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 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]

#547236

Great Circles.
That's what the head of the Math department 
called them.

Say I start flying due south from the North Pole
and get to the South Pole at a steady rate of speed
in 24 hours.
The equation from the North Pole to the
equator is what we want. 

Can you do it?

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

#547240

On 1/22/2016 12:10 PM, john wrote:
> Great Circles.
> That's what the head of the Math department
> called them.

Called WHAT? And Math department where?

>
> Say I start flying due south from the North Pole
> and get to the South Pole at a steady rate of speed
> in 24 hours.
> The equation from the North Pole to the
> equator is what we want.

With respect to the ground? Not a great circle.
It's a Lissajous figure, especially when you come back up to the north 
pole, John.

>
> Can you do it?
>


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

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

#547251

Say I start flying due south from the North Pole 
----------

From the north pole, every direction is south. 

Boom baby!

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

#547418

On 01/22/2016 01:50 PM, HVAC wrote:
>
> Say I start flying due south from the North Pole
> ----------
>
>  From the north pole, every direction is south.
>
> Boom baby!
>
Bet you figured that out all by yourself too!

Excellent.

-- 

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

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

#547266

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:

>On 1/22/2016 11:44 AM, john wrote:
>> I think they're called Great Circles, Odd.
>>

>Lissajous figures? no.
>The trajectories you've drawn? no.

A great circle is a circle on the surface of a sphere whose center is the
same as the center of the sphere.

The shortest distance between two points on Earth lies on the great circle
containing them.  The shortest distance between NYC and Hong Kong goes
right through the North Pole.  Ho Ho Ho! Don't be fooled by flat maps!

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

#547286

Hmm.
You're right, Michael.
That prof called my Galaxy Pattern
Great Circles when in reality it's
Lissajous?
But I looked all through the Lissajous and
never found it.

Nevertheless, Odd should be able to derive
the equation from the pattern if he claims to be
able to visualize ANYTHING from an equation.
If he has no idea what an equation represents,
visually, why's he playing the math card?

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

#547567

On 1/22/2016 2:03 PM, john wrote:
> Hmm.
> You're right, Michael.
> That prof called my Galaxy Pattern
> Great Circles when in reality it's
> Lissajous?
> But I looked all through the Lissajous and
> never found it.
>
> Nevertheless, Odd should be able to derive
> the equation from the pattern if he claims to be
> able to visualize ANYTHING from an equation.
> If he has no idea what an equation represents,
> visually, why's he playing the math card?
>

Lissajous figures are traced by a parameterized curve. In 3D, it would 
like this: [x(s), y(s), z(s)]
where
x(s) = A*sin(a*s)
y(s) = B*sin(b*s + b0)
z(s) = C*sin(c*s + c0)
where A,B,C,a,b,c,b0,c0 are tunable numbers, with the restriction that 
a/b and b/c are rational numbers ("rational" numbers is a math term, and 
it doesn't mean "sensible" or "intelligent" or "logical").

If you want to "read" the math here, here's a couple things you can see 
immediately: when something goes a complete loop N times in one 
direction, it will go also go around a complete loop M times in another 
direction. This you will recognize when you say something like the disc 
precesses twice every time the disc revolves once. It also helps if you 
recognize that sine function as describing the oscillation of something 
revolving. There's actually a lot more that can be read like a language 
from those three equations, but I just wanted to give you a couple of 
"sentences" that in the whole, long "paragraph" expressed by those 
equations.

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

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

#547221

On 1/22/2016 10:45 AM, john wrote:
> I think I looked up the Lissajoux thing and
> found it not to be one- I'll check the
> spelling and get back
>

There are 3D Lissajous things too. What you have done is exactly that, 
which the math of Lissajous figures will show you.

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

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

#547033

On 1/21/2016 2:45 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>   Science is about dealing with facts and addressing
> substantive issue.  It's about addressing issues explicitly and
> finding resolution.

