Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #546494 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-01-19 10:20 -0600 |
| Last post | 2016-01-28 13:30 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 76 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 10:20 -0600
Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 10:06 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 12:13 -0600
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 12:17 -0600
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 23:00 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 03:40 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 03:48 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-01-20 07:00 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 22:45 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-01-22 10:19 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 12:22 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-01-22 14:51 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 15:18 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 02:26 -0500
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 02:24 -0500
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 00:56 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-01-23 10:03 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 10:26 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-01-23 14:48 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 22:05 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-01-23 23:35 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 00:14 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-01-24 11:41 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? "Notroll2016" <notroll2015@charter.net> - 2016-01-23 07:45 -0600
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-23 10:37 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? "Notroll2016" <notroll2015@charter.net> - 2016-01-23 13:07 -0600
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-23 12:27 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? "Notroll2016" <notroll2015@charter.net> - 2016-01-23 16:47 -0600
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-24 14:30 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 22:14 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-01-23 23:35 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 22:56 -0800
Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 06:13 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 10:32 -0500
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 11:43 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 02:26 -0500
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 15:04 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-24 07:46 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 14:14 -0600
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-25 06:39 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 08:52 -0600
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 07:53 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 08:17 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-26 06:42 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 08:53 -0600
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:58 -0600
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-26 06:54 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 09:02 -0600
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-26 13:17 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 15:21 -0600
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 15:25 -0600
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-26 16:56 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 07:33 -0600
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-28 08:29 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 11:25 -0600
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-29 06:36 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 08:44 -0600
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 09:54 -0600
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-31 07:17 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 13:49 -0600
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 09:32 -0600
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-26 13:22 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 15:28 -0600
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-26 17:01 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 23:05 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 07:52 -0600
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-28 08:07 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 11:21 -0600
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 23:01 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 14:33 -0500
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:37 -0600
edit sujet noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 12:38 -0800
Re: edit sujet noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 12:40 -0800
Re: edit sujet "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 00:52 -0800
Re: edit sujet noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-01-29 18:33 -0800
Re: Does space mean emptiness? How do you describe it? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-01-28 13:30 -0800
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 08:52 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <F_ednXHnyM5cqzvLnZ2dnUU7-RudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #547992 |
On 1/25/16 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote: > There have never been any observations or experiments that contradict > my predictions that "angels make it happen". So is my theory a good > theory? I don't think so. Hey Seto -- does your theory make any predictions that have been confirmed by observation and experiment, that are different from special relativity? No. Your theory is either contradicted by special relativity or doesn't even make any testable predictions. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 07:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0438195f-e861-4aa2-a457-79cbbd103af4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #547997 |
