Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #567488 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-02 09:27 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-04-04 11:58 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 77 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Non-composites never seen before john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 09:27 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 13:33 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 10:19 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 09:20 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 11:54 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-04 16:58 +0000
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 13:52 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 21:33 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 06:54 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 05:26 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 09:51 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 05:30 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 05:55 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 06:06 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 09:53 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 09:16 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 10:28 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 17:09 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 10:28 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 10:51 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 11:23 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 15:16 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 15:06 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 15:20 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 15:56 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 17:09 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 09:56 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 17:10 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 15:36 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 16:09 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-06 02:17 +0000
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 07:15 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 22:08 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 07:13 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 05:37 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 05:48 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 07:52 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 06:03 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 06:17 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 06:21 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 08:35 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 08:32 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 06:38 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 09:10 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 07:14 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 08:20 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 08:53 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 11:00 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 13:19 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 22:40 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-06 18:55 +0000
Re: Non-composites never seen before HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 12:20 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 16:08 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 10:28 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 09:47 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 22:14 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 07:27 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 05:47 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 10:20 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 09:45 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 11:10 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 10:56 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 15:17 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 17:10 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 09:42 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 17:10 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 22:11 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 07:25 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 10:11 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 09:41 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 11:07 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 10:55 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 15:15 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 13:46 -0500
Re: Non-composites never seen before benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 23:24 -0400
Re: Non-composites never seen before Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-04-04 12:11 -0700
Re: Non-composites never seen before Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 11:58 -0500
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 08:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ne33aq$gms$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568250 |
On 4/6/2016 8:17 AM, john wrote: > Odd > Which direction is "outward"? > John, you tell ten people to stand close together in the middle of a football pitch. Now you tell them to run away from each other. Which direction are they going to run? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 08:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ne334m$gms$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568248 |