Jim, if I wrote up a paper stating that the understanding of how cheese 
is made is totally wrong, and giving an alternate opinion that the 
processing of milk to cheese is due to minerals in the water and 
therefore wholly dependent on the diet of the mammals, would you endorse 
that this should be looked at seriously by scientists, and given a ton 
of attention until scientists and I came to a resolution? What if I 
stated that the present paradigm is so wrong that correcting it would 
alter the course of global warming -- making it a more "substantive 
issue"? Would you then say that I would be owed a full argument by 
scientists on this "substantive issue" until I am satisfied that I had 
made an egregious error? What if I stuck to my guns and said that all 
data about cheese manufacturing had been misinterpreted and that 
scientists were an inbred lot that was incapable of thinking -- do you 
think I'd still be owed a full argument on this substantive issue until 
resolution was achieved?

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

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

#547038

On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 1:06:32 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/21/2016 2:45 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> >   Science is about dealing with facts and addressing
> > substantive issue.  It's about addressing issues explicitly and
> > finding resolution.
> 
> Jim, if I wrote up a paper stating that the understanding of how cheese 
> is made is totally wrong,

Good.  Why don't you present it?

 and giving an alternate opinion that the 
> processing of milk to cheese is due to minerals in the water and 
> therefore wholly dependent on the diet of the mammals, would you endorse 
> that this should be looked at seriously by scientists,

Present it and see.

 and given a ton 
> of attention until scientists and I came to a resolution? What if I 
> stated that the present paradigm is so wrong that correcting it would 
> alter the course of global warming -- making it a more "substantive 
> issue"? Would you then say that I would be owed a full argument by 
> scientists on this "substantive issue" until I am satisfied that I had 
> made an egregious error?

How would we know unless you present it?  Once again, you are dealing with abstractions.  You are a nitwit that things you are a genius because you express abstractions that any idiot could express.

 What if I stuck to my guns and said that all 
> data about cheese manufacturing had been misinterpreted and that 
> scientists were an inbred lot that was incapable of thinking -- do you 
> think I'd still be owed a full argument on this substantive issue until 
> resolution was achieved?

How could I know if you don't present it, you nitwit.

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

#547042

On 1/21/2016 3:59 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 1:06:32 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 1/21/2016 2:45 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>    Science is about dealing with facts and addressing
>>> substantive issue.  It's about addressing issues explicitly and
>>> finding resolution.
>>
>> Jim, if I wrote up a paper stating that the understanding of how cheese
>> is made is totally wrong,
>
> Good.  Why don't you present it?
>
>   and giving an alternate opinion that the
>> processing of milk to cheese is due to minerals in the water and
>> therefore wholly dependent on the diet of the mammals, would you endorse
>> that this should be looked at seriously by scientists,
>
> Present it and see.
>
>   and given a ton
>> of attention until scientists and I came to a resolution? What if I
>> stated that the present paradigm is so wrong that correcting it would
>> alter the course of global warming -- making it a more "substantive
>> issue"? Would you then say that I would be owed a full argument by
>> scientists on this "substantive issue" until I am satisfied that I had
>> made an egregious error?
>
> How would we know unless you present it?  Once again, you are dealing with
> abstractions.  You are a nitwit that things you are a genius because you express
> abstractions that any idiot could express.

I really don't things I'm a genius, no. This is not genius stuff we're 
talking about.

>
>   What if I stuck to my guns and said that all
>> data about cheese manufacturing had been misinterpreted and that
>> scientists were an inbred lot that was incapable of thinking -- do you
>> think I'd still be owed a full argument on this substantive issue until
>> resolution was achieved?
>
> How could I know if you don't present it, you nitwit.
>

I think you have missed the point. I deliberately choice a scenario 
which is so ridiculous that if anyone really wanted to put it forward, 
it would have been immediately, if not shortly, obvious that the 
proposer was seriously misinformed and uneducated.

However, in YOUR mind, even such obvious cases should be put forward and 
hashed out, because unless that is done, then it hasn't been given fair 
due. And in YOUR mind, science owes ALL ideas, no matter how obviously 
misinformed and misbegotten, such serious treatment. But that's YOU, 
because you have one of those misbegotten and misinformed ideas.




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

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

#547057

On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 2:18:14 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> I really don't things I'm a genius, no. This is not genius stuff we're 
> talking about.

What was your point then?