I'll describe it. A jar full of marbles, all the same size, all touching. In between are much smaller marbles, all touching each other. In between them are yet smaller marbles, all touching. And so on. And when the bigger marbles thin out, ALL the space is full of the next size level of marbles, all touching. No such thing as nothing. Fractal Space rules!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 08:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7633a73b-e3f9-4855-bb97-4db9d49661af@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #548007 |
A jar full of marbles, all the same size, all touching. In between are much smaller marbles, all touching each other. In between them are yet smaller marbles, all touching. And so on. And when the bigger marbles thin out, ALL the space is full of the next size level of marbles, all touching ---------- John, I'm afraid you've lost your marbles.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 06:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a490189f-84f9-4605-82d5-59ff6045994f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #547997 |
On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 9:52:54 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 1/25/16 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote: > > There have never been any observations or experiments that contradict > > my predictions that "angels make it happen". So is my theory a good > > theory? I don't think so. > > > Hey Seto -- does your theory make any predictions that have been > confirmed by observation and experiment, that are different from > special relativity? No. Your theory is either contradicted by > special relativity or doesn't even make any testable predictions. > > Wormy.....the angels can make any predictions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 08:53 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ApOdnXw8TtUfFTrLnZ2dnUU7-XudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #548283 |
On 1/26/16 8:42 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 9:52:54 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: >> >> >> Hey Seto -- does your theory make any predictions that have been >> confirmed by observation and experiment, that are different from >> special relativity? No. Your theory is either contradicted by >> special relativity or doesn't even make any testable predictions. >> >> > Wormy.....the angels can make any predictions. > Seto -- learn the difference between predictions and *testable* predictions. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-25 10:58 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n85k6s$18t5$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #547992 |
On 1/25/2016 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote: > There have never been any observations or experiments that contradict my > predictions that "angels make it happen". So is my theory a good theory? I don't think so. "Angels make it happen" is not a prediction, Ken. Do you know what a prediction is? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 06:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <74d8c449-db81-4e6c-b7b3-ff70cc57bba1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #548026 |
On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 11:58:09 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/25/2016 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote: > > There have never been any observations or experiments that contradict my > > predictions that "angels make it happen". So is my theory a good theory? I don't think so. > > "Angels make it happen" is not a prediction, Ken. Do you know what a > prediction is? Sure it is a prediction just as virtual particles make it happens.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 09:02 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ApOdnX88TtUIFzrLnZ2dnUU7-XsAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #548286 |
On 1/26/16 8:54 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 11:58:09 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/25/2016 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> There have never been any observations or experiments that contradict my >>> predictions that "angels make it happen". So is my theory a good theory? I don't think so. >> >> "Angels make it happen" is not a prediction, Ken. Do you know what a >> prediction is? > > > Sure it is a prediction just as virtual particles make it happens. > What did Casimir get the Nobel Prize for, Seto? -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 13:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10d90f85-03d1-4d2f-a36d-561884b9cf36@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #548288 |
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 10:02:49 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 1/26/16 8:54 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 11:58:09 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 1/25/2016 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> There have never been any observations or experiments that contradict my > >>> predictions that "angels make it happen". So is my theory a good theory? I don't think so. > >> > >> "Angels make it happen" is not a prediction, Ken. Do you know what a > >> prediction is? > > > > > > Sure it is a prediction just as virtual particles make it happens. > > > > What did Casimir get the Nobel Prize for, Seto? It just means that the Nobel Committee accepted Casmir's explanation that the virtual particles made it happen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 15:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <HKOdnQYE47vtfjrLnZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #548387 |
On 1/26/16 3:17 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 10:02:49 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: >> On 1/26/16 8:54 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 11:58:09 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 1/25/2016 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> There have never been any observations or experiments that contradict my >>>>> predictions that "angels make it happen". So is my theory a good theory? I don't think so. >>>> >>>> "Angels make it happen" is not a prediction, Ken. Do you know what a >>>> prediction is? >>> >>> >>> Sure it is a prediction just as virtual particles make it happens. >>> >> >> What did Casimir get the Nobel Prize for, Seto? > > It just means that the Nobel Committee accepted Casmir's explanation that the virtual particles made it happen. > You gave me a good laugh, Seto. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 15:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n88o7n$gso$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #548387 |
