Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #580183 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-24 13:31 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-05-30 21:09 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 129 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-05-24 13:31 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 16:19 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 16:35 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 09:49 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 11:54 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:08 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 12:25 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:25 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-25 23:30 -0400
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 12:53 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 13:13 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 16:07 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 15:20 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 20:25 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-25 23:31 -0400
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-25 23:31 -0400
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 16:06 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:39 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 12:45 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-05-26 14:56 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 15:22 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 18:15 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 13:44 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 18:14 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-05-27 14:46 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 12:58 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 16:10 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 19:06 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:23 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 08:33 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:37 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:55 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:35 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 18:03 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-26 16:10 +0000
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:29 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 15:22 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 16:42 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 22:40 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 23:12 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 00:16 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 09:25 -0500
Alfven waves are a) slow, b) medium and c) noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 13:06 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 04:24 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 08:15 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 10:39 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 09:57 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 13:26 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 09:47 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 12:16 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 11:11 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 15:04 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 18:36 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 18:46 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 20:37 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 09:49 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 19:01 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 21:08 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 20:24 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 08:22 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 09:36 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 19:11 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 10:23 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 18:03 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 18:23 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 20:16 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 06:59 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 05:47 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 07:49 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 06:08 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:47 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 10:42 -0400
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:07 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 11:27 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:07 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 14:25 -0400
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 12:32 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:12 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:24 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:50 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 14:21 -0400
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 09:39 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 14:20 -0400
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:45 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:18 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:25 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 12:44 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-03 17:55 +0000
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 13:07 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 11:17 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 13:27 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 14:45 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 16:59 -0500
que noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 15:51 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:01 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:42 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 12:59 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-26 14:13 -0400
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-28 00:46 +0200
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 18:47 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-28 08:59 +0200
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 12:49 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 13:10 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-28 16:29 -0400
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 16:57 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-28 20:09 -0400