> 
> >
> >   What if I stuck to my guns and said that all
> >> data about cheese manufacturing had been misinterpreted and that
> >> scientists were an inbred lot that was incapable of thinking -- do you
> >> think I'd still be owed a full argument on this substantive issue until
> >> resolution was achieved?
> >
> > How could I know if you don't present it, you nitwit.
> >
> 
> I think you have missed the point. 

I'm thinking you don't have a point, you have a case of permanent indigestion.


I deliberately choice a scenario 
> which is so ridiculous

I don't know enough about cheese to say.

 that if anyone really wanted to put it forward, 
> it would have been immediately, if not shortly, obvious that the 
> proposer was seriously misinformed and uneducated.

You are a pedantic fool.  

> 
> However, in YOUR mind, even such obvious cases should be put forward and 
> hashed out, because unless that is done, then it hasn't been given fair 
> due. And in YOUR mind, science owes ALL ideas, no matter how obviously 
> misinformed and misbegotten, such serious treatment. But that's YOU, 
> because you have one of those misbegotten and misinformed ideas.

I don't know about cheese.  You don't know about science.

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

#547063

On 1/21/2016 5:22 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 2:18:14 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> I really don't things I'm a genius, no. This is not genius stuff we're
>> talking about.
>
> What was your point then?

Apparently you missed it. Not only that, but you didn't bother reading 
my whole post before starting to respond to it. This is, in my opinion, 
a sign of knee-jerk responding and more interest in debate than in the 
subject of the debate.

>
>>
>>>
>>>    What if I stuck to my guns and said that all
>>>> data about cheese manufacturing had been misinterpreted and that
>>>> scientists were an inbred lot that was incapable of thinking -- do you
>>>> think I'd still be owed a full argument on this substantive issue until
>>>> resolution was achieved?
>>>
>>> How could I know if you don't present it, you nitwit.
>>>
>>
>> I think you have missed the point.
>
> I'm thinking you don't have a point, you have a case of permanent indigestion.

Well, good of you to state that before reading the reiteration of the point.

>
>
> I deliberately choice a scenario
>> which is so ridiculous
>
> I don't know enough about cheese to say.

I thought that what makes cheese was taught in high school. Not in 
yours? How about basic thermodynamics and states of matter (like, oh, 
say... water)? Not in yours?

>
>   that if anyone really wanted to put it forward,
>> it would have been immediately, if not shortly, obvious that the
>> proposer was seriously misinformed and uneducated.
>
> You are a pedantic fool.
>
>>
>> However, in YOUR mind, even such obvious cases should be put forward and
>> hashed out, because unless that is done, then it hasn't been given fair
>> due. And in YOUR mind, science owes ALL ideas, no matter how obviously
>> misinformed and misbegotten, such serious treatment. But that's YOU,
>> because you have one of those misbegotten and misinformed ideas.
>
> I don't know about cheese.  You don't know about science.

Well, I'll take your word for it that you don't know cheese. As for 
science, pal, I'll take what I've read over what you say, just about any 
day.


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

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

#547076

On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 3:31:19 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 1/21/2016 5:22 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 2:18:14 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >
> >> I really don't things I'm a genius, no. This is not genius stuff we're
> >> talking about.
> >
> > What was your point then?
> 
> Apparently you missed it.

science is complex enough that if you just pretend to understand most people are going to be fooled into thinking you are an expert.  And for you that is the whole ballgame.  


 Not only that, but you didn't bother reading 
> my whole post before starting to respond to it. This is, in my opinion, 
> a sign of knee-jerk responding and more interest in debate than in the 
> subject of the debate.
> 
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>    What if I stuck to my guns and said that all
> >>>> data about cheese manufacturing had been misinterpreted and that
> >>>> scientists were an inbred lot that was incapable of thinking -- do you
> >>>> think I'd still be owed a full argument on this substantive issue until
> >>>> resolution was achieved?
> >>>
> >>> How could I know if you don't present it, you nitwit.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I think you have missed the point.
> >
> > I'm thinking you don't have a point, you have a case of permanent indigestion.
> 
> Well, good of you to state that before reading the reiteration of the point.

It's funny how you use big words to make yourself seem important.

> 
> >
> >
> > I deliberately choice a scenario
> >> which is so ridiculous
> >
> > I don't know enough about cheese to say.
> 
> I thought that what makes cheese was taught in high school.

