Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #572685 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-23 08:18 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-05-04 07:38 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 201 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Point particle Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-23 08:18 -0500
Point particle HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-23 06:33 -0700
Re: Point particle Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-23 07:51 -0700
Re: Point particle HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-23 08:00 -0700
Re: Point particle benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-23 12:59 -0400
Re: Point particle benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-23 12:57 -0400
Re: Point particle HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-23 10:47 -0700
Re: Point particle benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-23 23:27 -0400
Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-23 06:41 -0700
Re: Point particle Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-04-23 14:19 -0700
Re: Point particle "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 14:48 -0700
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 05:18 -0700
Re: Point particle HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 05:27 -0700
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 05:32 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 08:05 -0500
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 06:17 -0700
Re: Point particle HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 06:39 -0700
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 07:16 -0700
Re: Point particle HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 07:57 -0700
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 08:32 -0700
Re: Point particle HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 08:51 -0700
Re: Point particle benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-25 13:29 -0400
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 14:23 -0500
Re: Point particle "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 00:32 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 14:23 -0500
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 12:32 -0700
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 12:40 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 15:12 -0500
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 14:59 -0500
Re: Point particle moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-25 20:24 +0000
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 13:44 -0700
Re: Point particle jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-25 10:38 -0700
Re: Point particle HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 11:00 -0700
Re: Point particle benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-25 21:34 -0400
Re: Point particle HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 18:51 -0700
Re: Point particle benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-25 22:36 -0400
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 07:41 -0500
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 07:33 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 10:06 -0500
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 08:19 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 10:39 -0500
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 10:26 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 14:09 -0500
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 12:15 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 14:20 -0500
Re: Point particle "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 15:03 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 17:21 -0500
Re: Point particle "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 15:26 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 19:47 -0500
Re: Point particle benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-26 21:29 -0400
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 07:35 -0500
Re: Point particle "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 01:35 -0700
Re: Point particle "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 15:08 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 19:32 -0500
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 01:03 -0700
Re: Point particle "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 02:04 -0700
Re: Point particle "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 16:10 -0700
Re: Point particle "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 00:16 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 08:39 -0500
Re: Point particle "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 19:37 -0700
Re: Point particle benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-30 00:38 -0400
Re: Point particle HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 04:56 -0700
Re: Point particle benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-30 12:23 -0400
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 09:35 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 12:41 -0500
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 10:47 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 13:37 -0500
Re: Point particle "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 02:38 -0700
Re: Point particle "Buck Futter" <invalide@example.com> - 2016-05-03 11:49 -0700
Re: Point particle HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 11:00 -0700
Re: Point particle benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-02 15:03 -0400
Re: Point particle HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 13:15 -0700
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 14:35 -0700
Re: Point particle benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-02 21:22 -0400
Re: Point particle HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 09:41 -0700
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 10:22 -0700
Re: Point particle benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-30 13:36 -0400
Re: Point particle HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 10:53 -0700
Re: Point particle benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-30 14:04 -0400
Re: Point particle HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 06:17 -0700
Re: Point particle benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-02 11:54 -0400
Re: Point particle HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 09:12 -0700
Re: Point particle benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-02 12:46 -0400
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 10:27 -0500
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 09:49 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 13:22 -0500
Re: Point particle benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-02 13:00 -0400
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 13:35 -0500