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 15:22 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-30 17:48 -0700
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 16:28 -0500
antijohn cersus johnboy noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 15:22 -0700
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-29 12:46 +0200
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 07:36 -0700
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 09:10 -0700
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-30 20:21 +0200
waves in anti-\matter noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 10:34 -0700
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 09:20 -0500
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 07:58 -0700
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 10:45 -0500
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 16:04 -0700
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-06-01 01:30 +0000
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 09:37 -0500
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 09:25 -0700
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 12:38 -0500
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 12:00 -0700
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-29 23:14 +0200
Re: antijohn cersus johnboy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 09:16 -0500
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-29 03:39 +0200
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-29 03:29 +0200
Re: Is antimatter anti-gravity? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-05-30 21:09 +0200
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 15:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d758ef00-07cd-4961-bfee-10981b977d0a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580785 |
On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 2:56:42 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote: > On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 12:53:32 PM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 9:54:23 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > > > On 5/25/16 11:49 AM, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > > > > If Gravity's force worked by waves... > > > > > > Gravity, for you, reber, is best thought of as a field. Gravitational > > > waves, minuscule as they are, occur when mass is accelerated. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > > > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > > > community, and physics-related social issues. > > > > What is an anti-gravity wave? is it a black wave? Does it push or pull?Can we only detect them when two BHs collide? Does the moon and Earth waves meet 6,000 miles from the Sun? Is Earth'[s inside the Sun? O ya.TreBert > > > I would think that when two black holes collide, they would swallow up the event! > > Double-A Two BHs collide its creates only an implosion.Hole gets bigger and gravity force get stronger.Quasars are proof of this. Trebert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 18:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <yYqdna_GEekxHtrKnZ2dnUU7-cGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #580792 |
On 5/26/16 5:22 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > Two BHs collide its creates only an implosion.Hole gets bigger and gravity force get stronger.Quasars are proof of this. Trebert Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger > http://physics.aps.org/featured-article-pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 13:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9231fdda-c3d9-4d4e-b5f6-f8e7e3236e12@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580807 |
On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 4:15:59 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 5/26/16 5:22 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > > Two BHs collide its creates only an implosion.Hole gets bigger and gravity force get stronger.Quasars are proof of this. Trebert > > > Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger > > > http://physics.aps.org/featured-article-pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 > > > -- > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > community, and physics-related social issues. Do we detect quantum gravity waves? Do gluons use waves? Are two BHs 1.3 billion LYs from us have to collide to give off gravity waves?If so what is the length of these GWs? That is an easy question.O Ya TreBert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 18:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <yYqdnazGEen-HtrKnZ2dnUU7-cEAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #580785 |
On 5/26/16 4:56 PM, Double-A wrote: > I would think that when two black holes collide, they would swallow up the event! > > Double-A Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger > http://physics.aps.org/featured-article-pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 14:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5b9feb26-90a0-43f3-850d-b4a87ac535ca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580806 |
On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 4:14:47 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 5/26/16 4:56 PM, Double-A wrote: > > I would think that when two black holes collide, they would swallow up the event! > > > > Double-A > > > Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger > > > http://physics.aps.org/featured-article-pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 > Scientists nowadays go to elaborate lengths to justify their grants. Double-A
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 12:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ab1ffbcb-203c-4b7c-b954-d3eb9d8411ac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580401 |
On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 9:54:23 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 5/25/16 11:49 AM, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > > If Gravity's force worked by waves... > > Gravity, for you, reber, is best thought of as a field. Gravitational > waves, minuscule as they are, occur when mass is accelerated. > > > -- > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > community, and physics-related social issues. As a particle's spin speeds up and its wobble gets more smooth its wave gets shorter and shorter.My gyro showed me this was reality when I turned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 16:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <d86dneuVG9BPidvKnZ2dnUU7-eWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #580460 |
