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 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 10:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nfo22l$vt1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #573403 |
On 4/26/2016 10:19 AM, john wrote: > Of course you disagree. > But this is the crux- not knowing > that the math is not the model, Atom In A Box is not math. It is a visualization of the model, which is what you're looking for. > and cannot be substituted in its > place. > Point=math > 2D=math This is so funny. You believe that a block of stainless steel is real -- as real as your face. But you believe that the surface of that stainless steel block is a nonsense term, math that has no bearing in reality. Same with the surface of a cue ball or the surface of a wood floor or the surface of a lizard. Math -- no reality to surfaces at all. It's amazing what you're willing to say just to save face. You and Ben both. Ben says boundaries don't exist! Hence the word means nothing! > Only 3D=real > > Now are you a bit clearer? > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 10:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <667a3529-5479-4c1b-9aed-e571b5d1c6ef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573424 |
I give up. Off you go with your math fantasies
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 14:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nfoec5$1lcn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #573455 |
On 4/26/2016 12:26 PM, john wrote: > I give up. > Off you go with your math fantasies > Things aren't math just because you say they are. To most normal folks, a surface of a steel block has reality and meaning. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 12:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c2a17079-81e8-4b4d-aee3-1a79e26e5261@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573496 |
Jays right, Odd. And so am I. Your model is Fudge. It has NO predictive power. Wake up
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 14:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nfof2d$1m9f$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #573499 |
On 4/26/2016 2:15 PM, john wrote: > Jays right, Odd. > And so am I. > Your model is Fudge. > It has NO predictive power. Not true, John. The model predicts a ton of stuff, which has been tested. Whether that's the stuff that you're interested in is irrelevant. > Wake up > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 15:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <85dd3e78-67eb-4bbc-ac7f-585e81d0c8be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573424 |
On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 8:39:06 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/26/2016 10:19 AM, john wrote: > > Of course you disagree. > > But this is the crux- not knowing > > that the math is not the model, > > Atom In A Box is not math. It is a visualization of the model, which is > what you're looking for. This what you meant? http://daugerresearch.com/orbitals/index.shtml Actual physicists talk about atoms in potential wells; would you call that a "visualization of the model" too? > > and cannot be substituted in its > > place. > > Point=math > > 2D=math > > This is so funny. You believe that a block of stainless steel is real -- > as real as your face. But you believe that the surface of that stainless > steel block is a nonsense term, math that has no bearing in reality. "Surface" at what scale? Naked eyes tell us that it has a flat 2D surface, but closer inspection proves otherwise. So does friction testing... > Same with the surface of a cue ball or the surface of a wood floor or > the surface of a lizard. Math -- no reality to surfaces at all. Depends on what you mean by "surface", and in what context. I've never seen a material object with a 2D surface and neither have you. > It's amazing what you're willing to say just to save face. You and Ben > both. Ben says boundaries don't exist! Hence the word means nothing! One of the, er, participants in this group has an obsession with, and many misconceptions about, water. Many (OK, all) of us have tried to correct those misconceptions with no success, but our efforts have brought up some relevant topics. Consider a block of ice in vapor equilibrium with its surroundings. Does its "boundary" change over time, considering sublimation? Perhaps you'd do better not to use "boundary" and "surface" as if they were interchangeable, and to define them for clarity's sake. Mark L. Fergerson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 17:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nfopk6$ckf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #573541 |
On 4/26/2016 5:03 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > "Surface" at what scale? Naked eyes tell us that it has a flat 2D surface, but closer > inspection proves otherwise. So does friction testing... > >> >Same with the surface of a cue ball or the surface of a wood floor or >> >the surface of a lizard. Math -- no reality to surfaces at all. > Depends on what you mean by "surface", and in what context. > > I've never seen a material object with a 2D surface and neither have you. > Now, now. 2D does not mean flat, right? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 15:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f2414ba6-05f2-4db4-8fbc-b3ae635169ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573545 |