Re: Point particle "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 14:21 -0700
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 14:47 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 06:01 -0500
Re: Point particle "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 12:54 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 16:58 -0500
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 17:09 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 06:53 -0500
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 06:11 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 09:52 -0500
Re: Point particle moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-03 15:46 +0000
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 13:17 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 16:27 -0500
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 19:03 -0700
Re: Point particle "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 22:43 -0700
Re: Point particle "Buck Futter" <invalide@example.com> - 2016-04-30 13:56 -0700
Re: Point particle "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 01:54 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 17:21 -0500
Re: Point particle jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-26 11:27 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 14:15 -0500
Re: Point particle jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-27 03:27 -0700
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 04:56 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 08:16 -0500
Re: Point particle "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 05:07 -0700
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 05:11 -0700
Re: Point particle HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 05:30 -0700
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 05:35 -0700
Re: Point particle HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 05:46 -0700
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 05:52 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 08:20 -0500
Re: Point particle edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-04-27 10:37 -0700
Re: Point particle benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-27 11:34 -0400
Re: Point particle edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-04-27 10:42 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 12:49 -0500
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 10:59 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 13:23 -0500
Re: Point particle "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 01:50 -0700
Re: Point particle "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 01:45 -0700
Re: Point particle HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 04:51 -0700
Re: Point particle "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 05:06 -0700
Re: Point particle HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 05:48 -0700
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 05:51 -0700
Re: Point particle benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-28 09:33 -0400
Re: Point particle HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 07:47 -0700
Re: Point particle benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-28 22:45 -0400
Re: Point particle "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 00:27 -0700
Re: Point particle HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 02:03 -0700
Re: Point particle "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 03:32 -0700
Re: Point particle "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 05:12 -0700
Re: Point particle benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-28 09:06 -0400
Re: Point particle benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-28 09:06 -0400
Re: Point particle moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-27 13:42 +0000
Re: Point particle "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 01:47 -0700
Re: Point particle "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 01:27 -0700
Re: Point particle "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 01:31 -0700
Re: Point particle "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 01:25 -0700
Re: Point particle "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 13:10 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 16:02 -0500
Re: Point particle "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 14:31 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 16:42 -0500
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 16:46 -0500
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 15:36 -0700
Re: Point particle HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 16:45 -0700
Re: Point particle ClutterFreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 16:31 -0700
Re: Point particle "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-25 16:51 -0700
Re: Point particle ClutterFreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 17:53 -0700
Re: Point particle "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-25 18:35 -0700
Re: Point particle ClutterFreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 19:07 -0700
Re: Point particle Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 19:17 -0700
Re: Point particle benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-25 22:40 -0400
Re: Point particle ClutterFreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 21:19 -0700
Re: Point particle ClutterFreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 20:54 -0700
Re: Point particle Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 21:12 -0700
Re: Point particle ClutterFreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 21:27 -0700
Re: Point particle Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 21:42 -0700
Re: Point particle ClutterFreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 21:59 -0700
Re: Point particle Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 23:14 -0700
Re: Point particle ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-04-29 22:31 -0500
Re: Point particle "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-29 21:22 -0700
Re: Point particle benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-26 03:14 -0400
Re: Point particle "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-25 21:39 -0700
Re: Point particle "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-25 21:06 -0700
Re: Point particle ClutterFreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 21:33 -0700
Re: Point particle "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-25 21:58 -0700
Re: Point particle ClutterFreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 22:09 -0700
Re: Point particle "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-25 22:41 -0700
Re: Is any of this true, "ClutterFreak" ? ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-05-02 08:08 -0500