On 4/6/2016 8:03 AM, john wrote: > Which direction is "outward", Odd? > Does it occur to you that expansion doesn't have a direction like eastward or upward? Take the dot on the expanding plate (3475,12377), with you John sitting right there. From your perspective, the dot at (3476,12377) is moving to the right. The dot at (3474,12377) is moving to the left. The dot at (3475,12376) is moving downward. (x axis is left-right, y-axis is up-down.) So which direction is the expansion, John? Now, there's a guy Ben that's sitting at (3476,12377). From Ben's perspective, the dot at (3475,12377) -- the point you're sitting on -- is moving to the left. The dot at (3477,12377) is moving to the right. The dot at (3476,12376) is moving downward. Again, everything is moving outward. Naturally, you John and Ben are receding from each other. You might ask, who is right? You who says (3475,12377) is still and (3476,12377) is moving to the right? Or Ben who says (3476,12377) is still and (3475,12377) is moving to the left? The answer is yes. Both are right. It's just a matter of where you're sitting. But BOTH you and Ben agree that the plate is expanding uniformly. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 06:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e9ce3fab-1221-4097-838b-7dd9bf6c2476@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568248 |
Never mind, Odd. Let's talk about rates of expansion: (0,1) went to (0,2) in one unit time AWAY from (0,0). Right? Expansion equal 1. (1,0) went to (2,0) in one unit time AWAY from (0,0). Right? Expansion equal 1. But the points now at (0,2) and (2,0) went root 2 AWAY from each other? Right? Expansion equal 1.4??? What's going on, Odd? Don't all three points have to retreat equally?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 09:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ne35dh$ksi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568254 |
On 4/6/2016 8:38 AM, john wrote: > Never mind, Odd. > Let's talk about rates of expansion: > (0,1) went to (0,2) in one unit time > AWAY from (0,0). > Right? Expansion equal 1. > (1,0) went to (2,0) in one unit time > AWAY from (0,0). Right? Expansion equal 1. > > But the points now at (0,2) and (2,0) went > root 2 AWAY from each other? > Right? Expansion equal 1.4??? > What's going on, Odd? Those points aren't adjacent, are they? Remember that uniform expansion means that ADJACENT points retreat from each other at the same rate. It does NOT mean that (0,1) and (34, 987) retreat from each other by one in unit time. Remember how I quoted the expansion rate I gave you in the 1-D, 2-D, 3-D examples? It was 1 inch per foot per day. That means that points separated by one foot would be further apart by 1 inch after a day. It also means that points separated by three feet would be further apart by 3 inches after a day. That's what uniform expansion rate means, not that ANY two points increase by one inch in a day, but that adjacent points do. > > Don't all three points have to retreat > equally? > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 07:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fe12c22c-0962-44e0-bbe4-1a8c405ea133@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568254 |
9:38 AMjohn Never mind, Odd. Let's talk about rates of expansion: (0,1) went to (0,2) in one unit time AWAY from (0,0). Right? Expansion equal 1. (1,0) went to (2,0) in one unit time AWAY from (0,0). Right? Expansion equal 1. But the points now at (0,2) and (2,0) went root 2 AWAY from each other? Right? Expansion equal 1.4??? What's going on, Odd? Don't all three points have to retreat equally? ------------ John. Serious question. Have you ever received treatment for ADD?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 08:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d2bba436-11a0-4af2-bdd9-85d9392693a9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568261 |
BJ quacked > When did I say "without data"? You live in as big a fantasy world as > HVAC. But at least he admits it. ---------- True, BJ. When it comes to you and your childish beliefs in ESP, etc. I must defer to your 'intellect'. Truly YOU are the most well schooled in kook subjects. Congratulations!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 08:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <081aa75d-b13a-45d4-a4e8-91c2dbf56df6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568293 |
Odd Just with 2D, your "expanding equally" Universe fails. Take the 4 points 0,0 and 1,0. and 0,1. and 1,1. A box, one unit per side. Expand it "equally " to twice its dimensions. Now the points are (0,0),(0,2),(2,2), (2,0). IN THE SAME TIME THAT (0,1) moved away from (0,0) to (0,2), which is ONE UNIT, (1,1) moved away from (0,0) to (2,2) which is ONE POINT FOUR UNITS. Depending on which "near neighbour" you look at, you get a DIFFERENT EXPANSION What's going on, Odd?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 11:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ne3brc$11uu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568298 |
On 4/6/2016 10:53 AM, john wrote: > Odd > Just with 2D, your "expanding equally" > Universe fails. > Take the 4 points 0,0 and 1,0. and 0,1. and 1,1. > A box, one unit per side. > Expand it "equally " to twice its dimensions. > Now the points are (0,0),(0,2),(2,2), (2,0). > > IN THE SAME TIME THAT > (0,1) moved away from (0,0) to (0,2), > which is ONE UNIT, > (1,1) moved away from (0,0) to (2,2) > which is ONE POINT FOUR UNITS. (1,1) is NOT ADJACENT to (0,0). Please reread my post where I defined for you in plain English what "adjacent" means. (1,0) is adjacent to (0,0) (0,1) is adjacent to (0,0) (1,1) is not adjacent to (0,0) (3,2) is adjacent to (2,2) and to (3,3). It is not adjacent to (4,3) or to (3,4). > > Depending on which "near neighbour" > you look at, you get a > DIFFERENT EXPANSION > > What's going on, Odd? > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 13:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ne3k0b$1hk1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568301 |
