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 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 09:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nimrtt$10f6$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #582041 |
On 5/31/2016 9:01 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 7:49:44 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/30/2016 8:36 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: >>> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 10:16:18 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/27/2016 11:47 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: >>>>> Oh, I'd heard Quantum Chromodynamics had the bit revived itself. >>>>> >>>>> One seems to recall that they found part of the Higgs Boson >>>>> on either side of where it was expected to be found, thus >>>>> through persistence-of-vision, of a sort, it was neatly >>>>> penciled in. >>>> >>>> I saw someone make that comment here, but it's kinda fulla shit. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> After all, they had no expectation that it would go to parts. >>>> >>> >>> I read it somewhere in the media and >>> saw a sketch on a diagram. >> >> I'll just reiterate my opinion about that. If you don't remember where >> you saw it, then you likely also don't remember clearly what it said. >> >>> >>> Also it makes sense and has a bit of a >>> theoretical underpinning. While you're >>> at it, why don't you explain why as the >>> energy increases as goes into the theory, >>> the "particle" "mass" diverges. >> >> It doesn't. >> >>> >>> The theory having "it goes to infinity >>> as you put in more energy", where, it >>> doesn't exactly seem to match experiment, >>> usually points to defect in the theory (or >>> here, the mathematics of the theory of the >>> "virtual" particle.) >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > The notion that the Higgs bump was too wide or > slumped in the hump was read from a variety of > sources and as of the data and what was used to > form the data of the Large Hadron Collider results. And yet you can't cite one. I gave you a link to the discovery plot, and there are not two humps in it. So where did you read otherwise? > > Now, back to the bumps, and the lumps and the slump in the hump, > add them up and collect them over time and you wouldn't be able > to tell the difference between that and a dot. > > But, it was noticed that the data collection was time-sensitive. > > There's a lot more reading here on the CERN website. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 19:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7e10bfef-e484-4d66-8a93-435b01a84087@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582137 |
On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 7:36:50 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/31/2016 9:01 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 7:49:44 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/30/2016 8:36 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > >>> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 10:16:18 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 5/27/2016 11:47 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > >>>>> Oh, I'd heard Quantum Chromodynamics had the bit revived itself. > >>>>> > >>>>> One seems to recall that they found part of the Higgs Boson > >>>>> on either side of where it was expected to be found, thus > >>>>> through persistence-of-vision, of a sort, it was neatly > >>>>> penciled in. > >>>> > >>>> I saw someone make that comment here, but it's kinda fulla shit. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> After all, they had no expectation that it would go to parts. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I read it somewhere in the media and > >>> saw a sketch on a diagram. > >> > >> I'll just reiterate my opinion about that. If you don't remember where > >> you saw it, then you likely also don't remember clearly what it said. > >> > >>> > >>> Also it makes sense and has a bit of a > >>> theoretical underpinning. While you're > >>> at it, why don't you explain why as the > >>> energy increases as goes into the theory, > >>> the "particle" "mass" diverges. > >> > >> It doesn't. > >> > >>> > >>> The theory having "it goes to infinity > >>> as you put in more energy", where, it > >>> doesn't exactly seem to match experiment, > >>> usually points to defect in the theory (or > >>> here, the mathematics of the theory of the > >>> "virtual" particle.) > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > The notion that the Higgs bump was too wide or > > slumped in the hump was read from a variety of > > sources and as of the data and what was used to > > form the data of the Large Hadron Collider results. > > And yet you can't cite one. > I gave you a link to the discovery plot, and there are not two humps in > it. So where did you read otherwise? > > > > > > Now, back to the bumps, and the lumps and the slump in the hump, > > add them up and collect them over time and you wouldn't be able > > to tell the difference between that and a dot. > > > > But, it was noticed that the data collection was time-sensitive. > > > > There's a lot more reading here on the CERN website. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables That was the point of referring to CERN and the data collection of the LHC's two-off experiments that describes the story of how data began to arrive that given enough time the results merged together. You can read between the lines as it were that the distribution was quite broad and it took quite some time for it to be so that essentially given no statistical error in the so many trillions of collisions that they were able to see them blend and merge together, where the model has a spike there, not a dip, as would have been matched first and well reconciles with the data. Look at the diagrams and how they are W-shaped not U-shaped. Then also you can read the rest here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 10:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nipj2d$tsk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #582253 |
