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

Groups > sci.physics > #560394 > unrolled thread

LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find.

Started byEnes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl>
First post2016-03-08 10:15 -0800
Last post2016-03-19 07:12 -0700
Articles 20 on this page of 104 — 14 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-08 10:15 -0800
    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 13:53 -0600
      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 12:25 -0800
        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 22:39 -0500
      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-08 12:36 -0800
    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 18:37 -0600
      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 00:57 -0800
      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-09 10:50 -0800
        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 15:02 -0600
          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-09 13:55 -0800
            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 16:12 -0600
              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-09 15:19 -0800
                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 08:08 -0600
                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-10 12:55 -0800
                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 15:41 -0600
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-10 15:01 -0800
                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 17:15 -0600
                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-12 07:42 -0800
                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 17:25 -0600
                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-11 12:05 -0800
                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 14:29 -0600
                              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-11 13:33 -0800
                                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 15:52 -0600
                                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-12 07:37 -0800
                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-14 12:57 -0700
                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 15:43 -0500
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-14 23:10 +0100
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-14 15:12 -0700
                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 17:34 -0500
                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-03-15 14:34 -0700
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 16:40 -0500
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-15 15:31 -0700
                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 08:36 -0500
                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-16 14:59 -0700
                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 17:46 -0500
                              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-17 15:40 -0700
                                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:19 -0500
                                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-18 14:01 -0700
                                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 16:46 -0500
                                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 15:43 -0700
                                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-18 17:10 -0700
                                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 00:15 -0700
                                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:37 -0500
                                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:31 -0500
                                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 07:46 -0700
                                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:22 -0500
                                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-18 15:52 -0700
                                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 16:13 -0700
                                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:30 -0500
                                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 08:09 -0700
                                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 13:58 -0400
                                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 08:10 -0700
                                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 08:39 -0700
                                              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 08:56 -0700
                                                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:06 -0700
                                                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 14:13 -0400
                                                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 12:18 -0700
                                                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 09:11 -0400
                                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 14:02 -0400
                                              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 15:40 -0500
                                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 08:46 -0500
                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 01:59 -0700
                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-14 22:41 +0100
                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 17:28 -0500
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-15 18:24 +0100
                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 12:33 -0500
                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-15 22:19 +0100
                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 16:38 -0500
                              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-16 02:56 +0100
                                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 08:47 -0500
              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 23:56 -0800
              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. dsr@mail.lns.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) - 2016-03-10 12:35 -0500
                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 11:47 -0600
                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-11 12:13 -0800
            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 23:50 -0800
          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 23:47 -0800
    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 12:13 -0800
      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 14:17 -0600
      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-03-11 12:35 -0800
      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 08:32 -0800
        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-14 12:46 -0700
          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 02:03 -0700
            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 02:25 -0700
              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 08:52 -0500
                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:01 -0700
                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:30 -0500
                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 07:08 -0700
                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-17 22:35 +0100
                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 17:11 -0500
                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-18 00:32 +0100
              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:04 -0500
                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:16 -0700
                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:20 -0500
                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:27 -0700
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:34 -0500
                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:37 -0700
                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:49 -0500
                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:56 -0700
                              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 10:06 -0500
                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 10:24 -0500
                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 13:05 -0700
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 10:15 -0500
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 07:16 -0700
                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 07:12 -0700

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

#563524

FromEnes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl>
Date2016-03-18 17:10 -0700
Message-ID<bf96c502-5573-4193-af15-beafe8fc444a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#563515
W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 23:44:01 UTC+1 użytkownik john napisał:
> Odd, what is the '3D geometric model"
> of quarks?
>

Exactly. 3D model describes the "Partmass", 
both statically and dynamically.

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

#563594

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-19 00:15 -0700
Message-ID<f0de0ceb-8d54-44c7-ae32-f89143661f68@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#563524
The up quarks are on the top?