On 4/6/2016 11:00 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/6/2016 10:53 AM, john wrote: >> Odd >> Just with 2D, your "expanding equally" >> Universe fails. >> Take the 4 points 0,0 and 1,0. and 0,1. and 1,1. >> A box, one unit per side. >> Expand it "equally " to twice its dimensions. >> Now the points are (0,0),(0,2),(2,2), (2,0). >> >> IN THE SAME TIME THAT >> (0,1) moved away from (0,0) to (0,2), >> which is ONE UNIT, >> (1,1) moved away from (0,0) to (2,2) >> which is ONE POINT FOUR UNITS. > > (1,1) is NOT ADJACENT to (0,0). Please reread my post where I defined > for you in plain English what "adjacent" means. > (1,0) is adjacent to (0,0) > (0,1) is adjacent to (0,0) > (1,1) is not adjacent to (0,0) > (3,2) is adjacent to (2,2) and to (3,3). It is not adjacent to (4,3) or > to (3,4). If it helps, please remember that the rate of expansion is listed as [(distance increase) per (original distance) per (time)]. It is NOT [(distance increase) per (time)]. Remember, I gave you the three cases, in 1-D, 2-D and 3-D. The quoted expansion rate in all three was 1 inch per foot per day. Not 1 inch per day. So in your case, you compared two points: (0,0) and (0,1). They are presently 1 unit of space apart. One unit of time later, they are 2 units of space apart. The rate of expansion is 1 space-unit per 1 space-unit per time-unit. And you also compared two points: (0,0) and (1,1). They are presently 1.4 units apart. One unit of time later, they are now 2.8 units apart. The rate of expansion is 1.4 space-units per 1.4 space-units per 1 time-unit. That is IDENTICAL to 1 space-unit per 1 space-unit per 1 time-unit. > >> >> Depending on which "near neighbour" >> you look at, you get a >> DIFFERENT EXPANSION >> >> What's going on, Odd? >> > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-09 22:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33aa34d2-903a-487e-a802-eaf779100d6f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568298 |
On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 8:53:29 AM UTC-7, john wrote: > Odd > Just with 2D, your "expanding equally" > Universe fails. > Take the 4 points 0,0 and 1,0. and 0,1. and 1,1. > A box, one unit per side. > Expand it "equally " to twice its dimensions. > Now the points are (0,0),(0,2),(2,2), (2,0). > > IN THE SAME TIME THAT > (0,1) moved away from (0,0) to (0,2), > which is ONE UNIT, > (1,1) moved away from (0,0) to (2,2) > which is ONE POINT FOUR UNITS. > > Depending on which "near neighbour" > you look at, you get a > DIFFERENT EXPANSION > > What's going on, Odd? Modern galactic surveys don't all have them uniformly receding. Instead the galaxies are not as what followed from Hubble's centenary survey that happened to find us within a jet of Laniakea, the local mega-cluster we are in, that does appear to have a center, and thus did appear to have the nearer neighbors receding because we're all falling away from the center of the Laniakea jet. So, not, not all modern observation supports some "expanding universe" theory, though, it doesn't necessarily contradict expanding universe either. Somehow it is both "Big Bang" and "Steady State" origins, our placement in the observable universe that has whatever is near and old enough for us to see, in the infinite spatial universe, that may simply enough be an infinite warehouse of moments, of sorts, of the observable universe. See, what we might be able to observe to either side, isn't necessarily in each other's observable universe, so actually might be the same. In a sense, just like the mathematical universe, the physical universe is infinite, and, it contains itself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 18:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ne3m2h$21j$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #568261 |
HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> writes: >9:38 AMjohn >Never mind, Odd. >Let's talk about rates of expansion: >(0,1) went to (0,2) in one unit time >AWAY from (0,0). Right? Expansion equal 1. >(1,0) went to (2,0) in one unit time >AWAY from (0,0). Right? Expansion equal 1. >But the points now at (0,2) and (2,0) went >root 2 AWAY from each other? >Right? Expansion equal 1.4??? >What's going on, Odd? >Don't all three points have to retreat >equally? >------------ As Odd keeps pointing out, expansion is proportional to the original distance. So (0,1)->(0,2) is a doubling, and [(0,1),(1,0)]->[(0,2),(2,0)] is also a doubling (sqrt(2)->2*sqrt(2)). No problem. >John. Serious question. Have you ever received treatment for ADD? Harlow, that would require using the products of Big Pharma. Not just any old Big Pharma product, the most EEEVIL product of Big Pharma - Ritalin! (and besides, John seem to prefer Little Pharma)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 12:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7efee16d-8b9c-4d0b-acb7-f00e8ef7a9bb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568349 |
Michael Moroney said As Odd keeps pointing out, expansion is proportional to the original distance. So (0,1)->(0,2) is a doubling, and [(0,1),(1,0)]->[(0,2),(2,0)] is also a doubling (sqrt(2)->2*sqrt(2)). No problem. >John. Serious question. Have you ever received treatment for ADD? Harlow, that would require using the products of Big Pharma. Not just any old Big Pharma product, the most EEEVIL product of Big Pharma - Ritalin! (and besides, John seem to prefer Little Pharma) ------------ Well, it's just that John seem to have a difficult time grasping certain concepts. And after they are explained to him ad nauseum, he will ask again in a day or two. But your point is well taken. In fact 'Small Pharma' may account for John's inability to retain information. I wonder what they pay an ounce for Smalll Parma up in Canada these daze
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 16:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <B0eNy.2486$4C4.476@fx31.iad> |
| In reply to | #568356 |
On 04/06/2016 03:20 PM, HVAC wrote:
> Michael Moroney said As Odd keeps pointing out, expansion is
> proportional to the original distance. So (0,1)->(0,2) is a
> doubling, and [(0,1),(1,0)]->[(0,2),(2,0)] is also a doubling
> (sqrt(2)->2*sqrt(2)). No problem.
>
>> John. Serious question. Have you ever received treatment for ADD?