On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 3:21:02 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/26/2016 5:03 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > > "Surface" at what scale? Naked eyes tell us that it has a flat 2D surface, but closer > > inspection proves otherwise. So does friction testing... > > > >> >Same with the surface of a cue ball or the surface of a wood floor or > >> >the surface of a lizard. Math -- no reality to surfaces at all. > > Depends on what you mean by "surface", and in what context. > > > > I've never seen a material object with a 2D surface and neither have you. > > Now, now. 2D does not mean flat, right? Not necessarily, no. That does not change what I wrote. > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables So, you make stuff out of wood. What polishing technique(s) do you use to get a 2D surface on wood? Mark L. Fergerson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 19:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nfp26j$mqq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #573548 |
On 4/26/2016 5:26 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 3:21:02 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 4/26/2016 5:03 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: >>> "Surface" at what scale? Naked eyes tell us that it has a flat 2D surface, but closer >>> inspection proves otherwise. So does friction testing... >>> >>>>> Same with the surface of a cue ball or the surface of a wood floor or >>>>> the surface of a lizard. Math -- no reality to surfaces at all. >>> Depends on what you mean by "surface", and in what context. >>> >>> I've never seen a material object with a 2D surface and neither have you. >> >> Now, now. 2D does not mean flat, right? > > Not necessarily, no. That does not change what I wrote. > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > So, you make stuff out of wood. > > What polishing technique(s) do you use to get a 2D surface on wood? There's no need. A surface need not be smooth either. A dinner fork has a surface. > > > Mark L. Fergerson > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 21:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5720160f$0$31312$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #573585 |
On 04/26/2016 08:47 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/26/2016 5:26 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: >> On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 3:21:02 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 4/26/2016 5:03 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: >>>> "Surface" at what scale? Naked eyes tell us that it has a flat >>>> 2D surface, but closer >>>> inspection proves otherwise. So does friction testing... >>>> >>>>>> Same with the surface of a cue ball or the surface of a wood floor or >>>>>> the surface of a lizard. Math -- no reality to surfaces at all. >>>> Depends on what you mean by "surface", and in what context. >>>> >>>> I've never seen a material object with a 2D surface and neither >>>> have you. >>> >>> Now, now. 2D does not mean flat, right? >> >> Not necessarily, no. That does not change what I wrote. >> >>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> >> So, you make stuff out of wood. >> >> What polishing technique(s) do you use to get a 2D surface on wood? > > There's no need. A surface need not be smooth either. A dinner fork has > a surface. Boinker a fork is shiny an locally smooth. But in reality NOTHING is smooth. So you had better start telling us exactly how you define your mythical surface. Just how far from the fork does it occur?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 07:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nfqbln$fuh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #573603 |
On 4/26/2016 8:29 PM, benj wrote: > On 04/26/2016 08:47 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 4/26/2016 5:26 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: >>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 3:21:02 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 4/26/2016 5:03 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: >>>>> "Surface" at what scale? Naked eyes tell us that it has a flat >>>>> 2D surface, but closer >>>>> inspection proves otherwise. So does friction testing... >>>>> >>>>>>> Same with the surface of a cue ball or the surface of a wood >>>>>>> floor or >>>>>>> the surface of a lizard. Math -- no reality to surfaces at all. >>>>> Depends on what you mean by "surface", and in what context. >>>>> >>>>> I've never seen a material object with a 2D surface and neither >>>>> have you. >>>> >>>> Now, now. 2D does not mean flat, right? >>> >>> Not necessarily, no. That does not change what I wrote. >>> >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> So, you make stuff out of wood. >>> >>> What polishing technique(s) do you use to get a 2D surface on wood? >> >> There's no need. A surface need not be smooth either. A dinner fork has >> a surface. > > Boinker a fork is shiny an locally smooth. Depends on what you mean by smooth. The tips of the tines have a spike. But that doesn't really matter. If you accept that a fork has a surface, then a conglomeration of a thousand forks, tines outward and welded together, has a surface. Now compare that to some prickly surface of your choice: a butterfly wing, a gum tree seed pod, an artichoke. Does that have a surface? Of course it does. > But in reality NOTHING is > smooth. So you had better start telling us exactly how you define your > mythical surface. Just how far from the fork does it occur? > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 01:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7896bb63-5527-4502-ba59-6ded8f2fd2e2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573673 |
