Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #589377 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-14 23:01 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-07-27 11:19 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 184 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-14 23:01 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 07:25 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 08:36 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 10:41 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 11:02 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 10:46 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:11 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-17 16:30 +0200
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-17 11:15 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 15:29 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-18 00:16 +0200
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 06:39 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question xxein1@att.net - 2016-07-18 09:32 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-18 22:55 +0200
Re: Gravity and light question john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 17:44 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-15 09:33 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 08:36 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-15 11:25 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 10:02 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 10:42 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-15 14:22 -0500
glightinos noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 10:06 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 10:40 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 10:42 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 10:51 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 11:05 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:23 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 11:31 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:40 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 11:47 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:56 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 11:54 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:58 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 10:29 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 11:09 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 09:45 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 09:59 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 12:59 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 11:15 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 09:56 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 10:03 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 12:22 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 12:38 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 11:04 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 13:25 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 11:45 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 14:12 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 14:19 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 12:24 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 14:33 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question xxein1@att.net - 2016-07-18 14:01 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 16:13 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-18 19:02 -0400
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 16:45 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 13:12 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 11:17 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 13:46 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 11:51 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 13:58 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 12:11 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 14:19 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 12:30 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 14:38 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 12:43 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 15:08 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 13:26 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 16:36 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 19:32 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-20 10:54 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 13:13 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-20 11:31 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 14:10 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 11:24 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Kent Evans <kenev@bluebarryinfo.org> - 2016-07-22 18:27 +0000
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 11:34 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-23 23:21 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 00:09 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 13:11 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 14:09 -0700
light is waves through the electronic matters of free space noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 19:16 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 15:22 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 14:12 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 07:53 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 07:37 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 09:39 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 08:12 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 10:54 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:56 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 17:12 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 17:10 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 16:51 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 07:24 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-26 19:18 +0000
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 15:04 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 18:50 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:05 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:16 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-26 11:00 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 11:52 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-27 08:29 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:01 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 18:45 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:45 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 15:12 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-26 21:36 +0200
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 15:05 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-27 18:36 +0200
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 13:08 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-28 00:15 +0200
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:24 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-29 07:05 +0200
i.q at most zero noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 14:19 -0700
Light (was: i.q at most zero) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-29 07:16 +0200
Re: Light (was: i.q at most zero) LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 22:34 -0700
see _Light, a history: Fermat's complete correspondence on light_ noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:38 -0700
Re: see _Light, a history: Fermat's complete correspondence on light_ brandonahenley9@gmail.com - 2016-07-29 12:38 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:15 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 12:54 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 10:41 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 10:50 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:18 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 11:22 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:36 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 11:43 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:49 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 11:58 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 14:01 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 12:06 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 14:17 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 12:19 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 14:29 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-15 14:23 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 12:33 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-15 16:58 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 13:18 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 13:34 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 15:19 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 15:29 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 16:15 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 16:17 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 16:46 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 17:14 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 17:55 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 18:08 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 19:47 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 15:41 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 14:08 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 06:38 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 15:38 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 14:03 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 13:02 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 12:56 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 14:02 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 14:10 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 16:38 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 14:46 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 16:36 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 14:45 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 16:48 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 15:10 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 16:11 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 18:18 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 19:40 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 23:35 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 00:35 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 15:24 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question xxein1@att.net - 2016-07-16 22:22 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 15:22 -0500
all properties of light are wave(y\s, including the photon-electrical effect noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 17:03 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 16:42 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-17 16:37 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 13:15 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 13:17 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 15:41 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-24 17:29 +1000
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 00:39 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-27 12:06 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 10:17 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-26 21:05 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 07:47 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 09:19 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-27 11:56 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 12:56 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 11:19 -0700
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 14:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmluf6$f0u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589978 |
On 7/19/2016 2:11 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 11:58:10 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/19/2016 1:51 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 11:46:03 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/19/2016 1:17 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 11:12:05 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> [more crap] >>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>>> Fuck you. Don't bother replying. I don't read your stupid shit. >>>>> >>>>> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... >>>>> >>>> >>>> But others do. And we're right about you.... >>>> >>> >>> I don't fucking care. >>> >>> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... >>> >> >> Of course you don't. That's why you're never going to get anywhere >> different than where you are right now -- pissed and without answers to >> your questions. Start caring a little more, and maybe that would change. > > I got answers, alright. This is how I know you're a fucking mental midget and an ass kisser. > And I do care about good solid physics, not a bunch of stupid crap from morons. I'm not sure how you would know "good solid physics" if it hit you in the face. You keep mentioning some Newtonian equivalence principle between acceleration and gravity, which you made up. Is making stuff up and slapping a label of "Newtonian" on it what you mean by "good solid physics"? In my readings (of books written by physicists), good solid physics usually involves some skills in math. Yet, you don't seem to think so. I'm pretty sure this has been true since the 1600s, but somehow you don't think so. Care to explain what you mean exactly by "good solid physics" and do you think any physicist in particular would agree with you? > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 12:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <670e3f7d-b1c1-40d2-afec-af8df663310b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589980 |
On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 12:19:08 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/19/2016 2:11 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 11:58:10 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/19/2016 1:51 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 11:46:03 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 7/19/2016 1:17 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 11:12:05 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> [more crap] > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>>> Fuck you. Don't bother replying. I don't read your stupid shit. > >>>>> > >>>>> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> But others do. And we're right about you.... > >>>> > >>> > >>> I don't fucking care. > >>> > >>> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > >>> > >> > >> Of course you don't. That's why you're never going to get anywhere > >> different than where you are right now -- pissed and without answers to > >> your questions. Start caring a little more, and maybe that would change. > > > > I got answers, alright. This is how I know you're a fucking mental midget and an ass kisser. > > And I do care about good solid physics, not a bunch of stupid crap from morons. > > I'm not sure how you would know "good solid physics" if it hit you in > the face. You keep mentioning some Newtonian equivalence principle > between acceleration and gravity, which you made up. Is making stuff up > and slapping a label of "Newtonian" on it what you mean by "good solid > physics"? You're an idiot. Newtonian gravity assumes that the acceleration of gravity works equally for any object regardless of mass. If you can't figure out that this is a principle of equivalence, you are a fucking moron. But I already knew that. > In my readings (of books written by physicists), good solid physics > usually involves some skills in math. Yet, you don't seem to think so. > I'm pretty sure this has been true since the 1600s, but somehow you > don't think so. Care to explain what you mean exactly by "good solid > physics" and do you think any physicist in particular would agree with you? Moron. Math does not explain anything. Math is a descriptive language, not an explanatory language. For example, the inverse square law does not explain why there is an inverse square law. Get a fucking clue. ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... PS. Fuck you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 14:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmlvkf$glu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589982 |
On 7/19/2016 2:30 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 12:19:08 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/19/2016 2:11 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 11:58:10 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/19/2016 1:51 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 11:46:03 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 7/19/2016 1:17 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 11:12:05 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> [more crap] >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fuck you. Don't bother replying. I don't read your stupid shit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But others do. And we're right about you.... >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't fucking care. >>>>> >>>>> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... >>>>> >>>> >>>> Of course you don't. That's why you're never going to get anywhere >>>> different than where you are right now -- pissed and without answers to >>>> your questions. Start caring a little more, and maybe that would change. >>> >>> I got answers, alright. This is how I know you're a fucking mental midget and an ass kisser. >>> And I do care about good solid physics, not a bunch of stupid crap from morons. >> >> I'm not sure how you would know "good solid physics" if it hit you in >> the face. You keep mentioning some Newtonian equivalence principle >> between acceleration and gravity, which you made up. Is making stuff up >> and slapping a label of "Newtonian" on it what you mean by "good solid >> physics"? > > You're an idiot. Newtonian gravity assumes that the acceleration of gravity works equally for any > object regardless of mass. Of MASS, yes. > If you can't figure out that this is a principle of equivalence, you are a fucking moron. Well, it's apparent that YOU have called it "a principle of equivalence", where equivalence could be between anything maybe, couldn't it? Except not between gravity and acceleration. > But I already knew that. > >> In my readings (of books written by physicists), good solid physics >> usually involves some skills in math. Yet, you don't seem to think so. >> I'm pretty sure this has been true since the 1600s, but somehow you >> don't think so. Care to explain what you mean exactly by "good solid >> physics" and do you think any physicist in particular would agree with you? > > Moron. Math does not explain anything. Math is a descriptive language, not an explanatory Bullshit. > language. For example, the inverse square law does not explain why there is an inverse square Of course not. But neither do the words in that case. But in other cases, there IS an explanation in the math. In other words, where there IS an explanation, you're just as likely to find it in the math as you are in the words, because as I told you in the very front of this whole thread, math is a shorthand for words and is used to express things more economically and often more rigorously correct than words. That is, IF you understand the language of mathematics. The fact that you don't understand the math at all doesn't mean that others don't, and the fact that you don't understand it does NOT mean that you are entitled to an answer in the language you happen to understand. What it DOES mean is that if you want the answer, you learn the language. Which is why math is taught in school. Lesson is simple. Don't want to learn Spanish? Stay the fuck away from Nicaragua. Don't want to learn math? Stay the fuck away from physics. And don't bitch about it. > law. Get a fucking clue. > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > > PS. Fuck you. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 12:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1a8dee69-07fd-47a8-a309-27a68d4bcf2d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589984 |
On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 12:39:00 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/19/2016 2:30 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 12:19:08 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/19/2016 2:11 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 11:58:10 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 7/19/2016 1:51 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 11:46:03 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 7/19/2016 1:17 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 11:12:05 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> [more crap] > >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Fuck you. Don't bother replying. I don't read your stupid shit. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But others do. And we're right about you.... > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't fucking care. > >>>>> > >>>>> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Of course you don't. That's why you're never going to get anywhere > >>>> different than where you are right now -- pissed and without answers to > >>>> your questions. Start caring a little more, and maybe that would change. > >>> > >>> I got answers, alright. This is how I know you're a fucking mental midget and an ass kisser. > >>> And I do care about good solid physics, not a bunch of stupid crap from morons. > >> > >> I'm not sure how you would know "good solid physics" if it hit you in > >> the face. You keep mentioning some Newtonian equivalence principle > >> between acceleration and gravity, which you made up. Is making stuff up > >> and slapping a label of "Newtonian" on it what you mean by "good solid > >> physics"? > > > > You're an idiot. Newtonian gravity assumes that the acceleration of gravity works equally for any > > object regardless of mass. > > Of MASS, yes. > > > If you can't figure out that this is a principle of equivalence, you are a fucking moron. > > Well, it's apparent that YOU have called it "a principle of > equivalence", where equivalence could be between anything maybe, > couldn't it? Except not between gravity and acceleration. > > > But I already knew that. > > > >> In my readings (of books written by physicists), good solid physics > >> usually involves some skills in math. Yet, you don't seem to think so. > >> I'm pretty sure this has been true since the 1600s, but somehow you > >> don't think so. Care to explain what you mean exactly by "good solid > >> physics" and do you think any physicist in particular would agree with you? > > > > Moron. Math does not explain anything. Math is a descriptive language, not an explanatory > > Bullshit. > > > language. For example, the inverse square law does not explain why there is an inverse square > > Of course not. But neither do the words in that case. But in other > cases, there IS an explanation in the math. In other words, where there > IS an explanation, you're just as likely to find it in the math as you > are in the words, because as I told you in the very front of this whole > thread, math is a shorthand for words and is used to express things more > economically and often more rigorously correct than words. That is, IF > you understand the language of mathematics. The fact that you don't > understand the math at all doesn't mean that others don't, and the fact > that you don't understand it does NOT mean that you are entitled to an > answer in the language you happen to understand. What it DOES mean is > that if you want the answer, you learn the language. Which is why math > is taught in school. > > Lesson is simple. Don't want to learn Spanish? Stay the fuck away from > Nicaragua. Don't want to learn math? Stay the fuck away from physics. > And don't bitch about it. > > > law. Get a fucking clue. > > > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > > > > PS. Fuck you. > > Eat shit, you dumb fuck. ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 15:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmm1cd$ja8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589985 |
On 7/19/2016 2:43 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 12:39:00 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/19/2016 2:30 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 12:19:08 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/19/2016 2:11 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 11:58:10 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 7/19/2016 1:51 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 11:46:03 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/19/2016 1:17 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 11:12:05 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> [more crap] >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fuck you. Don't bother replying. I don't read your stupid shit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But others do. And we're right about you.... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't fucking care. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course you don't. That's why you're never going to get anywhere >>>>>> different than where you are right now -- pissed and without answers to >>>>>> your questions. Start caring a little more, and maybe that would change. >>>>> >>>>> I got answers, alright. This is how I know you're a fucking mental midget and an ass kisser. >>>>> And I do care about good solid physics, not a bunch of stupid crap from morons. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure how you would know "good solid physics" if it hit you in >>>> the face. You keep mentioning some Newtonian equivalence principle >>>> between acceleration and gravity, which you made up. Is making stuff up >>>> and slapping a label of "Newtonian" on it what you mean by "good solid >>>> physics"? >>> >>> You're an idiot. Newtonian gravity assumes that the acceleration of gravity works equally for any >>> object regardless of mass. >> >> Of MASS, yes. >> >>> If you can't figure out that this is a principle of equivalence, you are a fucking moron. >> >> Well, it's apparent that YOU have called it "a principle of >> equivalence", where equivalence could be between anything maybe, >> couldn't it? Except not between gravity and acceleration. >> >>> But I already knew that. >>> >>>> In my readings (of books written by physicists), good solid physics >>>> usually involves some skills in math. Yet, you don't seem to think so. >>>> I'm pretty sure this has been true since the 1600s, but somehow you >>>> don't think so. Care to explain what you mean exactly by "good solid >>>> physics" and do you think any physicist in particular would agree with you? >>> >>> Moron. Math does not explain anything. Math is a descriptive language, not an explanatory >> >> Bullshit. >> >>> language. For example, the inverse square law does not explain why there is an inverse square >> >> Of course not. But neither do the words in that case. But in other >> cases, there IS an explanation in the math. In other words, where there >> IS an explanation, you're just as likely to find it in the math as you >> are in the words, because as I told you in the very front of this whole >> thread, math is a shorthand for words and is used to express things more >> economically and often more rigorously correct than words. That is, IF >> you understand the language of mathematics. The fact that you don't >> understand the math at all doesn't mean that others don't, and the fact >> that you don't understand it does NOT mean that you are entitled to an >> answer in the language you happen to understand. What it DOES mean is >> that if you want the answer, you learn the language. Which is why math >> is taught in school. >> >> Lesson is simple. