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

#546839

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 2:40:06 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> >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?

Many science consumers are brain dead.  Many pretend scientists use 
this to their advantage.  They put complex equations in their 
papers/models, knowing that most people will assume math = scientific credibility.  Consequently many scientific subdisciplines have become 
inane competitions between who can create the most sciencey looking 
but empirically inane output.  It is not unusual for this to 
characterize whole disciplines/paradigms: climatology; 
tornadogenesis/storm theory; much of water science; the list goes on.

Most scientific disciplines are dominated senior figures that achieved 
their status through popular appeal, despite being empirically inane.  
Students have little choice but to follow or be excluded.  Physics is 
not immune to this.

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

#546861

On 1/20/2016 5:23 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 2:40:06 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>>> 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?
>
> Many science consumers are brain dead.  Many pretend scientists use
> this to their advantage.

hey, YOU are a pretend scientist, thats what you do!


> They put complex equations in their
> papers/models, knowing that most people will assume math = scientific credibility.

......so you avoid using maths, so people wont think you are a "pretend 
scientest" although your really are a pretend scientest and dont know 
any maths anyways.


> Consequently many scientific subdisciplines have become
> inane competitions between who can create the most sciencey looking
> but empirically inane output.

....but, that is what you do with your "Snotty Tomutoes" troll book, and 
"do the Twist of the twisting twister" by the you and the Whirlies.

but you use dem sciencie type words ocasionally, from da wiki, but never 
maths.



> It is not unusual for this to
> characterize whole disciplines/paradigms: climatology;
> tornadogenesis/storm theory; much of water science; the list goes on.

it is very unusual.


>
> Most scientific disciplines are dominated senior figures that achieved
> their status through popular appeal,

you been smokin da wakkie weed again, dude.

blaming your failure on others, time to man up and take responcability 
for being a lowly sniveling dank troll.
Facts are the senior figures are 100,000 times smarter than you, and 
work harder.

> despite being empirically inane.
> Students have little choice but to follow or be excluded.

so you were excluded, couldn't keep up, now you blame your teachers for 
your partying hangover when you failed the tests.

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

#546973

Odd's question #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? "

Harder to test?
Than what? Looking for something that you
don't know anything about?

If the Universe is a Fractal based on atom/galaxy,
then we are immersed in harmonics of ourselves.
Perhaps the next fractal matter below atoms
has enough gravitational pull to be the DM
they need. Perhaps they just have gravity
backwards, and 85% is shielded.

You say frequencies of 10^31 times higher
than ours would be too difficult to test for.
That reminds me of the guy that lost his
wallet over THERE but is looking over here
because the light is good.

So, yes, spending huge on shots in the dark
should be limited. If you don't got a model-
and you don't- then step off

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

#546984

On 1/21/2016 7:38 AM, john wrote:
> Odd's question #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? "
>
> Harder to test?
> Than what? Looking for something that you
> don't know anything about?

Yes, harder to test, because 10^31 is a big number, meaning that the 
bridge between ordinary matter and YOUR supposed particles is MUCH 
bigger than the bridge between ordinary matter and dark matter.

Your statement that nobody knows anything about dark matter is flat 
wrong. Try googling "dark matter experimental searches" and you'll find 
lots of experiments ALREADY IN PLAY that are looking for signals of 
properties that dark matter is predicted to have. Let me repeat that: 
properties that dark matter is predicted to have. If there are 
properties that dark matter is predicted to have, does this sound to you 
like nothing is known about it at all?

What are you reading, John? And more importantly, do you read it or 
smoke it?

>
> If the Universe is a Fractal based on atom/galaxy,
> then we are immersed in harmonics of ourselves.
> Perhaps the next fractal matter below atoms
> has enough gravitational pull to be the DM
> they need. Perhaps they just have gravity
> backwards, and 85% is shielded.
>
> You say frequencies of 10^31 times higher
> than ours would be too difficult to test for.
> That reminds me of the guy that lost his
> wallet over THERE but is looking over here
> because the light is good.

Fine, then tell me about the experimental setup you would propose to 
look for frequencies that high. Give just the basic outlines of the kind 
of technology you would employ and give a couple of examples of existing 
tools (with their cost) that could be put to use to make that measurement.