Maybe you should write a book.  what is your point, anyway?


 Not in 
> yours? How about basic thermodynamics and states of matter (like, oh, 
> say... water)? Not in yours?
> 
> >
> >   that if anyone really wanted to put it forward,
> >> it would have been immediately, if not shortly, obvious that the
> >> proposer was seriously misinformed and uneducated.
> >
> > You are a pedantic fool.
> >
> >>
> >> However, in YOUR mind, even such obvious cases should be put forward and
> >> hashed out, because unless that is done, then it hasn't been given fair
> >> due. And in YOUR mind, science owes ALL ideas, no matter how obviously
> >> misinformed and misbegotten, such serious treatment. But that's YOU,
> >> because you have one of those misbegotten and misinformed ideas.
> >
> > I don't know about cheese.  You don't know about science.
> 
> Well, I'll take your word for it that you don't know cheese. As for 
> science, pal, I'll take what I've read

Any idiot can read science.  

 over what you say, just about any 
> day.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#547180

On 1/21/2016 6:21 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 3:31:19 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 1/21/2016 5:22 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 2:18:14 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>
>>>> I really don't things I'm a genius, no. This is not genius stuff we're
>>>> talking about.
>>>
>>> What was your point then?
>>
>> Apparently you missed it.
>
> science is complex enough that if you just pretend to understand most people
> are going to be fooled into thinking you are an expert.  And for you that is
> the whole ballgame.

The science I have been referring you to is not complex. It is basic. 
That's why it is taught to freshmen. That is why even someone like me, a 
woodworker, is familiar with it, even when you are denying it.

As I've said REPEATEDLY, finding the holes in your ideas does not take 
an expert, does not take a genius, does not take amazing insight. It 
takes someone with freshman-level understanding of physics or chemistry 
or biology.

>
>
>   Not only that, but you didn't bother reading
>> my whole post before starting to respond to it. This is, in my opinion,
>> a sign of knee-jerk responding and more interest in debate than in the
>> subject of the debate.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     What if I stuck to my guns and said that all
>>>>>> data about cheese manufacturing had been misinterpreted and that
>>>>>> scientists were an inbred lot that was incapable of thinking -- do you
>>>>>> think I'd still be owed a full argument on this substantive issue until
>>>>>> resolution was achieved?
>>>>>
>>>>> How could I know if you don't present it, you nitwit.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think you have missed the point.
>>>
>>> I'm thinking you don't have a point, you have a case of permanent indigestion.
>>
>> Well, good of you to state that before reading the reiteration of the point.
>
> It's funny how you use big words to make yourself seem important.

What was the big word? "Reiteration"? "Reiteration" is a big word to 
you? I think "indigestion" (a word you used just prior) has at least the 
same number of letters and syllables. Are you sure that isn't your 
raging insecurities kicking in?

>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I deliberately choice a scenario
>>>> which is so ridiculous
>>>
>>> I don't know enough about cheese to say.
>>
>> I thought that what makes cheese was taught in high school.
>
> Maybe you should write a book.  what is your point, anyway?

I think I've explained the point several times, and it's a basic one.
So if you haven't gotten it by now....

>
>
>   Not in
>> yours? How about basic thermodynamics and states of matter (like, oh,
>> say... water)? Not in yours?
>>
>>>
>>>    that if anyone really wanted to put it forward,
>>>> it would have been immediately, if not shortly, obvious that the
>>>> proposer was seriously misinformed and uneducated.
>>>
>>> You are a pedantic fool.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, in YOUR mind, even such obvious cases should be put forward and
>>>> hashed out, because unless that is done, then it hasn't been given fair
>>>> due. And in YOUR mind, science owes ALL ideas, no matter how obviously
>>>> misinformed and misbegotten, such serious treatment. But that's YOU,
>>>> because you have one of those misbegotten and misinformed ideas.
>>>
>>> I don't know about cheese.  You don't know about science.
>>
>> Well, I'll take your word for it that you don't know cheese. As for
>> science, pal, I'll take what I've read
>
> Any idiot can read science.

Well, if that's your excuse for not reading science, Jim, I'd say that's 
part of the problem right there.