On 1/26/2016 3:17 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 10:02:49 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: >> On 1/26/16 8:54 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 11:58:09 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 1/25/2016 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> There have never been any observations or experiments that contradict my >>>>> predictions that "angels make it happen". So is my theory a good theory? I don't think so. >>>> >>>> "Angels make it happen" is not a prediction, Ken. Do you know what a >>>> prediction is? >>> >>> >>> Sure it is a prediction just as virtual particles make it happens. >>> >> >> What did Casimir get the Nobel Prize for, Seto? > > It just means that the Nobel Committee accepted Casmir's explanation that the virtual particles made it happen. Uh, no. It means that Casimir's predictions were later validated by experimental confirmation, and that as a result, Casimir's theory was widely used by other theorists to develop other explanations and other predictions which where then also validated in experimental test. The Nobel committee recognizes work by an individual that has demonstrated experimental success and has influenced the work of a lot of other physicists. They don't do anything until that happens. Maybe you didn't know how the Nobel committee does its work, and just made that up? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-26 16:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bb52690e-a4c6-4dd4-a0f5-b421bd68eb88@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #548392 |
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 4:25:20 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/26/2016 3:17 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 10:02:49 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: > >> On 1/26/16 8:54 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 11:58:09 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 1/25/2016 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> There have never been any observations or experiments that contradict my > >>>>> predictions that "angels make it happen". So is my theory a good theory? I don't think so. > >>>> > >>>> "Angels make it happen" is not a prediction, Ken. Do you know what a > >>>> prediction is? > >>> > >>> > >>> Sure it is a prediction just as virtual particles make it happens. > >>> > >> > >> What did Casimir get the Nobel Prize for, Seto? > > > > It just means that the Nobel Committee accepted Casmir's explanation that the virtual particles made it happen. > > Uh, no. It means that Casimir's predictions were later validated by > experimental confirmation, and that as a result, Casimir's theory was > widely used by other theorists to develop other explanations and other > predictions which where then also validated in experimental test. That's not a confirmation of the virtual particles. It merely means that virtual particles could be one of the model that give rise to the Casmir force. Model Mechanics provides a better model that explains the Casmir force as follows: every unit area on both metal plate are moving in the same direction in the E-Matrix. This gives rise to an attractive force between them. each of these unit area on each plate are connected by the electromagnetic force and thus the metal plates are experiencing an attractive force between them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-27 07:33 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8agv6$s3t$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #548450 |
On 1/26/2016 6:56 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 4:25:20 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/26/2016 3:17 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 10:02:49 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>> On 1/26/16 8:54 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 11:58:09 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 1/25/2016 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> There have never been any observations or experiments that contradict my >>>>>>> predictions that "angels make it happen". So is my theory a good theory? I don't think so. >>>>>> >>>>>> "Angels make it happen" is not a prediction, Ken. Do you know what a >>>>>> prediction is? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sure it is a prediction just as virtual particles make it happens. >>>>> >>>> >>>> What did Casimir get the Nobel Prize for, Seto? >>> >>> It just means that the Nobel Committee accepted Casmir's explanation that the virtual particles made it happen. >> >> Uh, no. It means that Casimir's predictions were later validated by >> experimental confirmation, and that as a result, Casimir's theory was >> widely used by other theorists to develop other explanations and other >> predictions which where then also validated in experimental test. > > That's not a confirmation of the virtual particles. It merely means that virtual particles could be one of the > model that give rise to the Casmir force. And since the model makes numerical predictions that match the measurements of the Casimir force, then that is considered a confirmation of virtual particles, Ken. That's how science confirms the validity of theories, Ken. You didn't know that? > Model Mechanics provides a better model that explains the Casmir force as follows: > every unit area on both metal plate are moving in the same direction in the E-Matrix. This gives rise to > an attractive force between them. each of these unit area on each plate are connected by the electromagnetic > force and thus the metal plates are experiencing an attractive force between them. I don't see any predictions in any of what you just described. Casimir's theory had predictions. > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 08:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e109b3df-5b87-4c60-ba43-0a3a25424567@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #548524 |