>
> Harlow, that would require using the products of Big Pharma. Not
> just any old Big Pharma product, the most EEEVIL product of Big
> Pharma - Ritalin!
>
> (and besides, John seem to prefer Little Pharma) ------------
>
> Well, it's just that John seem to have a difficult time grasping
> certain concepts. And after they are explained to him ad nauseum, he
> will ask again in a day or two.
>
> But your point is well taken. In fact 'Small Pharma' may account for
> John's inability to retain information. I wonder what they pay an
> ounce for Smalll Parma up in Canada these daze
HVAC loves all Pharma big and little. You should see him with an AK47 in
a post office stoked on Prozac! Too bad America didn't feed him Prozac
in Viet Nam. We would still be running the drug business over there.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 10:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <129Ny.7408$ZI.5974@fx42.iad> |
| In reply to | #568240 |
On 04/06/2016 08:52 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/6/2016 7:37 AM, john wrote:
>> Odd wrote
>>
>> "Yes, of course you're moving with it. What makes some other point the
>> "magic" point that stays at rest relative to you??"
>>
>> Okay Odd.
>> So space is expanding.
>> Universally.
>> Which direction is it going?
>>
>
> Outward. From every point.
> That's what UNIFORM EXPANSION means.
>
> You believe in an infinite universe. This means there is no boundary to
> the universe. Therefore if you try to ask in which direction the
> boundary is moving, it's a nonsense question, because there IS NO boundary.
Best "flat earth" theory I ever heard, Boinker! You never fall off the
edge of the flat earth because there is no edge! Whoppee! You are a
science genius. You and Glazier are due to share the Nobel soon! And
that will "prove" you are a scientist, of course.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 09:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ne37he$p5a$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568270 |
On 4/6/2016 9:28 AM, benj wrote: > On 04/06/2016 08:52 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 4/6/2016 7:37 AM, john wrote: >>> Odd wrote >>> >>> "Yes, of course you're moving with it. What makes some other point the >>> "magic" point that stays at rest relative to you??" >>> >>> Okay Odd. >>> So space is expanding. >>> Universally. >>> Which direction is it going? >>> >> >> Outward. From every point. >> That's what UNIFORM EXPANSION means. >> >> You believe in an infinite universe. This means there is no boundary to >> the universe. Therefore if you try to ask in which direction the >> boundary is moving, it's a nonsense question, because there IS NO >> boundary. > > Best "flat earth" theory I ever heard, Boinker! Like I said, Ben: JOHN believes in an infinite universe without edge. You believe it has a boundary and say sometimes that calculating where it is is straightforward and say sometimes that it's tricky. > You never fall off the > edge of the flat earth because there is no edge! Whoppee! You are a > science genius. You and Glazier are due to share the Nobel soon! And > that will "prove" you are a scientist, of course. > > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 22:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vi_My.16716$4s2.2050@fx01.iad> |
| In reply to | #568130 |
On 04/05/2016 06:10 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/5/2016 8:56 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 04/05/2016 08:30 AM, john wrote:
>>> Ben was getting down to it, OdD;
>>>
>>> Equal Universal expansion is an impossibility.
>>> Think about it.
>>> Your spots on the balloon's surface
>>> retreat equally from each other. One
>>> layer down, not so much.
>>> Near the center, they barely move.
>>> So.
>>> How does EVERYTHING retreat equally
>>> from each other?
>>> I suggest that you actually try to model
>>> this concept, Odd.
>>> Logically.
>>> This "universal expansion" concept.
>>> It can be shown to be logically impossible.
>>
>> "Logically impossible" is no problem for Odd or HVAC. In their world if
>> they can imagine it, it is therefore true in the real world.
>
> If it is imaginable, it is not logically impossible, is it? Being
> logically possible does not mean that it exists in the true world. Lots
> of things are LOGICALLY POSSIBLE even if experiment shows it does not
> happen.
>
> I'll give you an example: Magnetic monopoles. Nothing logically
> impossible about them. It appears they don't exist anyway. So does that
> mean they're suddenly logically impossible?
>
> Let's take another example. Hitler's grandchildren. Logically
> impossible? Of course not. Do they exist? No.
>
> How about a rod that happens to be EXACTLY 2 meters long? Logically
> impossible? No. Does it exist? Probably not.