On 6/1/2016 9:11 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > That was the point of referring to CERN and the data > collection of the LHC's two-off experiments that > describes the story of how data began to arrive > that given enough time the results merged together. The results agree, within experimental error. This is basic high school science practice. Let's say you and I both measure the range of a catapult. The theoretical range of the catapult is 42.37 m +/- 0.12 m, based on the design and the physics involved. I measure the range to be 42.42 m +/- 0.10 m. You measure the range to be 42.30 m +/- 0.11 m. Your results and my results AGREE. There is no significant distinction between these results, and they BOTH agree with the theoretical prediction. If you plotted them, you'd be tempted to say you and I arrived at two different answers and that agreement with theory was arbitrarily fixed by picking a spot in between. But this is NOT correct, according to basic skills in how to read measured results learned in high school science. > > You can read between the lines as it were that the > distribution was quite broad and it took quite some > time for it to be so that essentially given no > statistical error in the so many trillions of collisions > that they were able to see them blend and merge > together, where the model has a spike there, not > a dip, The dip is in a quantity associated with statistical significance. The spike is in a number of events above background. You are comparing two plots of DIFFERENT VARIABLES. > as would have been matched first and well > reconciles with the data. > > Look at the diagrams and how they are W-shaped not > U-shaped. > > Then also you can read the rest here. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 18:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a6f38fbd-84ab-4a49-8973-b3a7aad7f0b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582322 |
On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 8:24:03 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/1/2016 9:11 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > That was the point of referring to CERN and the data > > collection of the LHC's two-off experiments that > > describes the story of how data began to arrive > > that given enough time the results merged together. > > The results agree, within experimental error. > This is basic high school science practice. > Let's say you and I both measure the range of a catapult. The > theoretical range of the catapult is 42.37 m +/- 0.12 m, based on the > design and the physics involved. I measure the range to be 42.42 m +/- > 0.10 m. You measure the range to be 42.30 m +/- 0.11 m. > Your results and my results AGREE. There is no significant distinction > between these results, and they BOTH agree with the theoretical > prediction. If you plotted them, you'd be tempted to say you and I > arrived at two different answers and that agreement with theory was > arbitrarily fixed by picking a spot in between. But this is NOT correct, > according to basic skills in how to read measured results learned in > high school science. > > > > > You can read between the lines as it were that the > > distribution was quite broad and it took quite some > > time for it to be so that essentially given no > > statistical error in the so many trillions of collisions > > that they were able to see them blend and merge > > together, where the model has a spike there, not > > a dip, > > The dip is in a quantity associated with statistical significance. The > spike is in a number of events above background. You are comparing two > plots of DIFFERENT VARIABLES. > > > as would have been matched first and well > > reconciles with the data. > > > > Look at the diagrams and how they are W-shaped not > > U-shaped. > > > > Then also you can read the rest here. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables How and why measurements differ in configuration and energy of experiment are important questions whose answers are involved to resolve questions about the measurement effect, the running constants, and the tachyonic models that "satisfy" the wave model (of particles in a field theory). I agree that there were two different tares, as it were, of the two different detectors and essentially two different experiments, but also note that the data of those also evolved over time and don't necessarily match the model of the Gaussian when they may instead be as of the asymptotic freedom of the quarks and gluons before and after the collisions of same as "Higgs bosons" are supposed to denote. The Standard Model may have a different mechanism for symmetry-breaking of W and Z bosons becoming massive particles, and still be the Standard Model. "Higgs' confirmation" is not the only route to confirmation of the Standard Model (for the electro- weak as via other means). _Adding_ a new force or field is _not_ unification, so, also, "Higgs field" (which is not a field) is anti-unification, where unification is a goal of physics, and toward resolution of the quantum in gravity and relativity (which also Higgs does not solve). Long story short, the Higgs particle isn't a particle, the Higgs field isn't a field, the Standard Model is independent of Higgs, and configuration and energy of experiment and the scale of regimes advises the milieu of the running constants and effects in measurement. Putting another incongruous feature on physics doesn't help solve it (for simple fundamental laws of physics, and just the one).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 18:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d533273c-3dce-4b93-a3ad-cf6b547104a8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582464 |
Smoke and mirrors. And lies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 20:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0f797647-9dcc-4bcd-bab5-49d08804e45f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582464 |