Re: Is any of this true, "ClutterFreak" ? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-02 11:08 -0700
Re: Is any of this true, "ClutterFreak" ? "Anon E. Mouse" <nobody@home.invalid> - 2016-05-03 08:25 -0400
Re: Is any of this true, "ClutterFreak" ? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-03 08:36 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 07:45 -0500
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 05:50 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 14:24 -0500
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 06:07 -0700
Re: Point particle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 14:23 -0500
Re: Point particle "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 00:42 -0700
Re: Point particle "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 00:25 -0700
Re: Point particle benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-25 04:19 -0400
Re: Point particle HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 05:18 -0700
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 05:23 -0700
Re: Point particle HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 05:30 -0700
Re: Point particle Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 07:27 -0700
Re: Point particle "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 00:50 -0700
Re: Point particle "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 11:01 -0700
Re: Point particle Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 15:47 -0500
Re: Point particle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 13:53 -0700
Re: Point particle "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 14:33 -0700
Re: Point particle Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 16:37 -0500
Re: Point particle "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 13:03 -0700
Re: Point particle Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 15:52 -0500
Re: Point particle "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 15:44 -0700
Re: Point particle "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 20:19 -0700
Re: Point particle Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 19:49 -0500
Re: Point particle Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 07:38 -0500
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 08:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <276f1349-6ccb-4d63-bf45-029790a7bccf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573100 |
John, look bro... You'll never be treated politely by me. It's not my nature. I have an extremely low tolerance for incompetence and even less for those with an unwillingness to learn. You want to be able to run your foolishness here? Fine. Mr Bodkin and professor Wormley will treat you politely. I won't. Yet anyone who shows the thirst... The desire to learn. Those people I respect no matter their level of education or scientific competence. Sooner or later, the thirst always wins. Hail the golden calf!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 13:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <571e5418$0$51225$c3e8da3$9deca2c3@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #573107 |
On 04/25/2016 11:51 AM, HVAC lied: > John, look bro... You'll never be treated politely by me. It's not my > nature. I have an extremely low tolerance for incompetence and even > less for those with an unwillingness to learn. You want to be able to > run your foolishness here? Fine. Mr Bodkin and professor Wormley will > treat you politely. I won't. Yet anyone who shows the thirst... The > desire to learn. Those people I respect no matter their level of > education or scientific competence. > > Sooner or later, the thirst always wins. > > Hail the golden calf! > His job is to put a halt to discussion of all "forbidden" topics and try to destroy USENET as a forum of reasonable discussion. His opinion is as worthless as his word. He has zero credibility here. Why would anyone care what his opinion is of anybody? The problem with his idiocy is he drags you down to his level and then wins with experience! I'm sorry HVAC that I ever questioned your omniscient and infallible word. I admit that you put me in my place and made me mad and now you are the winner! I think everyone here can see that too and will take over worshiping you from me. But I just don't love you anymore! Sorry bro. One last jock fist bump for old times?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 14:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nflqs4$1l1s$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #573107 |
On 4/25/2016 10:51 AM, HVAC wrote: > John, look bro... You'll never be treated politely by me. It's not my nature. I have > an extremely low tolerance for incompetence and even less for those with an unwillingness > to learn. You want to be able to run your foolishness here? Fine. Mr Bodkin and professor > Wormley will treat you politely. I won't. Yet anyone who shows the thirst... The desire > to learn. Those people I respect no matter their level of education or scientific competence. > > Sooner or later, the thirst always wins. But John isn't thirsty for learning. John is thirsty for deliverance. He's looking for salvation from earthly problems, whether that salvation comes from magnetic insoles; or benevolent aliens who will hand over technology impossible to abuse; or angels; or a universal adoration of symmetry in children's museum exhibits. > > Hail the golden calf! > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 00:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <244d995b-2ed9-48f9-b2e7-a47bc08543f2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573078 |
On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 4:39:28 PM UTC+3, HVAC wrote: > 9:17 AMjohn > It's funny, Odd. > You seem to recognize that they > aren't really points, > but don't realize that THIS is > what is blinding you to the > possibility of underlying > structure: > -------------- > > No John. Experiments, observation and theory all agree... That point particles are indivisible. They are fundamental particles. > > You, on the other hand, have a gut feeling that they are wrong. ============================== imbecile ====================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 14:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nflqrt$1l1s$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #573077 |
On 4/25/2016 8:17 AM, john wrote: > It's funny, Odd. > You seem to recognize that they > aren't really points, > but don't realize that THIS is > what is blinding you to the > possibility of underlying > structure: you feel you're already > at zero, so how CAN there be? > But you're NOT at zero- > you only made it zero for convenience. > YOU CANNOT BASE YOUR WHOLE MODEL ON > PARTS THAT HAVE ZERO VOLUME, > BECAUSE THEN YOU CANNOT HAVE > ANYTHING TO BASE *****THEM***** ON. > John, this is where there is a basic difference between you and scientists. You say that "structureless" is an inconceivable term without meaning, because (to you) nothing CAN be structureless. You do not agree that Democritus had anything sensible to say when he made the concept of "atom" (which means, "that which cannot be cut into smaller parts") -- to you, it's a contradiction in terms. To you, the word "fundamental" means nothing, because there is always something a layer down. Physicists do not agree. They do think the words "structureless", "atom", "fundamental" are perfectly valid concepts, and it is entirely POSSIBLE that real things in nature could fit those concepts. Now, let's talk about electrons. Is it POSSIBLE that they have underlying structure? Of course it's possible. But there is no reason to insist that they MUST have underlying structure. Maybe they have structure, maybe they don't. So how do you TEST whether they do or they don't. Well, you can build a model that presumes they have no structure and see if it matches experiment. Then you can build a model that presumes they have internal structure and see if it matches experiment. So far, the one that matches experiment is the one that has no structure. As far as science is concerned, this is sufficient to entertain the notion that electrons have no structure. Does this rule out electrons having structure? No. But on the other hand, there's no reason to say electrons MUST have structure. At least, as far as scientists are concerned. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 12:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4ac9c824-9af2-415e-a6b0-9c374486537c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573152 |
Odd said "No reason for particles NOT to have structure..." or some such. Does Physics have structure? Does Math have structure? Does a BOOK require structure? How about a horse? A house? A hitch, a butch, a bitch, a ditch? A fox? A box? A road? A load? A toad? Scissors? How about scissors?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 12:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8fa34b58-f7b0-4bbe-b873-e2a049cf92e9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573158 |
Odd A wall? Does it require structure? A table? A bug? Odd, Odd, Odd What about a tree, a knee, a Brie? Structure, Odd? Structure not really required for an atomic model, Odd? Really, bro?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 15:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nflto1$1r96$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #573163 |
On 4/25/2016 2:40 PM, john wrote: > Odd > A wall? Does it require structure? > A table? > A bug? > > Odd, Odd, Odd > What about a tree, a knee, a Brie? > Structure, Odd? > > Structure not really required for an > atomic model, Odd? For atoms? Absolutely yes. There's internal structure to an atom. Atoms and nucleus. Nucleus -> nucleons and exchange mesons. Nucleons and exchange mesons -> quarks and gluons. But the kind of structure you see in a children's museum exhibit, with solid parts moving around and meshing and turning? No. Does a cup of water have structure? Absolutely. It has temperature and pressure gradients in it. There are sound waves and light waves traveling through it. There are water molecules in it, and hydrogen bonds being created and broken all the time. Can you represent those things with the kind of structure you see in a children's museum exhibit? No. If you think otherwise, John, then by all means I encourage you to open up AutoCAD and TRY. > > Really, bro? > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 14:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nflsvh$1pja$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #573158 |
On 4/25/2016 2:32 PM, john wrote: > Odd said > "No reason for particles NOT to have structure..." > or some such. > > Does Physics have structure? Internal moving parts? No. > Does Math have structure? Internal moving parts? No. > Does a BOOK require structure? Internal moving parts? No. > How about a horse? > A house? > A hitch, a butch, a bitch, a ditch? > A fox? A box? > A road? > A load? > A toad? > Scissors? How about scissors? Yes, all those things have structure. Doesn't mean everything does. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 20:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nflue5$h0i$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #573158 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd said >"No reason for particles NOT to have structure..." >or some such. >Does Physics have structure? >Does Math have structure? >Does a BOOK require structure? >How about a horse? >A house? >A hitch, a butch, a bitch, a ditch? >A fox? A box? >A road? >A load? >A toad? >Scissors? How about scissors? Is that your logic? Dr. Seuss physics???? When Odd told you to read a book, he did not mean "Green Eggs and Ham".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 13:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dd0da7ae-4db5-4b44-872c-37362078a2a9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573184 |
Both you guys. Listen to Mark. Shortcuts work, but not when you're building the main thing. You can't just carry on with your slide rule when you get into five decimals
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 10:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e226288a-98f5-4cba-bd7a-b8cf4b511f3c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573075 |
Odd. > Now then, this leaves models like point particles. Here, there's an important principle, called validation by experiment. The pre copernican theologists thought that angels carried stars and planets on a complex series of tracks. A mathematical model verified by observation. It worked, sailors used it to navigate although It always needed to be tweaked and added to with new layers of complexity as time progressed. Anyone who dared challenge this absurd orthodoxy was ruthlessly attacked as heretical. Sound familiar vicar?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 11:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11fd9a82-652d-4c81-9730-0cce5533ef9e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573126 |
BJ quacked His job is to put a halt to discussion of all "forbidden" topics and try to destroy USENET as a forum of reasonable discussion ---------------- Allow me to translate. 'Forbidden topics' = Kook topics 'Reasonable discussion' = Kook discussion BJ, of you want to discuss ghosts, feel free. I've already forced you to admit that you believe in aliens and ESP... And you've even started that you believe in 'persistence of consciousness' after death. But you won't say ghosts. Why? All I ask is that you admit your beliefs. I'd that a horrible thing to ask someone? No. Of course not. So simply admit that you believe in ghosts and haunted houses along with flying saucers and mind reading and I'll never mention those topics again. This I swear on the cross
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 21:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <571ec5bf$0$57957$c3e8da3$c8b7d2e6@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #573129 |