If you think that experimentation is equally easy for any and all 
signals, and all it takes is looking in the right place, then you have 
absolutely NO idea what it takes to design an experiment.

Let's begin with some basics to illustrate that, John. Can you tell me 
the first thing why the large hadron collider is large at all? Why can't 
the same thing be built in a basement of a building at your local 
college? Hmmm?

>
> So, yes, spending huge on shots in the dark
> should be limited. If you don't got a model-
> and you don't- then step off
>

And so yours is a shot in the dark, John. How much should be spent on 
it, in your opinion?


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

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

#546989

> So, yes, spending huge on shots in the dark 
> should be limited. If you don't got a model- 
> and you don't- then step off 
> 
Odd
$And so (is?)yours is a shot in the dark, John. How much should be spent on 
it, in your opinion? $

Let's review, Odd. Galactic rotation curves, star
arms, and measurements of missing matter make it
necessary for DM to exist in just the right places,
interacting gravitationally yet remaining in those
places, or else our gravity theory (suck gravity)
is wrong.
So.
Looking for it in order to bolster suck gravity
would no longer be necessary, already
knowing that suck gravity is wrong 

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

#546991

On 1/21/2016 9:01 AM, john wrote:
>
>> So, yes, spending huge on shots in the dark
>> should be limited. If you don't got a model-
>> and you don't- then step off
>>
> Odd
> $And so (is?)yours is a shot in the dark, John. How much should be spent on
> it, in your opinion? $

I noticed that you did not answer this question, John, and that was the 
point of my original question to you.

Do you believe that shots in the dark should go unfunded? Yes or no?
If yes, since your idea is a shot in the dark, do you believe your idea 
should go unfunded? Yes or no?

>
> Let's review, Odd. Galactic rotation curves, star
> arms, and measurements of missing matter make it
> necessary for DM to exist in just the right places,
> interacting gravitationally yet remaining in those
> places, or else our gravity theory (suck gravity)
> is wrong.
> So.
> Looking for it in order to bolster suck gravity
> would no longer be necessary, already
> knowing that suck gravity is wrong
>


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

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

#546992

On 1/21/2016 9:01 AM, john wrote:
> Let's review, Odd. Galactic rotation curves, star
> arms, and measurements of missing matter make it
> necessary for DM to exist in just the right places,
> interacting gravitationally yet remaining in those
> places, or else our gravity theory (suck gravity)
> is wrong.
> So.
> Looking for it in order to bolster suck gravity
> would no longer be necessary, already
> knowing that suck gravity is wrong

Overlooking some of the mistakes you made above ("yet remaining in those 
places"), let's talk about the reality of what's being investigated by 
scientists.

Given the mismatch on galactic rotation curves, there are TWO 
possibilities, and BOTH need to be investigated.

First possibility: Gravitational theory is right but not all sources of 
gravitational matter have been accounted for. This is the dark matter 
hypothesis.

Second possibility: The catalog of gravitational matter is accurate as 
presently know, but gravitational theory is wrong.

BOTH are in fact being investigated. The second, for example, is what 
led to the MOND gravitational hypothesis. There are others.

This seems to me to be the best approach -- to investigate both 
possibilities. But you seem to hate one of them and don't think it's 
worth investigating -- for reasons I frankly don't understand.

As for attractive forces, John, I'll just remind you that these are not 
unusual. I can take, for example, a steel ball and run current to it. 
After I've done that, I can hold a positively charged plastic ball near 
the steel ball and the plastic ball will be repelled. I can then hold a 
negatively charged plastic ball near the steel ball and the plastic ball 
will be attracted. If you can explain these simple and centuries-old 
observations without any attractive forces at all, then I invite you to 
do so. So far, you've been asked by me a half dozen times to account for 
it, and you've not been able to account for both.

