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 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 11:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57277827$0$57957$c3e8da3$c8b7d2e6@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #574803 |
On 05/02/2016 09:17 AM, HVAC wrote: > BJ quacked > It sure is amazing the way in which your ESP enters my head and ALWAYS > knows not only exactly what I believe but also what I do and do not know. > -------------- > > It's a talent. > > But it's not ESP. Obviously. Anyone who would believe in esp is an absolute retarded retard and a kook. > > Oh wait... YOU believe in ESP? Oh wait! You not only BELIEVE in ESP you think you HAVE it. How else could you know that everyone "believes"? > Aww! Is a fist bump out of the question? > > Can I at least get a what what? out of the question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 09:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b50c1645-81a7-44a7-a8ae-fbeb82597a7d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #574832 |
BJ quacked > Can I at least get a what what? out of the question --------- What? What?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 12:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57278466$0$27699$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #574844 |
On 05/02/2016 12:12 PM, HVAC wrote: > BJ quacked >> Can I at least get a what what? > > out of the question > --------- > > What? > > > What? > Out of the question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 10:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ng7rlc$2rl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #574274 |
On 4/29/2016 9:37 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > 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. No, I'm really not. There is no assumption of FLATNESS anywhere in my description, even for an optically smooth fork, which is not necessarily flat anywhere. Now, what I AM saying is that you can build a smooth (not flat, smooth) SURFACE covering the visible volume. > > Hydrogen and helium are not burdened with your imagination. They can clearly > see that your imaginary faces do not exist. And how would they demonstrate that this surface does 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 far, I agree with you. > >> 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. What's changed at this level? > >> 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. Open holes to WHAT? The interior of the fork? > > > Mark L. Fergerson > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 09:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <39e99e82-c1fd-4e8d-9b17-97ada791ebd7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #574825 |
Odd You demonstrate a level of pure obtuseness (obtusosity?), here, that is pure God-given talent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 13:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ng85tp$lqm$9@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #574856 |
On 5/2/2016 11:49 AM, john wrote: > Odd > You demonstrate a level of pure > obtuseness (obtusosity?), here, > that is pure God-given talent. > Know what the word means, John? In what way am I being obtuse? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 13:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <572787a4$0$62740$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #574825 |
On 05/02/2016 11:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/29/2016 9:37 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: >> 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. > > No, I'm really not. There is no assumption of FLATNESS anywhere in my > description, even for an optically smooth fork, which is not necessarily > flat anywhere. > > Now, what I AM saying is that you can build a smooth (not flat, smooth) > SURFACE covering the visible volume. Boinker why are you so out of touch with reality? You can't "build" any smooth surface about a fork. One can only IMAGINE the fantasy of such an imaginary surface. Dig. Reality = one thing. Fantasy = another thing. >> Hydrogen and helium are not burdened with your imagination. They can >> clearly >> see that your imaginary faces do not exist. > > And how would they demonstrate that this surface does not exist? They'd say take a look here on our outer reaches and show us the structure you say is there. It obviously is not. >>>>>> 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 far, I agree with you. > >> >>> 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. > > What's changed at this level? > >> >>> 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. > > Open holes to WHAT? The interior of the fork? Obviously, yes. Your idea of a "surface" is pure mathematical fantasy. Now since it's fantasy you can place it anywhere. But in reality there is nothing there even remotely able to be called a surface. Say you wanted to DEFINE a "surface". How would you do it? Well, you could say I"m going to take all "points" in the electron "cloud" about an atom of a certain intensity and connect them all to form a defined surface. Makes sense, right? But only mathematical sense. There are no such things as "points" there are no such things as 2D surfaces, there is no proof that electron clouds are continuous and differentiable. In other words you've only constructed a FANTASY about the atom that has nothing to do with the reality of what is measured there. Now if you want to argue that such a "thinking tool" is useful for understanding what is going on, nobody can argue with that. But if you wish to make the great leap like HVAC where you start saying all fantasy is real, then this is Hollywood, and not science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 13:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ng86m1$q30$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #574861 |
