead end in physics with problems 
like >90% of the mass of  the universe undetected and unexplainehink thats why we are at a dead end in physics with problems 
like >90% of the mass of  the universe undetected and unexplained 
-----------
It occurs to me that you'd be right except for the fact that you're wrong.

This crazy notion that most of the universe is missing is hogwash.

If it was truly missing we wouldn't know about it. 

So called dark energy is merely a property of space itself. It expands. Dark matter is less well understood, but so what? We know it exists, we are efforting the search even now. 

Remain calm and keep your arms and legs inside the vehicle for the duration of the ride

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

#546724

On 1/20/2016 7:41 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Odd..
>> 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?
>
> This is a delusion that many theoretical physicists are guilty of.
> For starters maths is only quantitive.

No sir. The language is much richer than you think.
I would suggest that you spend more time learning math than you spend 
posting here on the newsgroup. You'll find it much more advancing.
What's your rationale for not doing that?

> It tells us how much, but
> not how. For instance does F=ma tell us what F is mechanically?

It doesn't! That was my point earlier. F=ma does NOT provide a catalog 
of forces. Nor was it intended to. But that is not a flaw of the law. 
The law stands, even as you learn more sources of forces. The fact that 
a new source of a force wasn't known at Newton's time or not predicted 
by F=ma is not a flaw of the theory!!

> Do all the complex maths of GR, the pre-copernican like standard
> model or Newtons r^2 tell us what gravity is physically or how
> it interacts to produce acceleration etc?

Newton's didn't, and he was explicit about saying he was making no 
hypothesis. Later, after Newton, the idea of a gravitational field in 
empty space was proposed, but it was found later that Newton's theory 
gets certain measurements wrong anyway and there is no room to fix. But 
on the other hand, GR *does* provide the mechanism for gravity where 
Newtonian gravity did not. So if you want to learn what that mechanism 
is, just read.

> Do any of maxwells equations tell us what medium that the wave is
> travelling in is made of? No to all the above.

No, it doesn't, and in fact the key insight is that Maxwell's equations 
persist even WITHOUT involving a medium. So to ask what medium is 
described by Maxwell's equations is a boondoggle.

> I think thats why we are at a dead end in physics with problems
> like >90% of the mass of  the universe undetected and unexplained
> with the rest nowhere near understood. Redshift not compatible
> with maxwell, superconductivity not understood, etc.

Redshift is fully compatible with Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's 
equations are fully relativistic.
Superconductivity is pretty well understood, and in fact BCS theory won 
some people Nobel prizes. Now maybe you're wondering why we can't make 
WARM superconductors at will and for cheap.

Open questions are not a sign of disease in physics.

> Because
> physicists are essentially visually and conceptually illiterate.

I disagree. But being visual and conceptual is NOT ENOUGH. You need the 
language of mathematics to describe things QUALITATIVELY where 
visualization is not sufficient.

Now, I get the feeling you hate the idea that 3D visualization might not 
be sufficient, and so you reject it. Tough.

> They cannot visualize 3 dimensional objects in space and time.
> An essential skill for any scientist.
> Anyone can use a calculator or do "the maths" with a few minutes
> of coaching or the right reference.

The language of mathematics is not using a calculator.

> But very few people can
> analyse a problem in their head with eyes closed and no external crutches
> like paper,  pencil, pc calculator etc. You cant read that skill up in 5 minutes.
> It takes years of training. So now we have the lamentable situation of all the
> universities physics departments churning out idiots whose only skill is to use a
> calculator. If our civilization gets through its current intellectual crisis,
> the last 100 years of math obsessed physics will be regarded as the dark
> ages in our scientific  history. Worse even than the period up to copernicus.
>


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

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

#546753

Odd ..
> Newton's didn't, and he was explicit about saying he was making no hypothesis. Later, after Newton, the idea of a gravitational field in empty space was proposed, but it was found later that Newton's theory gets certain measurements wrong anyway and there is no room to fix. But on the other hand, GR >does* provide the mechanism for gravity where Newtonian gravity did not. So if you want to learn what that mechanism is, just read.

GR does not describe any physical mechanism. If you think so then tell me,
what is the physical mechanism that makes a stone drop from my hand to the floor?


> Do any of maxwells equations tell us what medium that the wave is > travelling in is made of? No to all the above.