that tares that > I agree that there were two different > tares, as it were, of the two different > detectors and essentially two different > experiments, but also note that the data > of those also evolved over time and don't > necessarily match the model of the Gaussian > when they may instead be as of the asymptotic > freedom of the quarks and gluons before and > after the collisions of same as "Higgs bosons" > are supposed to denote. > > The Standard Model may have a different mechanism > for symmetry-breaking of W and Z bosons becoming > massive particles, and still be the Standard Model. > "Higgs' confirmation" is not the only route to > confirmation of the Standard Model (for the electro- > weak as via other means). _Adding_ a new force or > field is _not_ unification, so, also, "Higgs field" > (which is not a field) is anti-unification, where > unification is a goal of physics, and toward > resolution of the quantum in gravity and relativity > (which also Higgs does not solve).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 06:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nirre9$kf$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #582464 |
On 6/2/2016 8:03 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > > How and why measurements differ > in configuration and energy of experiment > are important questions whose answers are > involved to resolve questions about the > measurement effect, the running constants, > and the tachyonic models that "satisfy" > the wave model (of particles in a field > theory). > > I agree that there were two different > tares, as it were, of the two different > detectors and essentially two different > experiments, but also note that the data > of those also evolved over time and don't > necessarily match the model of the Gaussian > when they may instead be as of the asymptotic > freedom of the quarks and gluons before and > after the collisions of same as "Higgs bosons" > are supposed to denote. > > The Standard Model may have a different mechanism > for symmetry-breaking of W and Z bosons becoming > massive particles, and still be the Standard Model. > "Higgs' confirmation" is not the only route to > confirmation of the Standard Model (for the electro- > weak as via other means). _Adding_ a new force or > field is _not_ unification, so, also, "Higgs field" > (which is not a field) is anti-unification, where > unification is a goal of physics, and toward > resolution of the quantum in gravity and relativity > (which also Higgs does not solve). > > Long story short, the Higgs particle isn't a particle, > the Higgs field isn't a field, the Standard Model is > independent of Higgs, and configuration and energy of > experiment and the scale of regimes advises the milieu > of the running constants and effects in measurement. > > Putting another incongruous feature on physics doesn't > help solve it (for simple fundamental laws of physics, > and just the one). > > Ross, frankly, I don't know how to respond when you veer from a reasonably sensible post into rambling, incoherent gibberish like the above. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 05:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3908282e-bb46-499f-8517-4a813c40943e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582531 |
The Standard Model- as Odd says, "rambling, incoherent gibberish "
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 07:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nirucs$6aj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #582536 |
On 6/3/2016 7:47 AM, john wrote: > The Standard Model- > as Odd says, "rambling, incoherent gibberish " > John, here's the difference. If you want to know about the Standard Model, all you have to do is get out of this newsgroup and into books, where the Standard Model is completely and well explained. For Ross's comments, though, there is no alternate resource other than what spouts out of his mouth. So if he can't explain it well, there is no way to make sense of it. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 06:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a8bc8b68-12a9-4c9c-b680-81f57010463c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582537 |
Odd: "Completely"? Explained? New forces, particles and fields every year? DM, DE, BH, wormholes, exotic matter, other dimensions?????????!! Shut the fuck up!!!!!!!!'
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 08:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nis1os$c5p$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #582543 |
On 6/3/2016 8:08 AM, john wrote: > Odd: > "Completely"? > Explained? Yes. The Standard Model of particle physics. > New forces, particles and fields every year? There have been no new forces introduced since the 1930s. There are four: gravity (time immemorial), electromagnetic (1700s), strong nuclear (1910s), weak nuclear (1930s). The last time there was a new field introduced was in the 1970s -- the Higgs field. > DM, DE, BH, wormholes, exotic matter, > other dimensions?????????!! None of those are part of the Standard Model. They are hypotheses BEYOND the Standard Model. I think you confuse the Standard Model with "everything that's being thought of and tested these days". Of course, that confusion would be easily fixed if you just picked up a fucking book, John. > > Shut the fuck up!!!!!!!!' > Now, just in summary, John, there is established physics, and there is physics that actively being worked and is not established. This is a healthy state. For the stuff that is established, like the Standard Model, then there is plenty available in terms of explanatory material, including books aimed at laypeople. For the stuff that is still being worked, then there are going to be iterations, variations, experimental tests, and now the explanations carry a bit more of a load where you have to follow scientific papers and be able to read them and understand them. That is also healthy. If you have a problem with any of this, maybe you can explain what that problem is. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 10:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5751975b$0$7288$c3e8da3$66d3cc2f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #582560 |