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

#563630

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-19 09:37 -0500
Message-ID<ncjo6d$1bbu$5@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#563594
On 3/19/2016 2:15 AM, john wrote:
> The up quarks are on the top?
>

Nope. Don't guess. Read.

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

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

#563627

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-19 09:31 -0500
Message-ID<ncjnse$1bbu$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#563524
On 3/18/2016 7:10 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 23:44:01 UTC+1 użytkownik john napisał:
>> Odd, what is the '3D geometric model"
>> of quarks?
>>
>
> Exactly. 3D model describes the "Partmass",
> both statically and dynamically.
>

Quantum chromodynamics is the model of quarks. You should try learning 
about it. It's tremendously successful.

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

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

#563632

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-19 07:46 -0700
Message-ID<fa6f3e03-5600-45a8-b34b-90532c176ea1@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#563627
Mm mm-hmmm!!
That's where they provide a
THREE-DIMENSIONAL
treatment of the atom??
Cool!!
I'll look it up!
Thank you, Odd- that's what I've been
ASKING about all these years.
And I thought you were full of shit!!

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

#563624

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-19 09:22 -0500
Message-ID<ncjnat$1agi$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#563515
On 3/18/2016 5:43 PM, john wrote:
> Odd, what is the '3D geometric model"
> of quarks?
>

You can look up "bag model of quarks".

As I said, it's not a STATIC model, nor is it composed of solid things.

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

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

#563518

FromEnes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl>
Date2016-03-18 15:52 -0700
Message-ID<1fbd050b-7731-426e-9ef9-7258ae9b2709@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#563504
W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 22:46:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
...
> Ptolemy's model did not make testable PREDICTIONS. All it did was 
> post-dictions. That's what made it not a scientific theory.
> 
Ptolemy's model allowed for predicting observations in the past. It is used even today in planetariums (program Ptolemy), and gives predictions as accurate as the model of Copernicus and Kepler's equation.

...
> >
> >> You dismiss quarks because they do not match a
> >> principle that you think should hold. However, that is not a proper way
> >> to judge a theory.
> >>
> > Unfortunately, quarks do not have any 3D geometric model, so do not
> > even have to talk about.
> 
> Of course they do. But you're looking only at simple.wikipedia.org, and 
> you've not read any decent books on quantum chromodynamics, as far as I 
> can tell.
>
So show quark geometric model of the structure of the nucleon. how it is built and how it moves giving a measurable physical values and phenomena. Give the address ...
 
...
> 
> You keep mentioning a "new scientific method". Who is the inventor of 
> this "new scientific method"? If it's you, then your not really doing 
> science. You're doing something you think is valuable and CALLING it 
> "new science".
> 
Nobody's discoverer, the only conclusions of the history of scientific thought and committed errors.

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

#563520

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-18 16:13 -0700
Message-ID<8d3394bb-160d-4720-904e-a0c0dfa8f0f9@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#563518
Yeah, Odd.

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

#563626

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-19 09:30 -0500
Message-ID<ncjnqd$1bbu$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#563518
On 3/18/2016 5:52 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 22:46:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> ...
>> Ptolemy's model did not make testable PREDICTIONS. All it did was
>> post-dictions. That's what made it not a scientific theory.
>>
> Ptolemy's model allowed for predicting observations in the past.

Prediction is telling what things can be observed in the FUTURE. 
Postdiction is telling what things happened in the past.

> It is used even today in planetariums (program Ptolemy), and gives predictions
> as accurate as the model of Copernicus and Kepler's equation.

A scientific prediction is about something that has not been observed 
before. I'll give you an example of this. Because of Newtonian gravity 
and observations of the details of the orbit of Uranus, Urbain La 
Verrier was able to calculate (using Newtonian gravity) that there was a 
new planet, not yet observed, and he could tell astronomers where to 
look. When they did look, they found the new planet and called it 
Neptune. Ptolemy's postdictive model could in no way do that. That's why 
Newtonian gravity is a scientific theory, and Ptolemy's was not.