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 3:35:13 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/26/2016 8:29 PM, benj wrote: > > On 04/26/2016 08:47 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 4/26/2016 5:26 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 3:21:02 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 4/26/2016 5:03 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > >>>>> "Surface" at what scale? Naked eyes tell us that it has a flat > >>>>> 2D surface, but closer > >>>>> inspection proves otherwise. So does friction testing... > >>>>> > >>>>>>> Same with the surface of a cue ball or the surface of a wood > >>>>>>> floor or > >>>>>>> the surface of a lizard. Math -- no reality to surfaces at all. > >>>>> Depends on what you mean by "surface", and in what context. > >>>>> > >>>>> I've never seen a material object with a 2D surface and neither > >>>>> have you. > >>>> > >>>> Now, now. 2D does not mean flat, right? > >>> > >>> Not necessarily, no. That does not change what I wrote. > >>> > >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >>> So, you make stuff out of wood. > >>> > >>> What polishing technique(s) do you use to get a 2D surface on wood? > >> > >> There's no need. A surface need not be smooth either. A dinner fork has > >> a surface. > > > > Boinker a fork is shiny an locally smooth. > > Depends on what you mean by smooth. The tips of the tines have a spike. > But that doesn't really matter. If you accept that a fork has a surface, > then a conglomeration of a thousand forks, tines outward and welded > together, has a surface. Now compare that to some prickly surface of > your choice: a butterfly wing, a gum tree seed pod, an artichoke. Does > that have a surface? Of course it does. > > > But in reality NOTHING is > > smooth. So you had better start telling us exactly how you define your > > mythical surface. Just how far from the fork does it occur? > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables ========================== anonymous pig Bodkin if you don t know say ' i don t really know '' ***honesty** is the a b c of basic physics !!! you dont have that stuff that is called *honesty * Y.P ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 15:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5dd554fd-e96c-4c84-93f3-048d005e3186@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573585 |
On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 5:47:24 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/26/2016 5:26 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 3:21:02 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 4/26/2016 5:03 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > >>> "Surface" at what scale? Naked eyes tell us that it has a flat 2D > >>> surface, but closer inspection proves otherwise. So does friction > >>> testing... > >>> > >>>>> Same with the surface of a cue ball or the surface of a wood floor or > >>>>> the surface of a lizard. Math -- no reality to surfaces at all. > >>> Depends on what you mean by "surface", and in what context. > >>> > >>> I've never seen a material object with a 2D surface and neither have > >>> you. I note that you have not disputed that statement. > >> Now, now. 2D does not mean flat, right? > > > > Not necessarily, no. That does not change what I wrote. > > > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > So, you make stuff out of wood. > > > > What polishing technique(s) do you use to get a 2D surface on wood? > > There's no need. A surface need not be smooth either. A dinner fork has > a surface. Do you assert that it is 2D? If so, why can't you make a wooden object with a 2D surface? Mark L. Fergerson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 19:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nfrllr$1dms$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #573808 |
On 4/27/2016 5:08 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 5:47:24 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 4/26/2016 5:26 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: >>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 3:21:02 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 4/26/2016 5:03 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: >>>>> "Surface" at what scale? Naked eyes tell us that it has a flat 2D >>>>> surface, but closer inspection proves otherwise. So does friction >>>>> testing... >>>>> >>>>>>> Same with the surface of a cue ball or the surface of a wood floor or >>>>>>> the surface of a lizard. Math -- no reality to surfaces at all. >>>>> Depends on what you mean by "surface", and in what context. >>>>> >>>>> I've never seen a material object with a 2D surface and neither have >>>>> you. > > I note that you have not disputed that statement. I saw no point. > >>>> Now, now. 2D does not mean flat, right? >>> >>> Not necessarily, no. That does not change what I wrote. >>> >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> So, you make stuff out of wood. >>> >>> What polishing technique(s) do you use to get a 2D surface on wood? >> >> There's no need. A surface need not be smooth either. A dinner fork has >> a surface. > > Do you assert that it is 2D? Yes, the surface of a dinner fork is 2D. > > If so, why can't you make a wooden object with a 2D surface? You can. If you like, imagine the surface of wood to be rough, in the same way a large aggregation of dinner forks would be rough. But that aggregation would have a 2D surface. > > > Mark L. Fergerson > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 01:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c5a8c205-bd90-4385-9951-1a1ddeea03dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573828 |