On 04/25/2016 02:00 PM, HVAC wrote: > BJ quacked > His job is to put a halt to discussion of all "forbidden" topics and try > to destroy USENET as a forum of reasonable discussion > ---------------- > > Allow me to translate. > > 'Forbidden topics' = Kook topics > > 'Reasonable discussion' = Kook discussion > > BJ, of you want to discuss ghosts, feel free. I've already forced you to admit that you believe in aliens and ESP... And you've even started that you believe in 'persistence of consciousness' after death. But you won't say ghosts. Why? > > All I ask is that you admit your beliefs. I'd that a horrible thing to ask someone? No. Of course not. > > So simply admit that you believe in ghosts and haunted houses along with flying saucers and mind reading and I'll never mention those topics again. > > This I swear on the cross > Professional liar. Total waste of everyone's time. Not even funny like Glazier.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 18:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f7bb823c-b06e-4a6f-a861-26bf3afe346d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573287 |
BJ quacked > > All I ask is that you admit your beliefs. Is that a horrible thing to ask someone? No. Of course not. > > So simply admit that you believe in ghosts and haunted houses along with flying saucers and mind reading and I'll never mention those topics again. > > This I swear on the cross > Professional liar. Total waste of everyone's time. Not even funny like Glazier. ---------------- You're not getting mad are you bro? Bro? Fist bump bro? Come on bro. Shake the sand out your vag and bump that shit bro
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 22:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <571ed43a$0$5989$b1db1813$19ace300@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #573290 |
On 04/25/2016 09:51 PM, HVAC wrote: > BJ quacked >> >> All I ask is that you admit your beliefs. Is that a horrible thing to ask someone? No. Of course not. >> >> So simply admit that you believe in ghosts and haunted houses along with flying saucers and mind reading and I'll never mention those topics again. >> >> This I swear on the cross >> > Professional liar. Total waste of everyone's time. Not even funny like Glazier. > ---------------- > > You're not getting mad are you bro? > > Bro? > > Fist bump bro? > > Come on bro. Shake the sand out your vag and bump that shit bro > Dawg, we jes pitty you foo. You need to practice some standup shit in Vegas like Treeb. He got free food and board and groupies all around.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 07:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nfnnli$c4q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #573126 |
On 4/25/2016 12:38 PM, jay moseley wrote: > Odd. >> Now then, this leaves models like point particles. Here, there's an important >> principle, called validation by experiment. > > The pre copernican theologists thought that angels carried stars and planets > on a complex series of tracks. A mathematical model verified by observation. > It worked, sailors used it to navigate although It always needed to be tweaked > and added to with new layers of complexity as time progressed. Anyone who > dared challenge this absurd orthodoxy was ruthlessly attacked as heretical. > Sound familiar vicar? > It is certainly true that theories get modified (if they can be) as new experimental data comes in. But there's one key difference. PreCopernican models were data retrofits but had no predictive power. No PreCopernican model could have predicted the existence or location of Neptune. But Newtonian models can make predictions like that: observations not yet seen or fitting existing patterns. This is true also for the models involving point particles. Here, being able to make exquisitely precise predictions that end up being exquisitely well matched by observational measurements -- in some cases to the 12th decimal place -- is why those models are considered valuable. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 07:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <88ffea76-5caf-4bb6-b306-15a2156729ed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573366 |
Odd- Treating particles as points is handy for calculating things. Mark says it perfectly: " What you left out of "modeling" is the "idealization" part. Galileo idealized for instance homogeneity and perfect rigidity of his materials, no air resistance, the constancy of the gravitational field of Earth at different altitudes, the same kind of universal time that Newton assumed, and more. All of those idealizations are false. That they didn't show up in the kinds of experiments he could do is irrelevant. The problem arises when people extend those falsehoods beyond the ranges of size, speed, and time Galileo could access. That's why we have relativity deniers, Flat Earthers, and people who insist that "fundamental particles" have zero volume and no components. Forgetting that idealizations *are* idealizations is stoopid. Mark L. " Odd- you got lumped in with relativity deniers and flat earthers :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 10:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nfo05l$sj9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #573383 |
On 4/26/2016 9:33 AM, john wrote: > Odd- > Treating particles as points is handy for calculating > things. No, it's more than that. Treating particles as points gives quantitative predictions that match experiments. Treating fundamental particles as having internal structure gives other quantitative predictions that so far do NOT match experiments. > > Mark says it perfectly: > " What you left out of "modeling" is the "idealization" part. Galileo idealized for instance > homogeneity and perfect rigidity of his materials, no air resistance, the constancy of the > gravitational field of Earth at different altitudes, the same kind of universal time that Newton > assumed, and more. > > > All of those idealizations are false. That they didn't show up in the kinds of experiments he > could do is irrelevant. > > The problem arises when people extend those falsehoods beyond the ranges of size, speed, and > time Galileo could access. > > That's why we have relativity deniers, Flat Earthers, and people who insist that "fundamental > particles" have zero volume and no components. > > Forgetting that idealizations *are* idealizations is stoopid. > > > Mark L. " > > Odd- you got lumped in with > relativity deniers and flat earthers > :) > Well, as you can see, I disagreed with Mark. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 08:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <35305b5d-be5f-4d4f-a412-dcc84da8af3f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573397 |
Of course you disagree. But this is the crux- not knowing that the math is not the model, and cannot be substituted in its place. Point=math 2D=math Only 3D=real Now are you a bit clearer?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web