>No, it doesn't, and in fact the key insight is that Maxwell's equations persist even WITHOUT involving a medium. So to ask what medium is described by >Maxwell's equations is a boondoggle.

Exactly. Maxwell fails to explain how the wave propagates through space. You cant have waves 
if there is nothing to wave. If you think otherwise tell me. What is maxwells wave 
made of. Physically,  not mathematically.

>> I think thats why we are at a dead end in physics with problems > like >90% of the mass of the universe undetected and unexplained > with the rest >>nowhere near understood. Redshift not compatible > with maxwell, superconductivity not understood, etc.

>Redshift is fully compatible with Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations are fully relativistic. Superconductivity is pretty well understood, and in fact BCS >heory won some people Nobel prizes. Now maybe you're wondering why we can't make

So under maxwell a light wave decreases in frequency as it moves through space?
This is in his equations? I doubt it.
And superconductivity is not explained physically. Because for starters
there is no physical explanation of how a moving magnet creates a current
in a conductor. (By physical I mean a physical mechanism you can draw.
Not a quantitive mathematical formula telling me how much.)

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

#546762

On 1/20/16 12:03 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> GR does not describe any physical mechanism. If you think so then tell me,
> what is the physical mechanism that makes a stone drop from my hand to the floor?


   There was no physical mechanism for gravitation put forth until
   Nov. 1915 by Albert Einstein. The mechanism of matter and energy
   warping spacetime and warped spacetime telling matter and energy
   hoe to me... is Beautiful, Simple and Profound.


   Albert Einstein Documentary HD
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyK5SG9rwWI

   General relativity: 100 years of the most beautiful theory ever
   created
> http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/general-relativity-100-years-of-the-most-beautiful-theory-ever-created/

   Tests of general relativity
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

   Tests of special relativity
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles

-- 

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]

#546797

On 1/20/2016 12:03 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Odd ..
>> Newton's didn't, and he was explicit about saying he was making no hypothesis. Later,
>> after Newton, the idea of a gravitational field in empty space was proposed, but it was
>> found later that Newton's theory gets certain measurements wrong anyway and there is
>> no room to fix. But on the other hand, GR >does* provide the mechanism for gravity where
>> Newtonian gravity did not. So if you want to learn what that mechanism is, just read.
>
> GR does not describe any physical mechanism. If you think so then tell me,
> what is the physical mechanism that makes a stone drop from my hand to the floor?

I suggested that you READ. Would you like a reading reference that will 
explain the physical mechanism for what makes a stone drop from your 
hand to the floor, or are you one of the types of people that demands to 
be spoonfed on a newsgroup?

>
>
>> Do any of maxwells equations tell us what medium that the wave is > travelling in
>> is made of? No to all the above.
>
>> No, it doesn't, and in fact the key insight is that Maxwell's equations persist even
>> WITHOUT involving a medium. So to ask what medium is described by >Maxwell's equations
>> is a boondoggle.
>
> Exactly. Maxwell fails to explain how the wave propagates through space.

That's not true. Maxwell's equations DO explain how waves propagate in 
space. There are two ways to answer this question, both of which are in 
introductory books. I'll summarize them here.

First way are the physical laws that govern electric and magnetic 
fields. Those are Maxwell equations. What they say is that if you make a 
time-based change in an electric field over HERE right now, then this 
will automatically make a spatial difference between the magnetic field 
over here and the magnetic field over THERE. And vice versa. So if you 
look in detail what happens when those two things play together, you get 
a traveling wave. Covered in all basic freshman physics books that use 
calculus.

Second way to explain it is this. Physicists have learned that observed 
behaviors in real physical systems are tied to the laws of physics 
governing that system. The connection is this. If you can formulate the 
laws of physics in terms of an equation, that equation will have 
solutions. (Solutions are functions, not numbers. If you don't know what 
I'm talking about, then this is where you have to learn some 
mathematical language.) The astonishing part is that every solution you 
find will also be an observed behavior. Find all the solutions, and 
you'll have all the allowable behaviors of that system. In the case of 
Maxwell's laws, it is a very straightforward exercise to put those laws 
in a form that is an equation that every first year student will 
recognize. And the solutions of that equation are waves. Therefore, 
waves are an observed behavior of ANY system that has laws like that. 
Bottom line is this: It's not what's waving that produces the waves. 
It's what the form of the physical laws are that produces the waves. If 
you thought the medium was responsible, you are just flat wrong.