How clever you are to turn "Logically impossible" into "logically
possible" and then use that to "prove" I've lost the debate. Winning any
cases lately? Defending lots of crooks I presume. You are almost as
great a wordsmith as our moderator.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 07:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ne2vb5$918$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568177 |
On 4/5/2016 9:14 PM, benj wrote: > On 04/05/2016 06:10 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 4/5/2016 8:56 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 04/05/2016 08:30 AM, john wrote: >>>> Ben was getting down to it, OdD; >>>> >>>> Equal Universal expansion is an impossibility. >>>> Think about it. >>>> Your spots on the balloon's surface >>>> retreat equally from each other. One >>>> layer down, not so much. >>>> Near the center, they barely move. >>>> So. >>>> How does EVERYTHING retreat equally >>>> from each other? >>>> I suggest that you actually try to model >>>> this concept, Odd. >>>> Logically. >>>> This "universal expansion" concept. >>>> It can be shown to be logically impossible. >>> >>> "Logically impossible" is no problem for Odd or HVAC. In their world if >>> they can imagine it, it is therefore true in the real world. >> >> If it is imaginable, it is not logically impossible, is it? Being >> logically possible does not mean that it exists in the true world. Lots >> of things are LOGICALLY POSSIBLE even if experiment shows it does not >> happen. >> >> I'll give you an example: Magnetic monopoles. Nothing logically >> impossible about them. It appears they don't exist anyway. So does that >> mean they're suddenly logically impossible? >> >> Let's take another example. Hitler's grandchildren. Logically >> impossible? Of course not. Do they exist? No. >> >> How about a rod that happens to be EXACTLY 2 meters long? Logically >> impossible? No. Does it exist? Probably not. > How clever you are to turn "Logically impossible" into "logically > possible" and then use that to "prove" I've lost the debate. Winning any > cases lately? Defending lots of crooks I presume. You are almost as > great a wordsmith as our moderator. > It takes no debating skill when you say something that is obviously silly. It'd be like calling me a sharpshooter when you get shot in the foot by your own gun held in your own hand. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 05:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <15288515-90d0-427c-91f0-41f0f77b8065@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568234 |
Odd Bodkin > How clever you are to turn "Logically impossible" into "logically > possible" and then use that to "prove" I've lost the debate. Winning any > cases lately? Defending lots of crooks I presume. You are almost as > great a wordsmith as our moderator. > It takes no debating skill when you say something that is obviously silly. It'd be like calling me a sharpshooter when you get shot in the foot by your own gun held in your own hand. --------------- Oh! I like that one. I'll use that in a future post and claim that *I* thought it up! So please accept my apology in advance
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 10:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vW8Ny.44$S5.19@fx20.iad> |
| In reply to | #568234 |
On 04/06/2016 08:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/5/2016 9:14 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 04/05/2016 06:10 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 4/5/2016 8:56 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 04/05/2016 08:30 AM, john wrote:
>>>>> Ben was getting down to it, OdD;
>>>>>
>>>>> Equal Universal expansion is an impossibility.
>>>>> Think about it.
>>>>> Your spots on the balloon's surface
>>>>> retreat equally from each other. One
>>>>> layer down, not so much.
>>>>> Near the center, they barely move.
>>>>> So.
>>>>> How does EVERYTHING retreat equally
>>>>> from each other?
>>>>> I suggest that you actually try to model
>>>>> this concept, Odd.
>>>>> Logically.
>>>>> This "universal expansion" concept.
>>>>> It can be shown to be logically impossible.
>>>>
>>>> "Logically impossible" is no problem for Odd or HVAC. In their world if
>>>> they can imagine it, it is therefore true in the real world.
>>>
>>> If it is imaginable, it is not logically impossible, is it? Being
>>> logically possible does not mean that it exists in the true world. Lots
>>> of things are LOGICALLY POSSIBLE even if experiment shows it does not
>>> happen.
>>>
>>> I'll give you an example: Magnetic monopoles. Nothing logically
>>> impossible about them. It appears they don't exist anyway. So does that
>>> mean they're suddenly logically impossible?
>>>
>>> Let's take another example. Hitler's grandchildren. Logically
>>> impossible? Of course not. Do they exist? No.
>>>
>>> How about a rod that happens to be EXACTLY 2 meters long? Logically
>>> impossible? No. Does it exist? Probably not.
>> How clever you are to turn "Logically impossible" into "logically
>> possible" and then use that to "prove" I've lost the debate. Winning any
>> cases lately? Defending lots of crooks I presume. You are almost as
>> great a wordsmith as our moderator.