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

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

#547004

Let's review, Odd. Galactic rotation curves, star 
arms, and measurements of missing matter make it 
necessary for DM to exist in just the right places, 
interacting gravitationally yet remaining in those 
places, or else our gravity theory (suck gravity) 
is wrong
-----------

The use of the rhetorical 'suck gravity' shows a complete lack of knowledge of the basic fundamentals of physics

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

#547090

On 01/21/2016 12:01 PM, HVAC wrote:
> Let's review, Odd. Galactic rotation curves, star
> arms, and measurements of missing matter make it
> necessary for DM to exist in just the right places,
> interacting gravitationally yet remaining in those
> places, or else our gravity theory (suck gravity)
> is wrong
> -----------
>
> The use of the rhetorical 'suck gravity' shows a complete lack of knowledge of the basic fundamentals of physics
>
Hey everybody, listen to HVAC. He is quite the expert on "suck". You can 
take that to the bank!

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#547007

On 1/21/2016 9:01 AM, john wrote:
> Looking for it in order to bolster suck gravity
> would no longer be necessary, already
> knowing that suck gravity is wrong

On this "suck gravity" thing, I'll just point out that you seem to be 
obsessed with the idea of particles radiating outward from body A to 
body B, traveling in STRAIGHT LINES, and then causing body B to be drawn 
toward body A.

But, the thing is, John, nobody says the particles travel in straight 
lines from A to B.

Then I'll mention that when I asked you how it is that a charged object 
A can either repel OR attract charged object B, just by switching the 
charge on body B. You replied that you envisioned particles traveling in 
loops, coming back to hit body B from behind. So suddenly straight-line 
motion of particles was abandoned, while you continued to scoff at what 
you called "swarming" particles.

Then I'll mention that you are promoting LeSage gravity. But LeSage 
gravity involves particles traveling in every direction like a mob 
scene. So while scoffing at swarming particles, you are promoting an 
idea featuring swarming particles.

So, John, maybe it might do to formulate some clarity in what you 
actually object to, and check especially that your objection is about a 
claim that is actually made by physicists.

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

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

#547015

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:

>On this "suck gravity" thing, I'll just point out that you seem to be 
>obsessed with the idea of particles radiating outward from body A to 
>body B, traveling in STRAIGHT LINES, and then causing body B to be drawn 
>toward body A.

>But, the thing is, John, nobody says the particles travel in straight 
>lines from A to B.

>Then I'll mention that when I asked you how it is that a charged object 
>A can either repel OR attract charged object B, just by switching the 
>charge on body B. You replied that you envisioned particles traveling in 
>loops, coming back to hit body B from behind. So suddenly straight-line 
>motion of particles was abandoned, while you continued to scoff at what 
>you called "swarming" particles.

>Then I'll mention that you are promoting LeSage gravity. But LeSage 
>gravity involves particles traveling in every direction like a mob 
>scene. So while scoffing at swarming particles, you are promoting an 
>idea featuring swarming particles.

>So, John, maybe it might do to formulate some clarity in what you 
>actually object to, and check especially that your objection is about a 
>claim that is actually made by physicists.

Also funny is how "suck gravity" is a better description of John's
LeSage gravity than of standard gravity.  Think of how sucking on a straw
works.  Air molecules normally provide pressure on all sides of anything
such as liquid in a glass.  When you suck on a straw there is less 
pressure on one side of the liquid so the liquid moves up the straw.
Same with LeSage gravity, there is less particles coming from a
gravitating object (which blocks them) so the imbalance causes another
object to move toward it.

So I guess we can conclude that John is correct, "suck gravity" is wrong.

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

#547019

On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 7:12:22 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/21/2016 9:01 AM, john wrote:
> > Looking for it in order to bolster suck gravity
> > would no longer be necessary, already
> > knowing that suck gravity is wrong
> 
> On this "suck gravity" thing, I'll just point out that you seem to be 
> obsessed with the idea of particles radiating outward from body A to 
> body B, traveling in STRAIGHT LINES, and then causing body B to be drawn 
> toward body A.
> 
> But, the thing is, John, nobody says the particles travel in straight 
> lines from A to B.
> 
> Then I'll mention that when I asked you how it is that a charged object 
> A can either repel OR attract charged object B, just by switching the 
> charge on body B. You replied that you envisioned particles traveling in 
> loops, coming back to hit body B from behind. So suddenly straight-line 
> motion of particles was abandoned, while you continued to scoff at what 
> you called "swarming" particles.
> 
> Then I'll mention that you are promoting LeSage gravity. But LeSage 
> gravity involves particles traveling in every direction like a mob 
> scene. So while scoffing at swarming particles, you are promoting an 
> idea featuring swarming particles.
> 
> So, John, maybe it might do to formulate some clarity in what you 
> actually object to, and check especially that your objection is about a 
> claim that is actually made by physicists.
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