On 06/03/2016 09:47 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/3/2016 8:08 AM, john wrote: >> Odd: >> "Completely"? >> Explained? > > Yes. The Standard Model of particle physics. > >> New forces, particles and fields every year? > > There have been no new forces introduced since the 1930s. > There are four: gravity (time immemorial), electromagnetic (1700s), > strong nuclear (1910s), weak nuclear (1930s). > The last time there was a new field introduced was in the 1970s -- the > Higgs field. > >> DM, DE, BH, wormholes, exotic matter, >> other dimensions?????????!! > > None of those are part of the Standard Model. They are hypotheses BEYOND > the Standard Model. > > I think you confuse the Standard Model with "everything that's being > thought of and tested these days". > > Of course, that confusion would be easily fixed if you just picked up a > fucking book, John. > >> >> Shut the fuck up!!!!!!!!' >> > > Now, just in summary, John, there is established physics, and there is > physics that actively being worked and is not established. This is a > healthy state. > > For the stuff that is established, like the Standard Model, then there > is plenty available in terms of explanatory material, including books > aimed at laypeople. > > For the stuff that is still being worked, then there are going to be > iterations, variations, experimental tests, and now the explanations > carry a bit more of a load where you have to follow scientific papers > and be able to read them and understand them. That is also healthy. > > If you have a problem with any of this, maybe you can explain what that > problem is. Right John. You just don't get that once stuff is "established" like the standard model or global warming, it can no longer be questioned. Unapproved topics can still be questioned but once scientists take a democratic vote and an idea gets a majority it is called "settled science" and may no longer be questioned or discussed except to endorse and promote it. This is how science works, John. Do you have a problem with this?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 08:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c60d51b0-5306-41fa-ad19-92225fcabf7a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582585 |
Yes I have a problem They're fucking wrong and wasting everyone's money and fucking up the planet. If they'd fucking look around at the fucking devastation caused by the "advances" they've made they'd realize. Retards. Anyone looking at us must be thinking "Why are they letting all these retards make all these awful poisons?" Because that's all that ever happens with the "chemical solutions" is -they turn out to be toxic. Because The "Scientists" Don't Yet Understand Jack Shit About The Atom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 11:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nisb5e$sb0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #582597 |
On 6/3/2016 10:07 AM, john wrote: > Yes > I have a problem > They're fucking wrong and wasting > everyone's money and fucking up the > planet. Who's "they"? > If they'd fucking look around at > the fucking devastation > caused by > the "advances" they've made > they'd realize. John, I will remind you that the "advances" that you are disparaging is TECHNOLOGY being used by CONSUMERS. That is YOU, not scientists. Air pollution is not caused by scientists. It is caused by people who drive cars and who buy house paint from chemical companies. YOU are responsible for the ills of the world. Yes, YOU. By being on your computer, you are burning 150 watts of energy, which some company has to supply to you by hook or by crook, which might mean burning some coal to get it to you, which might mean having to dig the coal out of the ground -- just because you want to be on the computer. By wearing shirts made out of cotton you did not grow yourself, you are responsible for water table lowering due to irrigation of the cotton farms that's required to make your shirt. If you wear clothes that have nylon or rayon or some other chemical-company product, God help you for creating that demand. If you post to this group on a cell phone, then YOU are responsible for cell phone towers going up in national parks and If YOU eat meat, then YOU are responsible for methane production in huge feed lots that process cattle just to get meat to your table in an affordable way. If YOU eat fish, then YOU are responsible for overfishing and the eradication of species. If you drink coffee from Starbucks or the grocery store, then YOU are responsible for coffee growers not being able to make a decent buck and their turning to making cocaine instead. If you want to remediate the ills of the world, John, then stop contributing to them. Do this by producing your own food, don't use electricity, don't use plastic materials in your home, for God's sake don't use wood harvested from live-tree logging either in your home framing or furniture, sell your car and start biking, if you heat your home with natural gas or oil or coal then better install a woodstove and make a sled to harvest deadwood from the terrain nearby. The ills of the world are not due to scientists, they are due to consumers like YOU. Face facts, man up, and do something about it. Stop whining at the wrong people. > Retards. > Anyone looking at us must be thinking > "Why are they letting all these > retards make all these awful poisons?" > Because that's all that ever happens > with the > "chemical solutions" > is -they turn out to be toxic. > Because > The > "Scientists" > Don't > Yet > Understand > Jack > Shit > About > The > Atom > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 10:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f89d5277-dda5-4c9a-ba92-a03bbe78ded2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582619 |
Odd Bodkin If you drink coffee from Starbucks or the grocery store, then YOU are responsible for coffee growers not being able to make a decent buck and their turning to making cocaine instead. --------- Now watch the sale of coffee increase exponentially John's town
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 14:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5751cb9f$0$43806$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #582633 |
On 06/03/2016 01:07 PM, HVAC wrote: > Odd Bodkin > If you drink coffee from > Starbucks or the grocery store, then YOU are responsible for coffee > growers not being able to make a decent buck and their turning to making cocaine instead. > --------- > > Now watch the sale of coffee increase exponentially John's town > Why do you always find it necessary to lie about what others will do and believe?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 12:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nisevm$12ov$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #582619 |