Wow. Okay, now I think I understand- Wow
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 02:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bf39108c-b98b-4e52-bcac-b9ffc38a7e1b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573828 |
On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 3:32:04 AM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/27/2016 5:08 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 5:47:24 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 4/26/2016 5:26 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 3:21:02 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 4/26/2016 5:03 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > >>>>> "Surface" at what scale? Naked eyes tell us that it has a flat 2D > >>>>> surface, but closer inspection proves otherwise. So does friction > >>>>> testing... > >>>>> > >>>>>>> Same with the surface of a cue ball or the surface of a wood floor or > >>>>>>> the surface of a lizard. Math -- no reality to surfaces at all. > >>>>> Depends on what you mean by "surface", and in what context. > >>>>> > >>>>> I've never seen a material object with a 2D surface and neither have > >>>>> you. > > > > I note that you have not disputed that statement. > > I saw no point. > > > > >>>> Now, now. 2D does not mean flat, right? > >>> > >>> Not necessarily, no. That does not change what I wrote. > >>> > >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >>> So, you make stuff out of wood. > >>> > >>> What polishing technique(s) do you use to get a 2D surface on wood? > >> > >> There's no need. A surface need not be smooth either. A dinner fork has > >> a surface. > > > > Do you assert that it is 2D? > > Yes, the surface of a dinner fork is 2D. > > > > > If so, why can't you make a wooden object with a 2D surface? > > You can. If you like, imagine the surface of wood to be rough, in the > same way a large aggregation of dinner forks would be rough. But that > aggregation would have a 2D surface. > > > > > > > Mark L. Fergerson > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables ===================== idiot parrot pig !! in real physics (AGAIN - IN REAL PHYSICS !!)-- (REAL PHYSICS - NOT JUST THEORETIC GEOMETRY -- --we don t have **just surfaces !! ***it is a surface of*** something**in 3 D D !! got it ***crook demagogue **!!!!!! (a criminal against mankind !!) === Y.P =================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 16:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <940b4983-c759-4105-a29c-51ea1d97312c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573828 |
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 5:32:04 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/27/2016 5:08 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > >>>>> I've never seen a material object with a 2D surface and neither have > >>>>> you. > > > > I note that you have not disputed that statement. > > I saw no point. Nice pun there, but you explicitly do so below. > >>>> Now, now. 2D does not mean flat, right? > >>> > >>> Not necessarily, no. That does not change what I wrote. By the way, both of us in that exchange assumed the topological (mathematical!) meaning of "2D surface". "Not flat" here means "deformed plane". > >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >>> So, you make stuff out of wood. > >>> > >>> What polishing technique(s) do you use to get a 2D surface on wood? > >> > >> There's no need. A surface need not be smooth either. A dinner fork has > >> a surface. > > > > Do you assert that it is 2D? > > Yes, the surface of a dinner fork is 2D. Hydrogen and helium molecules would disagree with you. As far as they're concerned, stainless steel doesn't *have* a surface of any dimension. > > If so, why can't you make a wooden object with a 2D surface? > > You can. If you like, imagine the surface of wood to be rough, in the > same way a large aggregation of dinner forks would be rough. But that > aggregation would have a 2D surface. There, in a nutshell, you expose your habitual, inappropriate idealization of the dimensionality of surfaces according to human-sensory-scale limitations. If you're mentally modeling the "surface" of any physical object, from a forest to a glass optical flat, by connecting the dots of its outermost atoms, most often you obtain a fractal dimension. Yes, I know, you're going to point out that such idealizations are valid for forks because we seldom bother with the microscopic details of their surfaces. But you implicitly extended that to anything made of stainless steel, and as I pointed out, material objects are made of atoms and are therefore differentiable (as hydrogen molecules know), so they fail the basic requirement for topological two-dimensionality. Mark L. Fergerson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 00:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <61896faa-33be-42e0-880f-ccdb263d2c12@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #574046 |