=====================
the fucken shameless crock  thief P D
ries to steal from me 
my 
Y Circlon mechanism 
without blonking an eye 

WITHOUT MENTIONING THE COPY RIGHTER
ENG YEHIEL PORAT
as i say again and again
Paul Draper is a criminal against mankind 
and thinks that all the rest world around him
will not notice that he is 
a shameless  thief criminal against mankind 
yet it want help  him
IT IS AL well  DOCUMENTED 
EVEN IN THIS N G 
ALONG MANY YEARS !
Y.Porat
================================

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

#546986

Harder to test? 
Than what? Looking for something that you 
don't know anything about? 
----------

John, while we don't know exactly what dark matter is, we know a lot about its properties.

What are some of the properties of your fractal shit? 

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

#547020

On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 4:55:37 PM UTC+2, HVAC wrote:
> Harder to test? 
> Than what? Looking for something that you 
> don't know anything about? 
> ----------
> 
> John, while we don't know exactly what dark matter is, we know a lot about its properties.
> 
> What are some of the properties of your fractal shit?

=============================
nasty pig
what do you know about the properties of
 Dark   matter ??!!

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

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

#547022

Odd
Explain further how "fields are not material 
but they are physical".
You very often skirt past this
nothin-can-be-something 
kind of schizophrenia with a kind of glazed
religious fervor.
I'm interested, because your vision of
a field seems to be so much more structural
than dynamic.

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

#547027

On 1/21/2016 2:29 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> Explain further how "fields are not material
> but they are physical".
> You very often skirt past this
> nothin-can-be-something
> kind of schizophrenia with a kind of glazed
> religious fervor.
> I'm interested, because your vision of
> a field seems to be so much more structural
> than dynamic.
>

I find it interesting, John, that you equate immaterial with nothing. 
Maybe you can explain the basis of your claim that the only things that 
are really "something" are material somethings.

Michael Faraday was among the first to take note that reality included 
something he called a field. Michael Faraday did this in the early 
1800s, so it's not like this is a concept born in the era where you, 
John, think physics went astray. So, John, I wonder how far back you 
need to go in the history of science before you get to the point where 
you don't think it was seriously off track. Henry Wilson likes 19th 
century physics, he says, and so he embraces fields -- but you don't.

Maybe if we go back to Democritus, who coined the word "atom", which 
means "that which cannot be cut into smaller pieces". Democritus lived 
in the 4th century BC. Do we need to go back further than that? How 
about the science of the ancient Sumerians. Is that stuff ok by you?
(Oh, it's true that one proton and one electron make up the smallest 
unit of hydrogen, and we still call that a hydrogen atom, but given the 
meaning of "atom", it's clear we are using inappropriate language for 
it. But is this the kind of thing where you get flustered and claim that 
ordinary language doesn't have shifting meaning like physics jargon?)

As for describing what a field is, I've done this before, John. I had 
assumed you read it and remember it. So I'm assuming I don't have to 
repeat all that to you.

But getting back to what is physical, is energy physical, John? Or would 
you say it is NOTHING because it is not material? Do you begin to see 
where some of your own assumptions might not be wholly self-consistent 
and so should be re-examined?


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

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

#546998

On 1/21/2016 7:38 AM, john wrote:
> Odd's question #2

>
> If the Universe is a Fractal based on atom/galaxy,
> then we are immersed in harmonics of ourselves.


if........