>
> ...
>>>
>>>> You dismiss quarks because they do not match a
>>>> principle that you think should hold. However, that is not a proper way
>>>> to judge a theory.
>>>>
>>> Unfortunately, quarks do not have any 3D geometric model, so do not
>>> even have to talk about.
>>
>> Of course they do. But you're looking only at simple.wikipedia.org, and
>> you've not read any decent books on quantum chromodynamics, as far as I
>> can tell.
>>
> So show quark geometric model of the structure of the nucleon. how it is
> built and how it moves giving a measurable physical values and phenomena.
> Give the address ...

Sure. There's a lovely book by Halzen and Martin called Quarks and Leptons.

>
> ...
>>
>> You keep mentioning a "new scientific method". Who is the inventor of
>> this "new scientific method"? If it's you, then your not really doing
>> science. You're doing something you think is valuable and CALLING it
>> "new science".
>>
> Nobody's discoverer, the only conclusions of the history of scientific
> thought and committed errors.
>

I beg to differ. I see no problem with the scientific method. Neither do 
scientists.


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

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

#563635

FromHVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-19 08:09 -0700
Message-ID<eff517ed-9a32-4c10-bdbf-401c809697e1@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#563626
Odd Bodkin
> So show quark geometric model of the structure of the nucleon. how it is 
> built and how it moves giving a measurable physical values and phenomena. 
> Give the address ... 

Sure. There's a lovely book by Halzen and Martin called Quarks and Leptons. 
---------------

Perhaps it would help John and BJ if they made a puppet show version of that book?

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

#563667

Frombenj <none@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-19 13:58 -0400
Message-ID<argHy.52024$_f2.36336@fx20.iad>
In reply to#563635
On 03/19/2016 11:09 AM, HVAC gurgled:
> Odd Bodkin
>> So show quark geometric model of the structure of the nucleon. how it is
>> built and how it moves giving a measurable physical values and phenomena.
>> Give the address ...
>
> Sure. There's a lovely book by Halzen and Martin called Quarks and Leptons.
> ---------------
>
> Perhaps it would help John and BJ if they made a puppet show version of that book?
>
Odd prefers pop-up books as you do. It's science at a level you two 
writers (and maker of wooden toys) can appreciate and understand.

-- 

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

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

#563636

FromMahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-19 08:10 -0700
Message-ID<f0238e5e-6eca-4a4f-be85-1005bd468200@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#563626
On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 10:30:42 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 3/18/2016 5:52 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> > W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 22:46:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> > ...
> >> Ptolemy's model did not make testable PREDICTIONS. All it did was
> >> post-dictions. That's what made it not a scientific theory.

More nonsense from Odd Bodkin (aka Paul Draper?) that Sam Worm Liar loves.
Predicting where the planets would be was testable. Want to know why?

> > Ptolemy's model allowed for predicting observations in the past.

Yes, Ptolemy's model was used to predict the future from the past.
 
> Prediction is telling what things can be observed in the FUTURE. 
> Postdiction is telling what things happened in the past.

Wow, the Dictionary is strong with this Odd one ToyMaker.

So, since studying the TBBT has only to due with the past, like the
first three seconds of it, your definitions indicate that therefore
the scientific method does not apply. Touche. Point mine.
 
> > It is used even today in planetariums (program Ptolemy), and gives predictions
> > as accurate as the model of Copernicus and Kepler's equation.
> 
> A scientific prediction is about something that has not been observed 
> before. I'll give you an example of this. Because of Newtonian gravity 
> and observations of the details of the orbit of Uranus, Urbain La 
> Verrier was able to calculate (using Newtonian gravity) that there was a 
> new planet, not yet observed, and he could tell astronomers where to 
> look. When they did look, they found the new planet and called it 
> Neptune. Ptolemy's postdictive model could in no way do that. That's why 
> Newtonian gravity is a scientific theory, and Ptolemy's was not.

Again, observation preceded the prediction. 