On 5/2/2016 12:00 PM, benj wrote: > On 05/02/2016 11:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 4/29/2016 9:37 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: >>> 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. >> >> No, I'm really not. There is no assumption of FLATNESS anywhere in my >> description, even for an optically smooth fork, which is not necessarily >> flat anywhere. >> >> Now, what I AM saying is that you can build a smooth (not flat, smooth) >> SURFACE covering the visible volume. > > Boinker why are you so out of touch with reality? You can't "build" any > smooth surface about a fork. One can only IMAGINE the fantasy of such an > imaginary surface. Dig. Reality = one thing. Fantasy = another thing. I'm sorry, I'm not following. First of all, will you allow that one can PAINT a fork without that entailing any many-faced n-gons? I'm confident that you can. Good. So now that many-faced n-gons are not in the picture, let's see if we can find a surface somewhere in this picture. I'm going to first IMAGINE that I can mentally construct, without any many-faced n-gons, a 2D surface between the volumes where there are atoms belonging to steel and where there are atoms belonging to paint. This boundary is not made of any atoms, but certainly it is a well-defined concept that pertains to a real fork covered with real paint. So far, imaginary, because this is a thing that is neither paint nor fork but something between, where there is in fact only paint and fork. Fine. Now pull that surface a tetch toward the fork so that you class it to be part of the volume of the fork -- it is in fact the boundary of the volume of the fork. You are going to say that finite volumes can have no real boundary? Or that the boundary of a finite volume has no physical meaning? Really?? So when you say a volume is finite and bounded, what exactly do you mean by "bounded"? Nothing? > > >>> Hydrogen and helium are not burdened with your imagination. They can >>> clearly >>> see that your imaginary faces do not exist. >> >> And how would they demonstrate that this surface does not exist? > > They'd say take a look here on our outer reaches and show us the > structure you say is there. It obviously is not. What structure? > >>>>>>> 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 far, I agree with you. >> >>> >>>> 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. >> >> What's changed at this level? >> >>> >>>> 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. >> >> Open holes to WHAT? The interior of the fork? > > Obviously, yes. Really? So you are claiming that hydrogen atoms can wander into the interior of a stainless steel fork? What about the argon atoms? What about the water vapor molecules? What's your evidence that this happens? > > Your idea of a "surface" is pure mathematical fantasy. Now since it's > fantasy you can place it anywhere. But in reality there is nothing there > even remotely able to be called a surface. > > Say you wanted to DEFINE a "surface". How would you do it? Well, you > could say I"m going to take all "points" in the electron "cloud" about > an atom of a certain intensity and connect them all to form a defined > surface. Or don't use the word points at all. Just say "take the outermost patches of the electron clouds above a certain intensity and connect them all to form a defined surface". Now there are no points. There are just electron clouds (real) of atoms (real) in a fork (real). > Makes sense, right? But only mathematical sense. There are no > such things as "points" there are no such things as 2D surfaces, there > is no proof that electron clouds are continuous and differentiable. > > In other words you've only constructed a FANTASY about the atom that has > nothing to do with the reality of what is measured there. > > Now if you want to argue that such a "thinking tool" is useful for > understanding what is going on, nobody can argue with that. But if you > wish to make the great leap like HVAC where you start saying all fantasy > is real, then this is Hollywood, and not science. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 14:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4ed65217-6da0-4b95-96bd-cf20c9aedb7e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #574825 |
On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 8:27:47 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/29/2016 9:37 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > > 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. > > No, I'm really not. There is no assumption of FLATNESS anywhere in my > description, even for an optically smooth fork, which is not necessarily > flat anywhere. > > Now, what I AM saying is that you can build a smooth (not flat, smooth) > SURFACE covering the visible volume. Ah, so you imagine little *curved* surfaces bridging the spaces between atoms? > > Hydrogen and helium are not burdened with your imagination. They can > > clearly see that your imaginary faces do not exist. > > And how would they demonstrate that this surface does not exist? By wandering through them. Stainless steel leaks them. Look it up- I know your Google Fu is superior to that of TardNado-boy. > >>>>> 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 far, I agree with you. Then, at what point do you stop? > >> 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. > > What's changed at this level? Nothing. Your "surface" is still imaginary. > >> 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. > > Open holes to WHAT? The interior of the fork? Yes, and through to the other "surface". Mark L. Fergerson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 14:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f14c9657-cb6f-40cc-a3ca-ee6b5c314a9f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #574966 |
Odd wondered > Open holes to WHAT? The interior of the fork? Mark explained Yes, and through to the other "surface". Odd, when you get small enough, it's all Space, and you're surrounded by galaxies
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-04 06:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ngckpd$1pip$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #574978 |
On 5/2/2016 4:47 PM, john wrote: > > Odd wondered >> Open holes to WHAT? The interior of the fork? > Mark explained > Yes, and through to the other "surface". You have evidence of this happening, John? Care to point to an article you've read on the subject? > > Odd, when you get small enough, > it's all Space, and you're surrounded > by galaxies > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-04 12:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3e22cc6c-675a-4f6f-85e3-cf896e53ea9a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #575401 |