>>
>
> It takes no debating skill when you say something that is obviously silly.
>
> It'd be like calling me a sharpshooter when you get shot in the foot by
> your own gun held in your own hand.
That makes no sense whatsoever! No wonder HVAC loves it! He loves lies
and insane statements. He's also gay.
"Points" do not exist so how can a rod be "exactly" 2 meters long? You'd
have to have the length accurate to actual "point" which is a fantasy.
So such a bar is logically possible only in your mind. So your argument
is that Tinker Bell is logically possible but just does not exist. But
you can't even prove that. To prove that negative would take
superpowers! Hence you believe that all the following are "logically
possible":
Ghosts
ESP
Astral projection
The 9/11 conspiracy
Aliens and UFOs
Atlantis
Ley lines
Telekinesis
The bible
God
Planet Nibru is coming
HVAC is a government agent
Vaccines are bad
Ancient aliens
JFK conspiracy
Operation paperclip
I won't tell HVAC that you believe in all these things if you won't!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 09:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ne37dp$p5a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568264 |
On 4/6/2016 9:20 AM, benj wrote: > On 04/06/2016 08:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 4/5/2016 9:14 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 04/05/2016 06:10 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 4/5/2016 8:56 AM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 04/05/2016 08:30 AM, john wrote: >>>>>> Ben was getting down to it, OdD; >>>>>> >>>>>> Equal Universal expansion is an impossibility. >>>>>> Think about it. >>>>>> Your spots on the balloon's surface >>>>>> retreat equally from each other. One >>>>>> layer down, not so much. >>>>>> Near the center, they barely move. >>>>>> So. >>>>>> How does EVERYTHING retreat equally >>>>>> from each other? >>>>>> I suggest that you actually try to model >>>>>> this concept, Odd. >>>>>> Logically. >>>>>> This "universal expansion" concept. >>>>>> It can be shown to be logically impossible. >>>>> >>>>> "Logically impossible" is no problem for Odd or HVAC. In their >>>>> world if >>>>> they can imagine it, it is therefore true in the real world. >>>> >>>> If it is imaginable, it is not logically impossible, is it? Being >>>> logically possible does not mean that it exists in the true world. Lots >>>> of things are LOGICALLY POSSIBLE even if experiment shows it does not >>>> happen. >>>> >>>> I'll give you an example: Magnetic monopoles. Nothing logically >>>> impossible about them. It appears they don't exist anyway. So does that >>>> mean they're suddenly logically impossible? >>>> >>>> Let's take another example. Hitler's grandchildren. Logically >>>> impossible? Of course not. Do they exist? No. >>>> >>>> How about a rod that happens to be EXACTLY 2 meters long? Logically >>>> impossible? No. Does it exist? Probably not. >>> How clever you are to turn "Logically impossible" into "logically >>> possible" and then use that to "prove" I've lost the debate. Winning any >>> cases lately? Defending lots of crooks I presume. You are almost as >>> great a wordsmith as our moderator. >>> >> >> It takes no debating skill when you say something that is obviously >> silly. >> >> It'd be like calling me a sharpshooter when you get shot in the foot by >> your own gun held in your own hand. > > That makes no sense whatsoever! No wonder HVAC loves it! He loves lies > and insane statements. He's also gay. > > "Points" do not exist so how can a rod be "exactly" 2 meters long? I didn't say anything about points. I said a physical rod. I assume that 2 meters EXACTLY corresponds to a real length. Or are you saying that all real lengths have values like 2.013 m or 2.0000001 m but NEVER 2 m exactly, and that 2 m exactly is a physically impossible length? Note I did not say that you'd be able to MEASURE it exactly. I just said that the real length, regardless whether or how you measure it, is 2 m exactly. Is it your statement that such a real length (independent of measurement) is physically and logically impossible? > You'd > have to have the length accurate to actual "point" which is a fantasy. > So such a bar is logically possible only in your mind. So your argument > is that Tinker Bell is logically possible but just does not exist. But > you can't even prove that. To prove that negative would take > superpowers! Hence you believe that all the following are "logically > possible": > > Ghosts > ESP > Astral projection > The 9/11 conspiracy > Aliens and UFOs > Atlantis > Ley lines > Telekinesis > The bible > God > Planet Nibru is coming > HVAC is a government agent > Vaccines are bad > Ancient aliens > JFK conspiracy > Operation paperclip > > I won't tell HVAC that you believe in all these things if you won't! > > -- 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