> You cant have waves
> if there is nothing to wave. If you think otherwise tell me. What is maxwells wave
> made of. Physically,  not mathematically.

You are wrong if you think waves require material to move back and 
forth. It's just wrong.

>
>>> I think thats why we are at a dead end in physics with problems > like >90% of the
>>> mass of the universe undetected and unexplained > with the rest >>nowhere near understood.
>>> Redshift not compatible > with maxwell, superconductivity not understood, etc.
>
>> Redshift is fully compatible with Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations are fully
> elativistic. Superconductivity is pretty well understood, and in fact BCS >heory won some
> people Nobel prizes. Now maybe you're wondering why we can't make
>
> So under maxwell a light wave decreases in frequency as it moves through space?

That's not what the Doppler  effect is. Doppler effect is when the 
source and the observer are in relative motion, and it doesn't have 
anything to do with how much distance there is between them. (So it's 
not like the further the light goes, the more the frequency shifts.) And 
yes, the Doppler effect is FULLY predicted in Maxwell's theory.

> This is in his equations? I doubt it.
> And superconductivity is not explained physically.

You know this is flat nuts, don't you? Have you read the Nobel lectures 
given by the guys who won the Nobel prize for explaining it? Have you 
even tried?
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1972/bardeen-lecture.html
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1972/cooper-lecture.html
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1972/schrieffer-lecture.html


> Because for starters
> there is no physical explanation of how a moving magnet creates a current
> in a conductor. (By physical I mean a physical mechanism you can draw.
> Not a quantitive mathematical formula telling me how much.)
>

You've never seen a diagram of the force on a moving charge in a 
magnetic field? Really?


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

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

#546996

Odd wrote..
> First way are the physical laws that govern electric and magnetic fields. Those are Maxwell equations. What they say is that if you make a time-based change >in an electric field over HERE right now, then this will automatically make a spatial difference between the magnetic field over here and the magnetic field >over THERE. And vice versa. So if you look in detail what happens when those two things play together, you get a traveling wave. Covered in all basic >freshman physics books that use calculus.

You seem to want it to make it an offence to ask *how* in physics.  Thats 
a sad state of affairs in my opinion.!

Anyways you didnt explain *how* above. You said that time based
change over there automatically made a change over there...."automatically"?..
What on earth does automatically mean? That sounds like some sort of 
religious conversion.
If I want to describe how water is converted into steam and that powers
a turbine which turns a magnet which rotates a magnetic field which
induces an electric current in a conductor. Do I write a description in a 
educational textbook that says.. water is automatically turned into
electricity.? 

>> You cant have waves > if there is nothing to wave. If you think otherwise tell me. What is maxwells wave > made of. Physically, not mathematically.

>You are wrong if you think waves require material to move back and forth. It's just wrong.

I wasnt suggesting emr in a vacuum was atoms waving back and forth. But to
get a changing magnetic field in a source to induce the same response
In a detector that is spacially seperate from the source through what
is called a vacuum with no intervening atoms.......needs a physical 
mechanical explanation. Maxwell, like QT and SR, use magic, faith etc.
They dont explain the mechanism.
Thats not science.
Personally, I believe that a pure vacuum is made of something that
doesnt come under the heading of mass or baryonic matter. It cant
be detected, but it can hold a N-S magnetic field at any point. And 
it is this one property, that allows a moving magnet here to move
a magnet over there. Because it isnt made of baryonic matter, it
doesnt slow down either emr or atoms. Hence the null result
in MMX.
That not  only describes a mechanism for propagating emr.
It doesnt need an unneccesary electric field or unknown action
at a distance via maxwell. I know youll scoff at this idea. But think
about it. Its not much different from maxwell saying there is an electric
field that cant be described. The difference is that the field I suggest
allows a mechanical description that maxwell cant. 
And that one small change in the usage of field allows one to
explain the BBT. Thats a big saving for one small tweak.

>>So in maxwell the lightwave changes frequency as it propagates through space?

>That's not what the Doppler effect is. Doppler effect is when the source and the observer are in relative motion, and it doesn't have anything to do with how >much distance there is between them. (So it's not like the further the light goes, the more the frequency shifts.) And yes, the Doppler effect is FULLY >predicted in Maxwell's theory.