On 5/25/16 2:58 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > As a particle's spin speeds up The spin of a particle is a fixed property and not up for change. No exceptions. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 19:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <425d6dc3-3cb3-439e-a83a-b23503b132b8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580491 |
Sam said "The spin of a particle is a fixed property and not up for change. No exceptions. " So what changes when neutrinos flip one to the other is not neutrino spin? For sure? --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 10:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ni74cs$1aof$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580549 |
On 5/25/2016 9:06 PM, john wrote: > Sam said > "The spin of a particle is a fixed property and not up for change. > No exceptions. " > So what changes when neutrinos > flip one to the other is not neutrino spin? No. It's neutrino flavor. > For sure? > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 08:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7527c9fb-5ec3-4b7f-9a7e-3763e237ddca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580677 |
Odd said flavour. Flavour isn't spin. But spin isn't spin either. No particles ever change their spin, but spin isn't spin. 1984
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 10:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ni757g$1buv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580679 |
On 5/26/2016 10:33 AM, john wrote: > Odd said flavour. > Flavour isn't spin. > But spin isn't spin either. Quantum mechanical spin isn't like spin of a top, no. Either way, the difference between neutrinos isn't spin. > No particles ever change their > spin, but spin isn't spin. > 1984 > So, because you do not understand physics jargon like color and spin and fields and quanta, it's 1984? Your lack of interest in educating yourself about physics makes it 1984? Doesn't have to do with you at all? Always someone else's fault? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 10:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ni769b$1e27$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580680 |
On 5/26/2016 10:37 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/26/2016 10:33 AM, john wrote: >> Odd said flavour. >> Flavour isn't spin. >> But spin isn't spin either. > > Quantum mechanical spin isn't like spin of a top, no. > > Either way, the difference between neutrinos isn't spin. > >> No particles ever change their >> spin, but spin isn't spin. >> 1984 >> > > So, because you do not understand physics jargon like color and spin and > fields and quanta, it's 1984? > > Your lack of interest in educating yourself about physics makes it 1984? > Doesn't have to do with you at all? Always someone else's fault? > John, does it bother you that a field in physics extends over all space, and a field of corn doesn't? Is this a 1984 moment for you that physicists have taken your understanding of the word "field" and bent it into something else? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 10:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4f22ff2f-eca8-4410-a38d-2eddd7a826ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580682 |
On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 8:55:30 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/26/2016 10:37 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 5/26/2016 10:33 AM, john wrote: > >> Odd said flavour. > >> Flavour isn't spin. > >> But spin isn't spin either. > > > > Quantum mechanical spin isn't like spin of a top, no. > > > > Either way, the difference between neutrinos isn't spin. > > > >> No particles ever change their > >> spin, but spin isn't spin. > >> 1984 > >> > > > > So, because you do not understand physics jargon like color and spin and > > fields and quanta, it's 1984? > > > > Your lack of interest in educating yourself about physics makes it 1984? > > Doesn't have to do with you at all? Always someone else's fault? > > > > John, does it bother you that a field in physics extends over all space, > and a field of corn doesn't? Is this a 1984 moment for you that > physicists have taken your understanding of the word "field" and bent it > into something else? > It annoys that "Higgs field" isn't a field, and "Higgs classical field" is a space-frame (though, while a field, isn't properly so integrated and resolved with what other concerns there are why there isn't a space- frame, i.e., the reference frame we are in). Calling those "high-level concepts" is the somewhat more generous (in the sense of the preservation of their feelings) than noting that they're "wrong" (in the sense of the preservation of their validity). Some people, though, would rather know they're right than think they're right.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 18:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b7a98c51-e476-4364-b715-ae531d22cd9c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580714 |
Ross A. Finlayson - show quoted text - It annoys that "Higgs field" isn't a field, and "Higgs classical field" is a space-frame (though, while a field, isn't properly so integrated and resolved with what other concerns there are why there isn't a space- frame, i.e., the reference frame we are in). Calling those "high-level concepts" is the somewhat more generous (in the sense of the preservation of their feelings) than noting that they're "wrong" (in the sense of the preservation of their validity). Some people, though, would rather know they're right than think they're right. -------------- From your lips to god's ear. That's a great saying
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 16:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ni7761$l20$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #580679 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd said flavour. >Flavour isn't spin. >But spin isn't spin either. >No particles ever change their >spin, but spin isn't spin. >1984 You are really, really confused, aren't you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 10:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ab7159be-3eba-4a5f-8753-488aa075d877@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580687 |