>
>   over what you say, just about any
>> day.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>


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

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

#547048

On 1/21/2016 3:59 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> You are a nitwit that things you are a genius because you express abstractions that any idiot could express.

I should like to point out that it doesn't take a genius to dismantle 
the crap you peddle, Jim. All it takes is someone with a moderate 
familiarity with freshman level physics, chemistry, and biology to do 
that. No, strike that, replace "and" with "or" in the previous sentence. 
And dismantling it is certainly not an attempt to look like a genius. 
The fact that ELEMENTARY knowledge of facts and data can so easily 
dismantle your crap is why you get only brief, if any, attention, and 
why people tell you (either politely or brusquely) that you obviously do 
not know what you're talking about, even though you'd LIKE to think you 
do. And we're not talking about the occasional bad reaction, Jim, we're 
talking about a CONSISTENT reaction against your stuff, the kind of 
reaction someone would get if they proposed that 2+2=pi or that the moon 
is an atmospheric illusion and is only a refracted image of the sun. 
When YOU are the only person in the world who thinks you know what 
you're talking about, Jim, then it's time for a little introspection and 
re-evaluation of motives and rationales.

If YOU choose to interpret the CONSISTENT reaction you get to your stuff 
as being signs of conspiracy and widespread calcification throughout the 
field, then you can add lunacy to the topics to introspect about.

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

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

#547017

On 1/19/2016 2:53 PM, 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?
>
> 2. You say that the money that has been spent on dark matter is a waste
> of money and effort and should be stopped after a certain line of
> expense or time has been spent. And yet you propose a "smaller form" of
> matter, 10^31 times smaller than anything that's been seen, and which
> would therefore be many orders of magnitude harder to see or test in
> experiment. Why do you think YOUR idea is worth investing in, when it is
> so much harder to test and is many, many more years further away in even
> possible confirmation?
>
> 3. You say the scientific method is useless because the people who do
> the experiments to test the theories are scientists and are therefore
> not to be trusted with objectivity. What else, then, would YOU propose
> as a method to determine if a scientific idea is correct or not? And if
> you have no alternative approach other than the scientific method, why
> are you spending so much time on a newsgroup for fans of the scientific
> method?
>
> 4. You say that a rule of nature that makes sense to you is that all
> real objects MUST have volume and structure as properties. But how do
> you know this rule is correct? And if you can't say why you know, do you
> think it's sensible for you to try to dictate to reality how it is,
> rather than finding out ways to ask reality whether it is that way or not?
>
> As you can see, these are straightforward self-awareness questions that
> maybe you can't answer for yourself, let alone for me.
>
>

You've taken stabs at 2 and 4, John. (Those have generated follow-up 
questions.)
Want to try answering 1 and 3?

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

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

#547095

Odd said
"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? "
Hmm.
Take for example a ring of six people.
Each person has 3 things to share but
only two neighbours.
How to do it evenly?
We could use the mathematics of
delocalization, if there is such.
Or- since it's a ring-
each person could share their third
thing to the left and accept one from the
right, and what goes around comes around.

Now- if I were in command of all kinds of
higher math, maybe I might not think
of goes around comes around.
Or maybe I might.

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

#547166

On 1/21/2016 7:45 PM, john wrote:
> Odd said
> "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? "
> Hmm.
> Take for example a ring of six people.
> Each person has 3 things to share but
> only two neighbours.
> How to do it evenly?
> We could use the mathematics of
> delocalization, if there is such.
> Or- since it's a ring-
> each person could share their third
> thing to the left and accept one from the
> right, and what goes around comes around.
>
> Now- if I were in command of all kinds of
> higher math, maybe I might not think
> of goes around comes around.
> Or maybe I might.
>

And so, John, you have avoided the question I asked you, which was: 
"What is the source of your resistance to learning some math?"
Maybe you could focus on the actual question being asked....

But since you brought up your analogy/visual, let's then summarize that 
would leave us: There is a model involving delocalization (which 
chemists seem to like a lot) and then there's yours (which you seem to 
like a lot). So there must be some way to determine which of these two 
schemes really reflects reality. Hmmmm...... Some way .... Some way.... 
Can you think of a way to determine which one is right, John? (Please do 
not say common sense, or worse, logic.)


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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web