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 2:11:00 AM UTC+3, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 5:32:04 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 4/27/2016 5:08 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > > > >>>>> I've never seen a material object with a 2D surface and neither have > > >>>>> you. > > > > > > I note that you have not disputed that statement. > > > > I saw no point. > > Nice pun there, but you explicitly do so below. > > > >>>> Now, now. 2D does not mean flat, right? > > >>> > > >>> Not necessarily, no. That does not change what I wrote. > > By the way, both of us in that exchange assumed the topological (mathematical!) meaning of "2D surface". "Not flat" here means "deformed plane". > > > >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > >>> > > >>> So, you make stuff out of wood. > > >>> > > >>> What polishing technique(s) do you use to get a 2D surface on wood? > > >> > > >> There's no need. A surface need not be smooth either. A dinner fork has > > >> a surface. > > > > > > Do you assert that it is 2D? > > > > Yes, the surface of a dinner fork is 2D. > > Hydrogen and helium molecules would disagree with you. As far as they're concerned, stainless steel doesn't *have* a surface of any dimension. > > > > If so, why can't you make a wooden object with a 2D surface? > > > > You can. If you like, imagine the surface of wood to be rough, in the > > same way a large aggregation of dinner forks would be rough. But that > > aggregation would have a 2D surface. > > There, in a nutshell, you expose your habitual, inappropriate idealization of the dimensionality of surfaces according to human-sensory-scale limitations. > > If you're mentally modeling the "surface" of any physical object, from a forest to a glass optical flat, by connecting the dots of its outermost atoms, most often you obtain a fractal dimension. > > Yes, I know, you're going to point out that such idealizations are valid for forks because we seldom bother with the microscopic details of their surfaces. But you implicitly extended that to anything made of stainless steel, and as I pointed out, material objects are made of atoms and are therefore differentiable (as hydrogen molecules know), so they fail the basic requirement for topological two-dimensionality. > > > Mark L. Fergerson ======================== right !! we have to explain to the blockheads and crocks that === IN PHYSICS : ANYTHING **DETECTABLE ** IS at least (if you consider Time)-- 3D !! ---------- 2 IT MUST HAVE MASS AS WELL =========================================== 'NO MASS' - THE ONLY MASS !!- NO REAL PHYSICS ! ============================================= MASS IS THE MOTHER OF ALL FORCES INCLUDING GRAVITY !! ====================================================== that is the new basic laws of physics that should be learned right from kindergarten !!! ------------------- not for old farts ...and crooks or hired gangsters --------------------- quite old copyright Eng Yehiel Porat ===========================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 08:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nfvo5t$1l66$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #574046 |
On 4/28/2016 6:10 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 5:32:04 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 4/27/2016 5:08 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > >>>>>>> I've never seen a material object with a 2D surface and neither have >>>>>>> you. >>> >>> I note that you have not disputed that statement. >> >> I saw no point. > > Nice pun there, but you explicitly do so below. > >>>>>> Now, now. 2D does not mean flat, right? >>>>> >>>>> Not necessarily, no. That does not change what I wrote. > > By the way, both of us in that exchange assumed the topological (mathematical!) meaning > of "2D surface". "Not flat" here means "deformed plane". > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>>> So, you make stuff out of wood. >>>>> >>>>> What polishing technique(s) do you use to get a 2D surface on wood? >>>> >>>> There's no need. A surface need not be smooth either. A dinner fork has >>>> a surface. >>> >>> Do you assert that it is 2D? >> >> Yes, the surface of a dinner fork is 2D. > > Hydrogen and helium molecules would disagree with you. As far as they're concerned, stainless > steel doesn't *have* a surface of any dimension. I'm not sure I'm following you here. There is a surface, which can be imaginary at first, which may not be static in time, that marks a boundary between where hydrogen and helium atoms are, and where they are not. Or conversely, a boundary between where atoms belonging to the alloy steel are, and where they are not. (Those two boundaries, by the way, may not coincide.) > >>> If so, why can't you make a wooden object with a 2D surface? >> >> You can. If you like, imagine the surface of wood to be rough, in the >> same way a large aggregation of dinner forks would be rough. But that >> aggregation would have a 2D surface. > > There, in a nutshell, you expose your habitual, inappropriate idealization of the dimensionality > of surfaces according to human-sensory-scale limitations. > > If you're mentally modeling the "surface" of any physical object, from a forest to a glass optical > flat, by connecting the dots of its outermost atoms, most often you obtain a fractal dimension. > > Yes, I know, you're going to point out that such idealizations are valid for forks because we > seldom bother with the microscopic details of their surfaces. But you implicitly extended that to > anything made of stainless steel, and as I pointed out, material objects are made of atoms and are > therefore differentiable (as hydrogen molecules know), so they fail the basic requirement for > topological two-dimensionality. I understand where you are coming from, but let's look