I didnt mention doppler. You suggested earlier that hubbles observed
redshift was consistent with maxwell, without the need for a BBT.
I was calling you to account for your claims that the observation 
that lights frequency can decay over distance without expansion
of space under a BBT, is still consistent with all of maxwells equations.
Is it? ( I doubt it)

>You've never seen a diagram of the force on a moving charge in a magnetic field? Really?

For starters the concept of moving charges are akin to angels
pulling stars. Charges are magical constructs thst dont exist nor can be 
described mechanically
 But I have seen many. And none show the physical mechanism that
transfers the force. They all use magic. How does the magnet physically
transfer the force to the conductor? Without magic please.

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

#546997

On 1/21/2016 9:58 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Odd wrote..
>> First way are the physical laws that govern electric and magnetic fields. Those
>> are Maxwell equations. What they say is that if you make a time-based change >in
>> an electric field over HERE right now, then this will automatically make a spatial
>> difference between the magnetic field over here and the magnetic field >over THERE.
>> And vice versa. So if you look in detail what happens when those two things play
>> together, you get a traveling wave. Covered in all basic >freshman physics books
>> that use calculus.
>
> You seem to want it to make it an offence to ask *how* in physics.  Thats
> a sad state of affairs in my opinion.!

It's not an offense, but physicists will tell you that physics doesn't 
provide in ANY case an explanation that exhausts all how or why 
questions. A physicist's job is to determine the laws that nature 
operates by. The job doesn't include explaining WHY those are the laws 
that nature uses. Take energy conservation. You can ask, "But WHY is 
energy conserved?" Physicists don't really have an answer to that (or at 
least not any that doesn't beg another question), but they will simply 
say, "It is enough to know that energy is conserved." You may find that 
unsatisfying, but that's how science works. More on this below.

>
> Anyways you didnt explain *how* above. You said that time based
> change over there automatically made a change over there...."automatically"?..
> What on earth does automatically mean? That sounds like some sort of
> religious conversion.

It's the law that governs those fields that they are related in that 
way. Now, I could try to explain it more deeply by spending a LOT of 
time talking about symmetries. And there is a particular kind of 
symmetry called U(1) that explains where that law comes from.

But if you're looking for some mechanism involving gears, hooks, levers, 
or banging balls to explain how the electric field over here affects the 
magnetic field over there, there isn't one -- BECAUSE NOT EVERY 
EXPLANATION involves gears, hooks, levers, or banging balls.

> If I want to describe how water is converted into steam and that powers
> a turbine which turns a magnet which rotates a magnetic field which
> induces an electric current in a conductor. Do I write a description in a
> educational textbook that says.. water is automatically turned into
> electricity.?

Well, you might try for yourself what would count as magic. Let's take 
the conversion of water to steam. There is a temperature below which 
water is a liquid, and above which it is a gas. So describe for me, in 
terms you consider nonmagical, how it is possible this is so? You see? 
Unanswered "how" questions EVERYWHERE. Even in the simplest thing that 
even you think you understand how it works, you're going to run into 
unanswered "how" questions. Go ahead. Try coming up with something.

>
>>> You cant have waves > if there is nothing to wave. If you think otherwise tell me. What
>>> is maxwells wave > made of. Physically, not mathematically.
>
>> You are wrong if you think waves require material to move back and forth. It's just wrong.
>
> I wasnt suggesting emr in a vacuum was atoms waving back and forth.

I didn't say atoms. I said material. There is NOTHING material that is 
waving back and forth. The FIELD moves back and forth. Fields are not 
material but they are physical.

> But to
> get a changing magnetic field in a source to induce the same response
> In a detector that is spacially seperate from the source through what
> is called a vacuum with no intervening atoms.......needs a physical
> mechanical explanation. Maxwell, like QT and SR, use magic, faith etc.

No, they use fields. Now, if you think fields are magic, you'll have to 
explain why you think they are not allowed to be real. What, in your 
mind, are the allowed categories of real things?

> They dont explain the mechanism.
> Thats not science.
> Personally, I believe that a pure vacuum is made of something that
> doesnt come under the heading of mass or baryonic matter. It cant
> be detected, but it can hold a N-S magnetic field at any point. And
> it is this one property, that allows a moving magnet here to move
> a magnet over there. Because it isnt made of baryonic matter, it
> doesnt slow down either emr or atoms. Hence the null result
> in MMX.
> That not  only describes a mechanism for propagating emr.