On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 9:11:21 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: > > >Odd said flavour. > >Flavour isn't spin. > >But spin isn't spin either. > >No particles ever change their > >spin, but spin isn't spin. > >1984 > > You are really, really confused, aren't you. Spin is about properties (not quantities) of angular momentum, like colour is just in metaphor to some tristimulus colour- space model. Here, "spin" is overloaded while "colour" is modeled. The Wiki is the way for quick, casual references, these days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics) Particles may change their form, and thus their spin. It's fair to say that might not be the same particle anymore, but spin isn't a conserved quantity, it's basically of various regimes of whole integers on the one side and half integers on the other. "As a qualitative concept, the spin vector is often handy because it is easy to picture classically." "One distinguishes bosons (integer spin) and fermions (half-integer spin). The total angular momentum conserved in interaction processes is then the sum of the orbital angular momentum and the spin." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_charge "The term color became popular simply because the charge responsible for the strong force between particles, can be analogized to the three primary colors of human vision: red, green, and blue." The flavour is the beginning of an enumeration of size regimes, as "particles" (beneath the atom, these are "virtual" particles and basically just the interaction of forces in fields, as another chance to remove confusion), where in such notions as Technicolour/QCD it is "quarks all the way down", in analogy to "turtles all the way down", which is that in the reductio, those aren't particles, but, more along the lines of fluxions (as particulate) or elements of a continuum (as aggregate). There also appears to be quite some more overloading (as of general categories of things) of "flavour", while otherwise also defining quantitative relations or equivalences to conserved quantities (under conditions) as stronger. Reducing confusion follows from relating to the quantitative, reducing to the real (as not "virtual"), working past numerical methods and their errors (here, sometimes "results" of "quantification", that is itself overloaded, or other numerical establishments), and for metaphor: that the model is accurate (that, metaphor eventually fails except the strong metonymy).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 15:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bd701ed4-718e-4e19-999e-c408c6cc259c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580707 |
Ross said After quarks it's a continuum of smaller quarks. At least this reveals more awareness than Odd or Michael. (HVAC doesn't have any so 'more' doesn't apply).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 16:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <41824de1-fb42-41d5-9adb-a1ea66b31113@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580791 |
On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 3:22:11 PM UTC-7, john wrote: > Ross said > After quarks it's a continuum of smaller quarks. > At least this reveals more awareness than Odd or Michael. (HVAC doesn't have any so 'more' > doesn't apply). That's what "Technicolour" says. I tend to see a continuum as the background for wherever there's a point (or atom, "indivisible"). For examples, quarks are inseparable then with their organization, and the asymptotic freedom of the binding energy or gluon (again, not a particle, but a state of organization of particles). Superstrings are the notions of the modicum or background or parallel transport, basically to mathematically visualize what are the infinitesimals to the atoms. So, Technicolour and superstrings are something that already is there, but, not all of what follows as of "string theory" or "quantum chromodynamics" so follows as simple acknowledgment, as of the usual postulate of continuity as of necessary import for the usual symmetry, Noether's theorem, and conserved quantities, then for the necessary placement of continua and the necessary improvement of continuum mechanics so to improve the resulting idea of continuity. I look at continuity mathematically as line continuity (drawing a line segment) field continuity (least upper bound of complete ordered field) signal continuity (frequency to construct the rationals is the reals). The usually found definition (as of its placement in a curriculum) is field continuity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 22:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d7507e56-5b74-4437-87ce-723cfa8a970a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580816 |
Hi Ross Continuity is good. But it needs to be organized. Galaxies are atoms. Atoms' electrons are galactic arms containing 50 billion (thxPD) burning stars. Those radiations are in photons with another, smaller, 'h' value. So, matter recurs and recurs at smaller and smaller scales, emr recurs and recurs at smaller and smaller scales. Your continuum is wavy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 23:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5f201ffd-03df-421e-aa9d-02a0d5385b92@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580882 |
On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 10:40:58 PM UTC-7, john wrote: > Hi Ross > Continuity is good. > But it needs to be organized. > > Galaxies are atoms. > Atoms' electrons are galactic > arms containing 50 billion (thxPD) > burning stars. > Those radiations are in photons > with another, smaller, 'h' value. > > So, matter recurs and recurs at smaller > and smaller scales, > emr recurs and recurs at smaller and > smaller scales. > > Your continuum is wavy. "The" continuum is a spiral space-filling curve from the origin that is everywhere. Excuse me, that's from "A Theory" an axiom- less system of natural deduction for set theory, geometry, number theory, and so on. As a "consistent and complete" theory a la the Hilbert Program for analysis and so on, and as a "theory of everything" would be unique, that is it. Then actually how that is a "unified field theory" is rather itself a matter of concrete numerical terms and resources, for point, local, global, and total concerns, then somehow the forces of physics unify with here my notion is that gravity is fall gravity and unifies with the strong nuclear force. Basically the point is to understand mathematical foundations, that they are complete or as they are, what extra features there are of the continuum besides all the classical features as of magnitude we know already, then that advises fundamental physical foundations. Mathematics owes physics continuum mechanics (for example, sum of histories or path integral, or, Banach-Tarski or how parastatistics and why the measurement effect). I prefer to keep that simple with having complementary notions of continuity that I build from clear and simple enough proof from finitist principles, and otherwise usual neat theoretical concerns so I can do no wrong in having a theory of everything "A Theory". "Quantum mechanics is never wrong."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web