On 6/3/2016 11:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/3/2016 10:07 AM, john wrote: >> Yes >> I have a problem >> They're fucking wrong and wasting >> everyone's money and fucking up the >> planet. > > Who's "they"? > >> If they'd fucking look around at >> the fucking devastation >> caused by >> the "advances" they've made >> they'd realize. > > John, I will remind you that the "advances" that you are disparaging is > TECHNOLOGY being used by CONSUMERS. That is YOU, not scientists. Air > pollution is not caused by scientists. It is caused by people who drive > cars and who buy house paint from chemical companies. > > YOU are responsible for the ills of the world. Yes, YOU. > By being on your computer, you are burning 150 watts of energy, which > some company has to supply to you by hook or by crook, which might mean > burning some coal to get it to you, which might mean having to dig the > coal out of the ground -- just because you want to be on the computer. > By wearing shirts made out of cotton you did not grow yourself, you are > responsible for water table lowering due to irrigation of the cotton > farms that's required to make your shirt. If you wear clothes that have > nylon or rayon or some other chemical-company product, God help you for > creating that demand. If you post to this group on a cell phone, then > YOU are responsible for cell phone towers going up in national parks and > If YOU eat meat, then YOU are responsible for methane production in huge > feed lots that process cattle just to get meat to your table in an > affordable way. If YOU eat fish, then YOU are responsible for > overfishing and the eradication of species. If you drink coffee from > Starbucks or the grocery store, then YOU are responsible for coffee > growers not being able to make a decent buck and their turning to making > cocaine instead. > > If you want to remediate the ills of the world, John, then stop > contributing to them. Do this by producing your own food, don't use > electricity, don't use plastic materials in your home, for God's sake > don't use wood harvested from live-tree logging either in your home > framing or furniture, sell your car and start biking, if you heat your > home with natural gas or oil or coal then better install a woodstove and > make a sled to harvest deadwood from the terrain nearby. > > The ills of the world are not due to scientists, they are due to > consumers like YOU. Face facts, man up, and do something about it. Stop > whining at the wrong people. > >> Retards. >> Anyone looking at us must be thinking >> "Why are they letting all these >> retards make all these awful poisons?" >> Because that's all that ever happens >> with the >> "chemical solutions" >> is -they turn out to be toxic. >> Because >> The >> "Scientists" >> Don't >> Yet >> Understand >> Jack >> Shit >> About >> The >> Atom >> > > And John, just to follow up, allow me to make two further comments. You know so little about science that you confuse TECHNOLOGY with SCIENCE. Those two things are NOT the same. A nuclear bomb is a TECHNOLOGY product, not a scientific product. Technology is using a scientific principle to produce a product designed for a purpose. Blaming science for technology is like blaming Maxwell for dropped cell phone calls. It's like blaming Gregor Mendel for GMO vegetables. It's like blaming Marie Curie for Fukishima radioactive waste. Your issues are not with science, they are with technology. Secondly, there are two kinds of Luddites. There are Luddites who find technology to be harmful and go to the trouble of avoiding using it. The Amish are a good example, where they do not connect with external power companies and they don't buy cars. But then there are the hypocritical Luddites, who complain about technology and all of its ills, but they use it anyway -- and they fail to see the irony in that. I now understand why you hope for a savior, whether that's God-sent or dropping in from other planets. You want rescue from your own technological sin, which you despise yourself for. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 08:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eb816eaa-878f-49f4-b5c7-e6c3cd180238@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582585 |
BJ quacked Right John. You just don't get that once stuff is "established" like the standard model or global warming, it can no longer be questioned. Unapproved topics can still be questioned but once scientists take a democratic vote and an idea gets a majority it is called "settled science" and may no longer be questioned or discussed except to endorse and promote it. This is how science works, John. Do you have a problem with this? ----------- BJ you need to let it go. Carrying around the burden of hate you feel for science since being fired from your job as lab assistant is not healthy. I'm here for ya if you need some share time bro
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 08:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d2e86111-ad50-44d9-a2b1-2fc903e4b214@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582598 |
BoyHVAC, DDT was sold by Monsanto - fucked up lots of stuff. Was in some war or other. Everything Science makes says on the bottom "May Cause Death" WiddoHVAC wuvs his "Death" (until)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 08:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c318857c-ab3e-4185-83e7-f9b46a33e43e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #582600 |
john BoyHVAC, DDT was sold by Monsanto - fucked up lots of stuff. Was in some war or other. Everything Science makes says on the bottom "May Cause Death" ------------ John. You are arguing against BJ. He is the one that thinks humans aren't fucking up the planet. Don't you read his posts? Actually his position is that since the apocalypse is coming anyway, it doesn't matter what we do to our planet. You don't agree with him on this, do you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web