Tycho Brahe's observational work came first. Then Kepler curve fitted
the data of those astronomical sightings, for their time. Only then
Newton and Leibniz formulated their Differential Calculus and ...youKnow.

Odd, go read a book on Science History, this time for comprehension.

> > ...
> >>>> You dismiss quarks because they do not match a
> >>>> principle that you think should hold. However, that is not a proper way
> >>>> to judge a theory.
> >>>>
> >>> Unfortunately, quarks do not have any 3D geometric model, so do not
> >>> even have to talk about.
> >>
> >> Of course they do. But you're looking only at simple.wikipedia.org, and
> >> you've not read any decent books on quantum chromodynamics, as far as I
> >> can tell.

Wikipedia always provides links to detailed resources. Stop knocking
it BookBoy. Save the trees, go green, and try sell your meanderings
digitally and see if you do any better than modern artists/musicians
whose works get hijacked/repackaged/resold/... and only the BMIC digital
distributers make any money. That's a post-diction, and a prediction.

> > So show quark geometric model of the structure of the nucleon. how it is
> > built and how it moves giving a measurable physical values and phenomena.
> > Give the address ...
> 
> Sure. There's a lovely book by Halzen and Martin called Quarks and Leptons.
> > ...
> >>
> >> You keep mentioning a "new scientific method". Who is the inventor of
> >> this "new scientific method"? If it's you, then your not really doing
> >> science. You're doing something you think is valuable and CALLING it
> >> "new science".
> >>
> > Nobody's discoverer, the only conclusions of the history of scientific
> > thought and committed errors.
> >
> I beg to differ. I see no problem with the scientific method. Neither do 
> scientists.

Fortunately, you Odd have no control over the scientific method. Zero.

Did you poll these so-called scientists? Did they all raise their
hands, and removed Pluto from its planetary status? The relabeling of
Pluto is likely the greatest modern scientific advancement of recent
generations. That's a post-diction, nobody could've predicted that.

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

Odd Bodkin, O anonymous one, O full of shit one, I despise your habit
of constantly naming/identifying others, down to the point of posting
James McGinn's address, and all the while you want to remain vocal but
unknown. Hypocrite Odd Bodkin! That's both, post-diction and prediction.

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८”

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

#563642

FromHVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-19 08:39 -0700
Message-ID<d997bc21-ed71-43eb-891f-d21317643eb1@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#563636
Maple Loops says
>> 
> >> Of course they do. But you're looking only at simple.wikipedia.org, and 
> >> you've not read any decent books on quantum chromodynamics, as far as I 
> >> can tell. 

Wikipedia always provides links to detailed resources. Stop knocking 
it BookBoy. Save the trees, go green, and try sell your meanderings 
digitally and see if you do any better than modern artists/musicians 
whose works get hijacked/repackaged/resold/... and only the BMIC digital 
distributers make any money. That's a post-diction, and a prediction. 
----------------

Maple lips is another one that would prefer a puppet show version to a science book.

ML, hold on and I'll see if I can find a puppet show version of the Principia

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

#563647

FromMahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-19 08:56 -0700
Message-ID<60bd0030-57dc-4283-a324-547c1cc8cfab@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#563642
On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:39:13 AM UTC-4, HVAC wrote:
> Maple Loops says
> >> 
> > >> Of course they do. But you're looking only at simple.wikipedia.org, and 
> > >> you've not read any decent books on quantum chromodynamics, as far as I 
> > >> can tell. 
> 
> Wikipedia always provides links to detailed resources. Stop knocking 
> it BookBoy. Save the trees, go green, and try sell your meanderings 
> digitally and see if you do any better than modern artists/musicians 
> whose works get hijacked/repackaged/resold/... and only the BMIC digital 
> distributers make any money. That's a post-diction, and a prediction. 
> ----------------
> 
> Maple lips is another one that would prefer a puppet show version to
> a science book.