On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 8:33:31 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/26/2016 6:56 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 4:25:20 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 1/26/2016 3:17 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 10:02:49 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: > >>>> On 1/26/16 8:54 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 11:58:09 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 1/25/2016 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> There have never been any observations or experiments that contradict my > >>>>>>> predictions that "angels make it happen". So is my theory a good theory? I don't think so. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> "Angels make it happen" is not a prediction, Ken. Do you know what a > >>>>>> prediction is? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Sure it is a prediction just as virtual particles make it happens. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> What did Casimir get the Nobel Prize for, Seto? > >>> > >>> It just means that the Nobel Committee accepted Casmir's explanation that the virtual particles made it happen. > >> > >> Uh, no. It means that Casimir's predictions were later validated by > >> experimental confirmation, and that as a result, Casimir's theory was > >> widely used by other theorists to develop other explanations and other > >> predictions which where then also validated in experimental test. > > > > That's not a confirmation of the virtual particles. It merely means that virtual particles could be one of the > > model that give rise to the Casmir force. > > And since the model makes numerical predictions that match the > measurements of the Casimir force, then that is considered a > confirmation of virtual particles, Ken. The model of Model Mechanics males identical predictions for the Casmir force. Why? Because the same equations are used to make the predictions. This is much like SR uses the same LET equations to make predictions. The difference is that SR call the ether frame as the inertial frame to derive the LET math whereas LET acknowledges the existence of the ether frame and use it to derived the LT. > > That's how science confirms the validity of theories, Ken. You didn't > know that? You don't know that an equation can be based on different models??? > > > Model Mechanics provides a better model that explains the Casmir force as follows: > > every unit area on both metal plate are moving in the same direction in the E-Matrix. This gives rise to > > an attractive force between them. each of these unit area on each plate are connected by the electromagnetic > > force and thus the metal plates are experiencing an attractive force between them. > > I don't see any predictions in any of what you just described. Casimir's > theory had predictions. The same equations can be used. replace virtual particles model with absolute motion in the same direction for opposite unit areas on both plates that creates the attractive force between them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-28 11:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8dite$1gkp$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #548771 |
On 1/28/2016 10:29 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 8:33:31 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/26/2016 6:56 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 4:25:20 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 1/26/2016 3:17 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 10:02:49 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>> On 1/26/16 8:54 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 11:58:09 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/25/2016 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> There have never been any observations or experiments that contradict my >>>>>>>>> predictions that "angels make it happen". So is my theory a good theory? I don't think so. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Angels make it happen" is not a prediction, Ken. Do you know what a >>>>>>>> prediction is? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sure it is a prediction just as virtual particles make it happens. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What did Casimir get the Nobel Prize for, Seto? >>>>> >>>>> It just means that the Nobel Committee accepted Casmir's explanation that the virtual particles made it happen. >>>> >>>> Uh, no. It means that Casimir's predictions were later validated by >>>> experimental confirmation, and that as a result, Casimir's theory was >>>> widely used by other theorists to develop other explanations and other >>>> predictions which where then also validated in experimental test. >>> >>> That's not a confirmation of the virtual particles. It merely means that virtual particles could be one of the >>> model that give rise to the Casmir force. >> >> And since the model makes numerical predictions that match the >> measurements of the Casimir force, then that is considered a >> confirmation of virtual particles, Ken. > > The model of Model Mechanics males identical predictions for the Casmir force. Why? Because the > same equations are used to make the predictions. Oddly enough, though, your theory of angels doesn't include interactions and so doesn't use the math of QED where the interaction term is included. > This is much like SR uses the same LET equations > to make predictions. The difference is that SR call the ether frame as the inertial frame to > derive the LET math whereas LET acknowledges the existence of the ether frame and use it to > derived the LT. >> >> That's how science confirms the validity of theories, Ken. You didn't >> know that? > > You don't know that an equation can be based on different models??? One equation, maybe, but no two models share the entire set of identical equations. So no, if you think this happens, then I'm pretty sure you're flat wrong. > >> >>> Model Mechanics provides a better model that explains the Casmir force as follows: >>> every unit area on both metal plate are moving in the same direction in the E-Matrix. This gives rise to >>> an attractive force between them. each of these unit area on each plate are connected by the electromagnetic >>> force and thus the metal plates are experiencing an attractive force between them. >> >> I don't see any predictions in any of what you just described. Casimir's >> theory had predictions. > > The same equations can be used. replace virtual particles model with absolute motion in the same > direction for opposite unit areas on both plates that creates the attractive force between them. > Like the angels that have spin 1/2 and mass of 511 keV? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 06:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6c386e07-8b16-4227-ad00-0b4e669ccfbb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #548777 |
On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 12:25:09 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/28/2016 10:29 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 8:33:31 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 1/26/2016 6:56 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 4:25:20 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 1/26/2016 3:17 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 10:02:49 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: > >>>>>> On 1/26/16 8:54 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 11:58:09 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 1/25/2016 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> There have never been any observations or experiments that contradict my > >>>>>>>>> predictions that "angels make it happen". So is my theory a good theory? I don't think so. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> "Angels make it happen" is not a prediction, Ken. Do you know what a > >>>>>>>> prediction is? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sure it is a prediction just as virtual particles make it happens. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What did Casimir get the Nobel Prize for, Seto? > >>>>> > >>>>> It just means that the Nobel Committee accepted Casmir's explanation that the virtual particles made it happen. > >>>> > >>>> Uh, no. It means that Casimir's predictions were later validated by > >>>> experimental confirmation, and that as a result, Casimir's theory was > >>>> widely used by other theorists to develop other explanations and other > >>>> predictions which where then also validated in experimental test. > >>> > >>> That's not a confirmation of the virtual particles. It merely means that virtual particles could be one of the > >>> model that give rise to the Casmir force. > >> > >> And since the model makes numerical predictions that match the > >> measurements of the Casimir force, then that is considered a > >> confirmation of virtual particles, Ken. > > > > The model of Model Mechanics males identical predictions for the Casmir force. Why? Because the > > same equations are used to make the predictions. > > Oddly enough, though, your theory of angels doesn't include interactions > and so doesn't use the math of QED where the interaction term is included. Sure it includes interactions.....the angels push or pull the interacting objects together or apart. > > > This is much like SR uses the same LET equations > > to make predictions. The difference is that SR call the ether frame as the inertial frame to > > derive the LET math whereas LET acknowledges the existence of the ether frame and use it to > > derived the LT. > >> > >> That's how science confirms the validity of theories, Ken. You didn't > >> know that? > > > > You don't know that an equation can be based on different models??? > > One equation, maybe, but no two models share the entire set of identical > equations. So no, if you think this happens, then I'm pretty sure you're > flat wrong. LOL....SR model is a different interpretation of LET math. > > > > >> > >>> Model Mechanics provides a better model that explains the Casmir force as follows: > >>> every unit area on both metal plate are moving in the same direction in the E-Matrix. This gives rise to > >>> an attractive force between them. each of these unit area on each plate are connected by the electromagnetic > >>> force and thus the metal plates are experiencing an attractive force between them. > >> > >> I don't see any predictions in any of what you just described. Casimir's > >> theory had predictions. > > > > The same equations can be used. replace virtual particles model with absolute motion in the same > > direction for opposite unit areas on both plates that creates the attractive force between them. > > > > Like the angels that have spin 1/2 and mass of 511 keV? > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 08:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <vL6dnbBvuN1H5zbLnZ2dnUU7-UOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #549077 |
On 1/29/16 8:36 AM, kenseto wrote: > LOL....SR model is a different interpretation of LET math. What is the biggest difference? -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-29 09:54 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8g206$1637$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #549077 |
On 1/29/2016 8:36 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 12:25:09 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/28/2016 10:29 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 8:33:31 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 1/26/2016 6:56 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 4:25:20 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 1/26/2016 3:17 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 10:02:49 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/26/16 8:54 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 11:58:09 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 1/25/2016 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> There have never been any observations or experiments that contradict my >>>>>>>>>>> predictions that "angels make it happen". So is my theory a good theory? I don't think so. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Angels make it happen" is not a prediction, Ken. Do you know what a >>>>>>>>>> prediction is? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sure it is a prediction just as virtual particles make it happens. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What did Casimir get the Nobel Prize for, Seto? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It just means that the Nobel Committee accepted Casmir's explanation that the virtual particles made it happen. >>>>>> >>>>>> Uh, no. It means that Casimir's predictions were later validated by >>>>>> experimental confirmation, and that as a result, Casimir's theory was >>>>>> widely used by other theorists to develop other explanations and other >>>>>> predictions which where then also validated in experimental test. >>>>> >>>>> That's not a confirmation of the virtual particles. It merely means that virtual particles could be one of the >>>>> model that give rise to the Casmir force. >>>> >>>> And since the model makes numerical predictions that match the >>>> measurements of the Casimir force, then that is considered a >>>> confirmation of virtual particles, Ken. >>> >>> The model of Model Mechanics males identical predictions for the Casmir force. Why? Because the >>> same equations are used to make the predictions. >> >> Oddly enough, though, your theory of angels doesn't include interactions >> and so doesn't use the math of QED where the interaction term is included. > > > Sure it includes interactions.....the angels push or pull the interacting objects together or apart. That's not what the math says. The math says the spin-1/2, mass 511 keV thing (which you call an angel) interacts directly with the spin-0 massless thing (which you call another kind of angel), via electric charge. So is this consistent with your explanation involving angels or not? > >> >>> This is much like SR uses the same LET equations >>> to make predictions. The difference is that SR call the ether frame as the inertial frame to >>> derive the LET math whereas LET acknowledges the existence of the ether frame and use it to >>> derived the LT. >>>> >>>> That's how science confirms the validity of theories, Ken. You didn't >>>> know that? >>> >>> You don't know that an equation can be based on different models??? >> >> One equation, maybe, but no two models share the entire set of identical >> equations. So no, if you think this happens, then I'm pretty sure you're >> flat wrong. > > LOL....SR model is a different interpretation of LET math. Uh, no, it's not. Never was. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> Model Mechanics provides a better model that explains the Casmir force as follows: >>>>> every unit area on both metal plate are moving in the same direction in the E-Matrix. This gives rise to >>>>> an attractive force between them. each of these unit area on each plate are connected by the electromagnetic >>>>> force and thus the metal plates are experiencing an attractive force between them. >>>> >>>> I don't see any predictions in any of what you just described. Casimir's >>>> theory had predictions. >>> >>> The same equations can be used. replace virtual particles model with absolute motion in the same >>> direction for opposite unit areas on both plates that creates the attractive force between them. >>> >> >> Like the angels that have spin 1/2 and mass of 511 keV? >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 07:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f6a0e6b9-359d-40a4-b662-5a7567f588ce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #549099 |
On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 10:55:03 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/29/2016 8:36 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 12:25:09 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 1/28/2016 10:29 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 8:33:31 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 1/26/2016 6:56 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 4:25:20 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 1/26/2016 3:17 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 10:02:49 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 1/26/16 8:54 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 11:58:09 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 1/25/2016 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> There have never been any observations or experiments that contradict my > >>>>>>>>>>> predictions that "angels make it happen". So is my theory a good theory? I don't think so. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> "Angels make it happen" is not a prediction, Ken. Do you know what a > >>>>>>>>>> prediction is? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sure it is a prediction just as virtual particles make it happens. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> What did Casimir get the Nobel Prize for, Seto? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It just means that the Nobel Committee accepted Casmir's explanation that the virtual particles made it happen. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Uh, no. It means that Casimir's predictions were later validated by > >>>>>> experimental confirmation, and that as a result, Casimir's theory was > >>>>>> widely used by other theorists to develop other explanations and other > >>>>>> predictions which where then also validated in experimental test. > >>>>> > >>>>> That's not a confirmation of the virtual particles. It merely means that virtual particles could be one of the > >>>>> model that give rise to the Casmir force. > >>>> > >>>> And since the model makes numerical predictions that match the > >>>> measurements of the Casimir force, then that is considered a > >>>> confirmation of virtual particles, Ken. > >>> > >>> The model of Model Mechanics males identical predictions for the Casmir force. Why? Because the > >>> same equations are used to make the predictions. > >> > >> Oddly enough, though, your theory of angels doesn't include interactions > >> and so doesn't use the math of QED where the interaction term is included. > > > > > > Sure it includes interactions.....the angels push or pull the interacting objects together or apart. > > That's not what the math says. The math says the spin-1/2, mass 511 keV > thing (which you call an angel) interacts directly with the spin-0 > massless thing (which you call another kind of angel), via electric charge. This is the QM model. > > So is this consistent with your explanation involving angels or not? Sure....the QED math is consistent with the angel model. The Angel model for interactions is different than the QM model. The Model Mechanics model for electromagnetic interaction