     "fractal" is a man made construct.

      atoms are not galaxys, galaxys are not atoms

      harmonic of yourself includes your mother-in-law

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

#546987

On 1/20/2016 5:23 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 2:40:06 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>>> 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?
>
> Many science consumers are brain dead.  Many pretend scientists use
> this to their advantage.  They put complex equations in their
> papers/models, knowing that most people will assume math = scientific credibility.
> Consequently many scientific subdisciplines have become
> inane competitions between who can create the most sciencey looking
> but empirically inane output.  It is not unusual for this to
> characterize whole disciplines/paradigms: climatology;
> tornadogenesis/storm theory; much of water science; the list goes on.
>
> Most scientific disciplines are dominated senior figures that achieved.
> their status through popular appeal, despite being empirically inane.
> Students have little choice but to follow or be excluded.  Physics is
> not immune to this.
>

When you refer to individual people, replace the word "many" and "most" 
with "a few". When you refer to scientific disciplines, replace "many" 
or "most" with "no". Then I think I would agree.

There's no question you feel excluded and disrespected, and there's no 
question that you have decided to respond to disrespect with disrespect. 
Combine that with the fact that you do not have company in your beliefs, 
and that disrespect can boil up to conspiracy theory, savior complex, 
and megalomania -- all of which is a very common way for the mind to 
compensate for deep insecurities and crushingly low self-esteem.

You refer to "science consumers". I have no idea what you mean by this 
term. If you mean people who have a light and passing interest in 
science and occasionally read popularizations like those written by Kaku 
or Greene, then your disparaging comments about them are misplaced. Most 
people in that category don't have strong opinions one way or the other 
whether the premise being explained is true or not. They tend to reserve 
judgment, because they know that they are not subject-matter experts, 
and they like to leave that debate up to the people who ARE 
subject-matter experts. Expertise is not an evil. Society is built on 
the delegation of expertise and the aggregation of different 
contributions as a whole is better than what any one person would ever 
be able to produce.


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

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

#547026

On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 6:55:56 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> There's no question you feel excluded and disrespected, and there's no 
> question that you have decided to respond to disrespect with disrespect. 
> Combine that with the fact that you do not have company in your beliefs, 
> and that disrespect can boil up to conspiracy theory, savior complex, 
> and megalomania -- all of which is a very common way for the mind to 
> compensate for deep insecurities and crushingly low self-esteem.

Well, no.  I'm just saying that many science consumers--yourself 
being a perfect example--talk about science as an abstraction, 
and they are actually pedantic fools who don't really understand 
science.  Science is about dealing with facts and addressing 
substantive issue.  It's about addressing issues explicitly and 
finding resolution.  It is not about what is known, any idiot 
can look something up on wiki.  The internet has given people 
like you false confidence that they are scientists when actually 
they are just typist.

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

#547029

On 1/21/2016 2:45 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 6:55:56 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> There's no question you feel excluded and disrespected, and there's no
>> question that you have decided to respond to disrespect with disrespect.
>> Combine that with the fact that you do not have company in your beliefs,
>> and that disrespect can boil up to conspiracy theory, savior complex,
>> and megalomania -- all of which is a very common way for the mind to
>> compensate for deep insecurities and crushingly low self-esteem.
>
> Well, no.  I'm just saying that many science consumers--yourself
> being a perfect example--talk about science as an abstraction,

In what way do you see me talking about science as an abstraction. Can 
you cite some examples?

> and they are actually pedantic fools who don't really understand
> science.  Science is about dealing with facts and addressing
> substantive issue.

Facts, yes. "Substantive issue" is a subjective judgment. What seems 
substantive to you may not be of interest to anyone but you.

> It's about addressing issues explicitly and
> finding resolution.

Well, I can see that what you want is for people to address issues that 
you perceive as important, and then spending sufficient time with you to 
achieve resolution. Unfortunately, you are not owed that, and it is not 
implicit in the charter of science either, as far as I've read. There 
are LOTS of goofball ideas out there, and if you believe for one second 
that each and every one of those goofball ideas needs to be treated 
seriously, given thorough attention, and worked out to a resolution 
satisfactory to all sides, then I'm afraid you're hopelessly naive, not 
to mention an attention whore. Some ideas just are not worth paying 
attention to, and by golly Jim, you've been carrying around a fine 
example of that for years.

> It is not about what is known, any idiot
> can look something up on wiki.  The internet has given people
> like you false confidence that they are scientists when actually
> they are just typist.
>

I don't use the internet for resources unless someone ASKS for an 
internet resource. I much prefer reading books. That's where facts are.


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

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web