Well, so far you haven't said what "it" is. In fact, all you've said is 
that it's an "it" or a "something" and said a list of things that "it" 
is NOT. It is NOT made of baryonic matter. It is NOT mass. What, then, 
IS "it"?

> It doesnt need an unneccesary electric field or unknown action
> at a distance via maxwell. I know youll scoff at this idea. But think
> about it. Its not much different from maxwell saying there is an electric
> field that cant be described. The difference is that the field I suggest
> allows a mechanical description that maxwell cant.

I'm sorry, but all I've seen you say is that you have "something else" 
in mind that you don't want to call a field, but does all the things a 
field is claimed to do. Somehow it becomes more "mechanical" without you 
describing what "it" is at all.

> And that one small change in the usage of field allows one to
> explain the BBT. Thats a big saving for one small tweak.
>
>>> So in maxwell the lightwave changes frequency as it propagates through space?
>
>> That's not what the Doppler effect is. Doppler effect is when the source and
>> the observer are in relative motion, and it doesn't have anything to do with
>> how >much distance there is between them. (So it's not like the further the
>> light goes, the more the frequency shifts.) And yes, the Doppler effect is
>> FULLY >predicted in Maxwell's theory.
>
> I didnt mention doppler. You suggested earlier that hubbles observed
> redshift was consistent with maxwell, without the need for a BBT.

The Hubble redshift IS Doppler shifting. And yes, it is fully consistent 
with Maxwell.

> I was calling you to account for your claims that the observation
> that lights frequency can decay over distance without expansion
> of space under a BBT, is still consistent with all of maxwells equations.
> Is it? ( I doubt it)
>
>> You've never seen a diagram of the force on a moving charge in a magnetic field? Really?
>
> For starters the concept of moving charges are akin to angels
> pulling stars. Charges are magical constructs thst dont exist nor can be
> described mechanically

Charge is a property, like momentum. Can you describe the property 
momentum mechanically? What's momentum made of? Why is it conserved?

>   But I have seen many. And none show the physical mechanism that
> transfers the force. They all use magic. How does the magnet physically
> transfer the force to the conductor? Without magic please.

Magic is a word that describes something happening outside of your 
expectations of what is possible. So to characterize something as magic, 
you have to describe what you think is possible. So when you think of 
nonmagical ways to transfer a force, what are those ways that you expect 
are possible? List them, please.


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

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

#549205

Odd...
>> a detector that is spacially seperate from the source through what > is called a vacuum with no intervening atoms.......needs a physical > mechanical >>xplanation. Maxwell, like QT and SR, use magic, faith etc.

>No, they use fields. Now, if you think fields are magic, you'll have to explain why you think they are not allowed to be real. What, in your mind, are the >allowed categories of real things?

The only things allowed are those observed with our eyes unaided. 
So its waves and magnetism with N-S polarity. Anything else is
BS. Fortunately everything can be modeled mechanically with these
two. From forces like gravity, light, polarization, electricity, redshift
mass, etc
Just as an example: Alternating current. Created by rotating a N-S
magnetic field. This in turn rotates atomic magnetic fields in conductors.
Proof is that any conductor will radiate rotating magnetic fields at
the same frequency as the ac. Radio waves show this. Even Sam 
posted a link to a research paper last year that showed bacteria(?)
"flocking " adjacent to low frequency ac at the same frequency.
That is they,  their magnetic fields, were rotating in circles in response to
the rotating magnetic fields in the conductor. 

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

#549220

On 1/29/2016 2:26 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> The only things allowed are those observed with our eyes unaided.

This is a remarkable statement. What on EARTH gives you any rationale to 
say that any physical explanation must be visible to the unaided human eye?

This isn't even true in chemistry or biology, let alone physics!!

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

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

#546810

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 10:25:04 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/20/2016 7:41 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> > Odd..
> >> 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?
> >
> > This is a delusion that many theoretical physicists are guilty of.
> > For starters maths is only quantitive.
> 
> No sir. The language is much richer than you think.
> I would suggest that you spend more time learning math than you spend 
> posting here on the newsgroup. You'll find it much more advancing.
> What's your rationale for not doing that?