it a little differently. Let's suppose that the metal of the fork is optically smooth, through some myopia. Then, despite the sharp tines, the fork has a 2D surface, with that myopic proviso. Likewise, a bunch of welded forks, despite a large number of sharp tines would have a 2D surface, with that myopic proviso. So, now let's zoom in, not to the atomic level but enough to determine that the surface of the fork has a number of irregularities. In fact, there may be several dips and sharp points in those irregularities. But that's no problem, right, because we already established that at a higher level. At this level, having a number of "sharp tines" and concavities doesn't change the fact that there's a 2D surface, though still with some myopic proviso. So now go down to the atomic level. Now there are lots of convexities and concavities, and in fact those are all moving around. So what? It's basically the same as what we had previously. > > > Mark L. Fergerson > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 19:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d0d4bcf7-a8bd-40da-b4e9-3736e99945e0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #574140 |
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 6:39:16 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/28/2016 6:10 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 5:32:04 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 4/27/2016 5:08 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > > > >>>>>>> I've never seen a material object with a 2D surface and neither have > >>>>>>> you. > >>> > >>> I note that you have not disputed that statement. > >> > >> I saw no point. > > > > Nice pun there, but you explicitly do so below. > > > >>>>>> Now, now. 2D does not mean flat, right? > >>>>> > >>>>> Not necessarily, no. That does not change what I wrote. > > > > By the way, both of us in that exchange assumed the topological > > (mathematical!) meaning > > of "2D surface". "Not flat" here means "deformed plane". > > > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>>> So, you make stuff out of wood. > >>>>> > >>>>> What polishing technique(s) do you use to get a 2D surface on wood? > >>>> > >>>> There's no need. A surface need not be smooth either. A dinner fork has > >>>> a surface. > >>> > >>> Do you assert that it is 2D? > >> > >> Yes, the surface of a dinner fork is 2D. > > > > Hydrogen and helium molecules would disagree with you. As far as they're > > concerned, stainless steel doesn't *have* a surface of any dimension. > > I'm not sure I'm following you here. There is a surface, which can be > imaginary at first, which may not be static in time, that marks a > boundary between where hydrogen and helium atoms are, and where they are > not. Or conversely, a boundary between where atoms belonging to the > alloy steel are, and where they are not. (Those two boundaries, by the > way, may not coincide.) I see that you're not following because when you connect dots as below, you mentally fill in the area between 3 or more dots with an imaginary plane, finite-element-analysis-wise, building a many-faced n-gon. Hydrogen and helium are not burdened with your imagination. They can clearly see that your imaginary faces do not exist. > >>> If so, why can't you make a wooden object with a 2D surface? > >> > >> You can. If you like, imagine the surface of wood to be rough, in the > >> same way a large aggregation of dinner forks would be rough. But that > >> aggregation would have a 2D surface. > > > > There, in a nutshell, you expose your habitual, inappropriate > > idealization of the dimensionality of surfaces according to human- > >sensory-scale limitations. > > > > If you're mentally modeling the "surface" of any physical object, from a > > forest to a glass optical flat, by connecting the dots of its outermost > > atoms, most often you obtain a fractal dimension. > > > > Yes, I know, you're going to point out that such idealizations are valid > > for forks because we seldom bother with the microscopic details of their > > surfaces. But you implicitly extended that to anything made of stainless > > steel, and as I pointed out, material objects are made of atoms and are > > therefore differentiable (as hydrogen molecules know), so they fail the > > basic requirement for topological two-dimensionality. > > I understand where you are coming from, but let's look it a little > differently. Let's suppose that the metal of the fork is optically > smooth, through some myopia. Then, despite the sharp tines, the fork has > a 2D surface, with that myopic proviso. Likewise, a bunch of welded > forks, despite a large number of sharp tines would have a 2D surface, > with that myopic proviso. Again, human-sensory-scale limitations. Your 2D surface is imaginary. > So, now let's zoom in, not to the atomic level but enough to determine > that the surface of the fork has a number of irregularities. In fact, > there may be several dips and sharp points in those irregularities. But > that's no problem, right, because we already established that at a > higher level. At this level, having a number of "sharp tines" and > concavities doesn't change the fact that there's a 2D surface, though > still with some myopic proviso. Sigh. > So now go down to the atomic level. Now there are lots of convexities > and concavities, and in fact those are all moving around. So what? It's > basically the same as what we had previously. To hydrogen and helium molecules those "concavities" are open holes. Mark L. Fergerson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web