I knew you HeilHVAC would respond. My ESP. Dance KookHVAC Dance!

HVAC, I mean HeilHVAC, you are a fucking idiot with no conscious. Your
projections via false accusations are as transparent as your empty thoughts.
You HVAC have zero clue as to what I would prefer. None of your business.

> ML, hold on and I'll see if I can find a puppet show version of the
> Principia

I am an ABD PhD in Mechanical Engineering (UMCP) with a Physics (PU) minor. 

What are your credentials HeilHVAC? We, all readers/lurkers, are still
waiting right here for you to claim your next lie Lie LIE. Speak up
soldier Soldier SOLDIER! Can you HVAC handle your miserable life's truth?

Fwiw, I downloaded/read a digital version of the Principia decades ago.

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: No not mad I, just putting HVAC in his place.”

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

#563648

FromHVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-19 09:06 -0700
Message-ID<ad195d5b-a5c0-423d-8471-57197b892b87@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#563647
Maple Lips says
HVAC, I mean HeilHVAC, you are a fucking idiot with no conscious. Your 
projections via false accusations are as transparent as your empty thoughts. 
You HVAC have zero clue as to what I would prefer. None of your business. 

> ML, hold on and I'll see if I can find a puppet show version of the 
> Principia 

I am an ABD PhD in Mechanical Engineering (UMCP) with a Physics (PU) minor. 

What are your credentials HeilHVAC? We, all readers/lurkers, are still 
waiting right here for you to claim your next lie Lie LIE. Speak up 
soldier Soldier SOLDIER! Can you HVAC handle your miserable life's truth? 
---------------

The truth is that I categorically deny currently working for any known government agency or organization.

You mad bro?

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

#563673

Frombenj <none@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-19 14:13 -0400
Message-ID<qFgHy.995$EY2.448@fx01.iad>
In reply to#563648
On 03/19/2016 12:06 PM, HVAC wrote:
> Maple Lips says
> HVAC, I mean HeilHVAC, you are a fucking idiot with no conscious. Your
> projections via false accusations are as transparent as your empty thoughts.
> You HVAC have zero clue as to what I would prefer. None of your business.
>
>> ML, hold on and I'll see if I can find a puppet show version of the
>> Principia
>
> I am an ABD PhD in Mechanical Engineering (UMCP) with a Physics (PU) minor.
>
> What are your credentials HeilHVAC? We, all readers/lurkers, are still
> waiting right here for you to claim your next lie Lie LIE. Speak up
> soldier Soldier SOLDIER! Can you HVAC handle your miserable life's truth?
> ---------------
>
> The truth is that I categorically deny currently working for any known government agency or organization.
>
> You mad bro?

Maple loops, HVAC not only believes in ESP he thinks he HAS ESP which is 
how he knows what you and I are always thinking. Bet he knows if we are 
naughty or nice too!

Like all kooks his whole existence is in a fantasy world. I wonder if he 
lives in the basement with Rolf. He is gay, you know.



-- 

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

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

#563687

FromMahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-19 12:18 -0700
Message-ID<3f398a7a-6666-4beb-9b29-9e44fb561430@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#563648
On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 12:06:20 PM UTC-4, HVAC wrote:
> Maple Lips says
> HVAC, I mean HeilHVAC, you are a fucking idiot with no conscious. Your 
> projections via false accusations are as transparent as your empty thoughts. 
> You HVAC have zero clue as to what I would prefer. None of your business. 
> 
> > ML, hold on and I'll see if I can find a puppet show version of the 
> > Principia 
> 
> I am an ABD PhD in Mechanical Engineering (UMCP) with a Physics (PU) minor. 
> 
> What are your credentials HeilHVAC? We, all readers/lurkers, are still 
> waiting right here for you to claim your next lie Lie LIE. Speak up 
> soldier Soldier SOLDIER! Can you HVAC handle your miserable life's truth? 
> ---------------
> 
> The truth is that I categorically deny currently working for any
> known government agency or organization.