Hello Odd ToyBoy, who anointed you Guardian of The Physics Language?

> > It tells us how much, but
> > not how. For instance does F=ma tell us what F is mechanically?
> 
> It doesn't! That was my point earlier. F=ma does NOT provide a catalog 
> of forces. Nor was it intended to. But that is not a flaw of the law. 
> The law stands, even as you learn more sources of forces. The fact that 
> a new source of a force wasn't known at Newton's time or not predicted 
> by F=ma is not a flaw of the theory!!

The Prime Physics Iron(y) is that Gravity is not any Force (=dp/dt).

> > Do all the complex maths of GR, the pre-copernican like standard
> > model or Newtons r^2 tell us what gravity is physically or how
> > it interacts to produce acceleration etc?
> 
> Newton's didn't, and he was explicit about saying he was making no 
> hypothesis. Later, after Newton, the idea of a gravitational field in 
> empty space was proposed, but it was found later that Newton's theory 
> gets certain measurements wrong anyway and there is no room to fix. But 
> on the other hand, GR *does* provide the mechanism for gravity where 
> Newtonian gravity did not. So if you want to learn what that mechanism 
> is, just read.

Engineering knows better. Else Odd, show me the curriculum online.

> > Do any of maxwells equations tell us what medium that the wave is
> > travelling in is made of? No to all the above.
> 
> No, it doesn't, and in fact the key insight is that Maxwell's equations 
> persist even WITHOUT involving a medium. So to ask what medium is 
> described by Maxwell's equations is a boondoggle.

Again... Odd ToyBoy, who anointed you Guardian of The Physics Thought?

> > I think thats why we are at a dead end in physics with problems
> > like >90% of the mass of  the universe undetected and unexplained
> > with the rest nowhere near understood. Redshift not compatible
> > with maxwell, superconductivity not understood, etc.
> 
> Redshift is fully compatible with Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's 
> equations are fully relativistic.
> Superconductivity is pretty well understood, and in fact BCS theory won 
> some people Nobel prizes. Now maybe you're wondering why we can't make 
> WARM superconductors at will and for cheap.

So Did Al Gore win one. Not much of a scientific proof projecting that
some Nobel Committee knows whom to grade properly. Go make toys Odd.

> Open questions are not a sign of disease in physics.

Which questions are a sign of ... asYouSay... disease in physics?

> > Because
> > physicists are essentially visually and conceptually illiterate.
> 
> I disagree. But being visual and conceptual is NOT ENOUGH. You need the 
> language of mathematics to describe things QUALITATIVELY where 
> visualization is not sufficient.

How does one learn your so-called language of mathematics? Where to sign?

> Now, I get the feeling you hate the idea that 3D visualization might not 
> be sufficient, and so you reject it. Tough.
> 
> > They cannot visualize 3 dimensional objects in space and time.
> > An essential skill for any scientist.
> > Anyone can use a calculator or do "the maths" with a few minutes
> > of coaching or the right reference.
> 
> The language of mathematics is not using a calculator.

The language of English is not using a Spell Checker?!

> > But very few people can
> > analyse a problem in their head with eyes closed and no external crutches
> > like paper,  pencil, pc calculator etc. You cant read that skill up in 5 minutes.
> > It takes years of training. So now we have the lamentable situation of all the
> > universities physics departments churning out idiots whose only skill is to use a
> > calculator. If our civilization gets through its current intellectual crisis,
> > the last 100 years of math obsessed physics will be regarded as the dark
> > ages in our scientific  history. Worse even than the period up to copernicus.
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Does being anonymous Odd give you false balls to actually play with?

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Read My Lips, No New Words!”

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

#546813

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 12:50:33 PM UTC-8, Mahipal wrote:

Don't feed the trolls.  (Even if you are one.)

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

#546823

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 4:15:35 PM UTC-5, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 12:50:33 PM UTC-8, Mahipal wrote:
> 
> Don't feed the trolls.  (Even if you are one.)

Learn to attribute properly you Soilient Green Scum Vomit Tornadoes.

Does being anonymous give you false balls to actually play with?

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Read My Lips, No New Words!”

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

#546726

On 1/20/2016 7:41 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Odd..
>> 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?
>
> This is a delusion that many theoretical physicists are guilty of.
> For starters maths is only quantitive.