On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 4:01:09 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/2/2016 4:47 PM, john wrote: > > > > Odd wondered > >> Open holes to WHAT? The interior of the fork? > > Mark explained > > Yes, and through to the other "surface". > > You have evidence of this happening, John? Care to point to an article > you've read on the subject? Just Google for "helium leak stainless steel" without the quotes. It's been known for a very long time. Mark L. Fergerson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 16:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ng8ihg$1h0b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #574966 |
On 5/2/2016 4:21 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 8:27:47 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 4/29/2016 9:37 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: >>> 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. >> >> No, I'm really not. There is no assumption of FLATNESS anywhere in my >> description, even for an optically smooth fork, which is not necessarily >> flat anywhere. >> >> Now, what I AM saying is that you can build a smooth (not flat, smooth) >> SURFACE covering the visible volume. > > Ah, so you imagine little *curved* surfaces bridging the spaces between atoms? Of course. I've been saying over and over and over again that 2D does not mean FLAT. The surface of a sphere is 2D but is nowhere flat. > >>> Hydrogen and helium are not burdened with your imagination. They can >>> clearly see that your imaginary faces do not exist. >> >> And how would they demonstrate that this surface does not exist? > > By wandering through them. Stainless steel leaks them. Look it up- I know your > Google Fu is superior to that of TardNado-boy. Alright, I will. Be back on this in a while. > >>>>>>> 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 far, I agree with you. > > Then, at what point do you stop? > >>>> 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. >> >> What's changed at this level? > > Nothing. Your "surface" is still imaginary. > >>>> 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. >> >> Open holes to WHAT? The interior of the fork? > > Yes, and through to the other "surface". So you're telling me that hydrogen atoms will penetrate one face of a block of steel, wander through the lattice, and emerge through the other side? (And we're not talking quantum tunneling, right?) > > > Mark L. Fergerson > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 17:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2bc4a070-d6c5-4ab1-86bd-394f847508ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #574983 |
Nothing on Earth can permanently contain Helium. There are no surfaces. There are particles. Composed of smaller particles. Composed of yet smaller particles. And each of these particles is mostly Space.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 06:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nga3fg$1jgf$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #575013 |
On 5/2/2016 7:09 PM, john wrote: > Nothing on Earth can permanently > contain Helium. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0805/0805.3309.pdf > There are no surfaces. > There are particles. > Composed of smaller particles. > Composed of yet smaller particles. > And each of these particles is > mostly Space. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 06:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f08dbf1a-3dd9-4e88-a525-c39966eb3065@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #575125 |
Okay, make a container from graphene (a balloon, maybe) and prove it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 09:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ngae04$7bj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #575148 |
On 5/3/2016 8:11 AM, john wrote: > Okay, make a container from > graphene (a balloon, maybe) and prove > it. > The paper has experimental evidence in it, and I assume you can read. Are you seriously saying that the evidence that YOU would accept would be a graphene balloon filled with helium and floating in your living room for four months? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 15:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ngah4n$2rl$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #575166 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >On 5/3/2016 8:11 AM, john wrote: >> Okay, make a container from >> graphene (a balloon, maybe) and prove >> it. >> >The paper has experimental evidence in it, and I assume you can read. >Are you seriously saying that the evidence that YOU would accept would >be a graphene balloon filled with helium and floating in your living >room for four months? I will point out that helium atoms are very small and can fit through holes that other atoms/molecules can't. Ever wonder why a party balloon stops floating after a day? They're often filled with a gas mix that's not all helium, and the helium escapes while the rest of the gas doesn't. As to hydrogen, it's also very small, and has the added property that many substances readily absorb it. Palladium, in particular, can store hydrogen at 900 times the density of hydrogen gas in a bottle (at STP).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 13:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7d2da7df-da0e-4045-ac4a-48ad3e1daefa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #575174 |
Odd Really? Evidence for what? That if you make a net with small enough holes you can CALL it a 2D surface? No such thing. Go close enough and the tree line always becomes individual trees. How are you going to seal your graphene container, numbnuts?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 16:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ngb534$1kn5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #575243 |
On 5/3/2016 3:17 PM, john wrote: > Odd > Really? > > Evidence for what? > That if you make a net with small > enough holes you can CALL it a 2D > surface? > No such thing. > Go close enough and the tree line > always becomes individual trees. > > How are you going to seal your > graphene container, numbnuts? Seal it against what? Helium can't pass through the graphene. So what did you have in mind getting through? Where did you get the idea anyway that a surface needs to be impermeable? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web