is different than the QM model and the angel model. The Model Mechanics model is described in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011unification.pdf > > > > >> > >>> This is much like SR uses the same LET equations > >>> to make predictions. The difference is that SR call the ether frame as the inertial frame to > >>> derive the LET math whereas LET acknowledges the existence of the ether frame and use it to > >>> derived the LT. > >>>> > >>>> That's how science confirms the validity of theories, Ken. You didn't > >>>> know that? > >>> > >>> You don't know that an equation can be based on different models??? > >> > >> One equation, maybe, but no two models share the entire set of identical > >> equations. So no, if you think this happens, then I'm pretty sure you're > >> flat wrong. > > > > LOL....SR model is a different interpretation of LET math. > > Uh, no, it's not. Never was. Yes it is. An inertial frame is just another name for different locations of the ether frame.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-31 13:49 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n8lofu$1bsv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #549524 |
On 1/31/2016 9:17 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 10:55:03 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 1/29/2016 8:36 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 12:25:09 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 1/28/2016 10:29 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 8:33:31 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 1/26/2016 6:56 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 4:25:20 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/26/2016 3:17 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 10:02:49 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 1/26/16 8:54 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 11:58:09 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/25/2016 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> There have never been any observations or experiments that contradict my >>>>>>>>>>>>> predictions that "angels make it happen". So is my theory a good theory? I don't think so. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Angels make it happen" is not a prediction, Ken. Do you know what a >>>>>>>>>>>> prediction is? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sure it is a prediction just as virtual particles make it happens. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What did Casimir get the Nobel Prize for, Seto? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It just means that the Nobel Committee accepted Casmir's explanation that the virtual particles made it happen. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Uh, no. It means that Casimir's predictions were later validated by >>>>>>>> experimental confirmation, and that as a result, Casimir's theory was >>>>>>>> widely used by other theorists to develop other explanations and other >>>>>>>> predictions which where then also validated in experimental test. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's not a confirmation of the virtual particles. It merely means that virtual particles could be one of the >>>>>>> model that give rise to the Casmir force. >>>>>> >>>>>> And since the model makes numerical predictions that match the >>>>>> measurements of the Casimir force, then that is considered a >>>>>> confirmation of virtual particles, Ken. >>>>> >>>>> The model of Model Mechanics males identical predictions for the Casmir force. Why? Because the >>>>> same equations are used to make the predictions. >>>> >>>> Oddly enough, though, your theory of angels doesn't include interactions >>>> and so doesn't use the math of QED where the interaction term is included. >>> >>> >>> Sure it includes interactions.....the angels push or pull the interacting objects together or apart. >> >> That's not what the math says. The math says the spin-1/2, mass 511 keV >> thing (which you call an angel) interacts directly with the spin-0 >> massless thing (which you call another kind of angel), via electric charge. > > This is the QM model. That's right. You said the angel theory could explain everything in the QM model, using the same math. So I told you what the QM math says. Now maybe you FORGOT that you were suggesting an angel theory using the same math as QM. That wouldn't surprise me, Ken. Do you remember what you had for dinner on Tuesday? I didn't think so. >> >> So is this consistent with your explanation involving angels or not? > > Sure....the QED math is consistent with the angel model. The Angel model > for interactions is different than the QM model. Well, then you'll have to explain how the math for the interactions is the SAME, then. The QED math says there is a direct interaction between the spin-1 massless things and the spin-1/2 things with mass 511 keV. Now you say the angel model uses the SAME math but doesn't have any such direct interactions between angels. Explain. > The Model Mechanics model for electromagnetic interaction is different > than the QM model and the angel model. The Model Mechanics model is described in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011unification.pdf >> >>> >>>> >>>>> This is much like SR uses the same LET equations >>>>> to make predictions. The difference is that SR call the ether frame as the inertial frame to >>>>> derive the LET math whereas LET acknowledges the existence of the ether frame and use it to >>>>> derived the LT. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's how science confirms the validity of theories, Ken. You didn't >>>>>> know that? >>>>> >>>>> You don't know that an equation can be based on different models??? >>>> >>>> One equation, maybe, but no two models share the entire set of identical >>>> equations. So no, if you think this happens, then I'm pretty sure you're >>>> flat wrong. >>> >>> LOL....SR model is a different interpretation of LET math. >> >> Uh, no, it's not. Never was. > > Yes it is. An inertial frame is just another name for different locations of the > ether frame. Uh, no. No where in ANY literature, other than what you just made up in your head, is there any description of "inertial frame" that says "different locations in the ether frame". > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web