BUZZZZZZZZT.... => dead wrong.


> It tells us how much, but not how.

extremely wrong, stupid wrong.

> For instance does F=ma tell us what F is mechanically?

it is not suppose to.

> Do all the complex maths of GR, the pre-copernican like standard
> model or Newtons r^2 tell us what gravity is physically or how it
> interacts to produce acceleration etc?

you haven't used any equations, have you?

> Do any of maxwells equations tell us what medium that the wave is
> travelling in is made of? No to all the above.

no need,
Maxwells equations has the variables in the equations to fully describe 
the medium effects on the wave.

you have cart before horse, you never took physics, or math.

<snipped until OP shows knowledge of Maths>

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

#546740

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 5:42:00 AM UTC-8, jay moseley wrote:
> Odd..
> > 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?
> 
> This is a delusion that many theoretical physicists are guilty of.

I agree.  And it is epidemic.  I wonder to what degree it is a consequence of the easy information of the internet.  You'll note that many of these simpletons, like odd ball, can't actually carry on a conversation.  All they know how to do is drop links and pretend they see something.  To them math is like fire to a monkey.  

> For starters maths is only quantitive. It tells us how much, but 
> not how. For instance does F=ma tell us what F is mechanically?
> Do all the complex maths of GR, the pre-copernican like standard 
> model or Newtons r^2 tell us what gravity is physically or how 
> it interacts to produce acceleration etc?
> Do any of maxwells equations tell us what medium that the wave is
> travelling in is made of? No to all the above. 
> I think thats why we are at a dead end in physics with problems
> like >90% of the mass of  the universe undetected and unexplained
> with the rest nowhere near understood. Redshift not compatible
> with maxwell, superconductivity not understood, etc. Because 
> physicists are essentially visually and conceptually illiterate. 

You hit the nail on the head here.  

> They cannot visualize 3 dimensional objects in space and time. 
> An essential skill for any scientist.

Bingo! But they sure do know how to look things up on Wikipedia.

> Anyone can use a calculator or do "the maths" with a few minutes
> of coaching or the right reference. But very few people can 
> analyse a problem in their head with eyes closed and no external crutches
> like paper,  pencil, pc calculator etc. You cant read that skill up in 5 minutes.
> It takes years of training. So now we have the lamentable situation of all the
> universities physics departments churning out idiots whose only skill is to use a 
> calculator. If our civilization gets through its current intellectual crisis, 
> the last 100 years of math obsessed physics will be regarded as the dark 
> ages in our scientific  history. Worse even than the period up to copernicus.

You are so right. And politics have made the situation so much worse.  

Good post.

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

#546770

On 1/20/2016 11:55 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 5:42:00 AM UTC-8, jay moseley
> wrote:
>> Odd..

>
> I agree.  And it is epidemic.  I wonder to what degree it is a
> consequence of the easy information of the internet.  You'll note
> that many of these simpletons, like odd ball, can't actually carry on
> a conversation.  All they know how to do is drop links and pretend
> they see something.  To them math is like fire to a monkey.
>

so what ever happened to your whoreling tornadios and your non-water steam ?

still working on that ?

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

#546831

On 1/20/2016 11:55 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 5:42:00 AM UTC-8, jay moseley wrote:
>> >Odd..
>>> > >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?
>> >
>> >This is a delusion that many theoretical physicists are guilty of.
> I agree.  And it is epidemic.

You agree that it is a delusion that math is a descriptive language used 
to explain models? Are you sure you're tracking what you agree with, Jim?

> I wonder to what degree it is a consequence of the
> easy information of the internet.  You'll note that many of these simpletons, like odd
> ball, can't actually carry on a conversation.  All they know how to do is drop links
> and pretend they see something.

Well, links and references to books. I'll note that those responses come 
in a response to a challenge FROM YOU to produce those references. You 
claim the information is imaginary and doesn't really exist. So people 
sometimes (when they feel like shoving it in your face) produce the 
information whose existence you've just denied. Now you condemn them for 
finding the information at your request.

>To them math is like fire to a monkey.

Hold on there, Jim. You were just agreeing with Jay Moseley that 
mathematics is useless for describing what goes on. Now you are saying 
people should know how to use it. Are you even sure of what you are 
trying to say?

If you are sure, you are surely doing a good job of obscuring yourself.


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

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

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web