Nobody works for or at the government. Follow any news outlet at all.

Your cut and pasted smug, not at all funny line, has been read by
thousands of readers, often, in this NG. So much yawn Yawn YAWN.

Credentials means where and what did you study in college/university.
Or did the Brazilian Boys kidnap you from some orphanage, HeilHVAC?

> You mad bro?

I can be mad, but I can't be made mad. Try as you might HeilHVAC.
Know the difference, HVAC? Find a better hobby borKeBackMountain
besides being a Troll. Notice that you had not one word to offer pro
Odd or against Me regards the scientific method. It's too late to
throw your faith at it now. Like Odd has, you HVAC should killfile
me. For your own insanity. Odd must get paid to say the stupid
nonsense he claims to know about what the Status Quo Science and its
Methods are. The real puppet show lover is you HVAC. 

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Learn to be sane, then I'll bro you.”

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

#563846

Frombenj <none@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-20 09:11 -0400
Message-ID<PjxHy.52128$%_.45510@fx03.iad>
In reply to#563687
On 03/19/2016 03:18 PM, Mahipal wrote:
> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 12:06:20 PM UTC-4, HVAC wrote:
>> Maple Lips says
>> HVAC, I mean HeilHVAC, you are a fucking idiot with no conscious. Your
>> projections via false accusations are as transparent as your empty thoughts.
>> You HVAC have zero clue as to what I would prefer. None of your business.
>>
>>> ML, hold on and I'll see if I can find a puppet show version of the
>>> Principia
>>
>> I am an ABD PhD in Mechanical Engineering (UMCP) with a Physics (PU) minor.
>>
>> What are your credentials HeilHVAC? We, all readers/lurkers, are still
>> waiting right here for you to claim your next lie Lie LIE. Speak up
>> soldier Soldier SOLDIER! Can you HVAC handle your miserable life's truth?
>> ---------------
>>
>> The truth is that I categorically deny currently working for any
>> known government agency or organization.
>
> Nobody works for or at the government. Follow any news outlet at all.
>
> Your cut and pasted smug, not at all funny line, has been read by
> thousands of readers, often, in this NG. So much yawn Yawn YAWN.
>
> Credentials means where and what did you study in college/university.
> Or did the Brazilian Boys kidnap you from some orphanage, HeilHVAC?
>
>> You mad bro?
>
> I can be mad, but I can't be made mad. Try as you might HeilHVAC.
> Know the difference, HVAC? Find a better hobby borKeBackMountain
> besides being a Troll. Notice that you had not one word to offer pro
> Odd or against Me regards the scientific method. It's too late to
> throw your faith at it now. Like Odd has, you HVAC should killfile
> me. For your own insanity. Odd must get paid to say the stupid
> nonsense he claims to know about what the Status Quo Science and its
> Methods are. The real puppet show lover is you HVAC.
>
> -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Learn to be sane, then I'll bro you.”
>
HVAC is AI server, Maple Loops...or gummint employee which is the same 
thing.

-- 

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

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

#563670

Frombenj <none@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-19 14:02 -0400
Message-ID<YugHy.10915$nB.10408@fx39.iad>
In reply to#563636
On 03/19/2016 11:10 AM, Mahipal wrote:
> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 10:30:42 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 3/18/2016 5:52 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
>>> W dniu piątek, 18 marca 2016 22:46:29 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>> ...
>>>> Ptolemy's model did not make testable PREDICTIONS. All it did was
>>>> post-dictions. That's what made it not a scientific theory.
>
> More nonsense from Odd Bodkin (aka Paul Draper?) that Sam Worm Liar loves.
> Predicting where the planets would be was testable. Want to know why?
>
>>> Ptolemy's model allowed for predicting observations in the past.
>
> Yes, Ptolemy's model was used to predict the future from the past.
>
>> Prediction is telling what things can be observed in the FUTURE.
>> Postdiction is telling what things happened in the past.
>
> Wow, the Dictionary is strong with this Odd one ToyMaker.
>
> So, since studying the TBBT has only to due with the past, like the
> first three seconds of it, your definitions indicate that therefore
> the scientific method does not apply. Touche. Point mine.
>
>>> It is used even today in planetariums (program Ptolemy), and gives predictions
>>> as accurate as the model of Copernicus and Kepler's equation.
>>
>> A scientific prediction is about something that has not been observed
>> before. I'll give you an example of this. Because of Newtonian gravity
>> and observations of the details of the orbit of Uranus, Urbain La
>> Verrier was able to calculate (using Newtonian gravity) that there was a
>> new planet, not yet observed, and he could tell astronomers where to
>> look. When they did look, they found the new planet and called it
>> Neptune. Ptolemy's postdictive model could in no way do that. That's why
>> Newtonian gravity is a scientific theory, and Ptolemy's was not.
>
> Again, observation preceded the prediction.
>
> Tycho Brahe's observational work came first. Then Kepler curve fitted
> the data of those astronomical sightings, for their time. Only then
> Newton and Leibniz formulated their Differential Calculus and ...youKnow.
>
> Odd, go read a book on Science History, this time for comprehension.
>
>>> ...
>>>>>> You dismiss quarks because they do not match a
>>>>>> principle that you think should hold. However, that is not a proper way
>>>>>> to judge a theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, quarks do not have any 3D geometric model, so do not
>>>>> even have to talk about.
>>>>
>>>> Of course they do. But you're looking only at simple.wikipedia.org, and
>>>> you've not read any decent books on quantum chromodynamics, as far as I
>>>> can tell.
>
> Wikipedia always provides links to detailed resources. Stop knocking
> it BookBoy. Save the trees, go green, and try sell your meanderings
> digitally and see if you do any better than modern artists/musicians
> whose works get hijacked/repackaged/resold/... and only the BMIC digital
> distributers make any money. That's a post-diction, and a prediction.
>
>>> So show quark geometric model of the structure of the nucleon. how it is
>>> built and how it moves giving a measurable physical values and phenomena.
>>> Give the address ...
>>
>> Sure. There's a lovely book by Halzen and Martin called Quarks and Leptons.
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> You keep mentioning a "new scientific method". Who is the inventor of
>>>> this "new scientific method"? If it's you, then your not really doing
>>>> science. You're doing something you think is valuable and CALLING it
>>>> "new science".
>>>>
>>> Nobody's discoverer, the only conclusions of the history of scientific
>>> thought and committed errors.
>>>
>> I beg to differ. I see no problem with the scientific method. Neither do
>> scientists.
>
> Fortunately, you Odd have no control over the scientific method. Zero.
>
> Did you poll these so-called scientists? Did they all raise their
> hands, and removed Pluto from its planetary status? The relabeling of
> Pluto is likely the greatest modern scientific advancement of recent
> generations. That's a post-diction, nobody could've predicted that.

In Odd's world "science" is all about jargon and what words you use.

>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Odd Bodkin, O anonymous one, O full of shit one, I despise your habit
> of constantly naming/identifying others, down to the point of posting
> James McGinn's address, and all the while you want to remain vocal but
> unknown. Hypocrite Odd Bodkin! That's both, post-diction and prediction.

Odd is so scared that someone will knock on his door and reveal to him 
the secrets of Star Trek technology. Once he finds out it's real, his 
whole meaning in life will be gone!

What is funny is he makes wooden toys but can only sell to people who 
promise to keep his name secret. A great business plan I'm sure!

-- 

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

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

#563714

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-19 15:40 -0500
Message-ID<nckdgi$h6l$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#563670
On 3/19/2016 1:02 PM, benj wrote:
> What is funny is he makes wooden toys but can only sell to people who
> promise to keep his name secret. A great business plan I'm sure!

People I sell toys to know my name. People who read my posts on 
newsgroups don't know my name.

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

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

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web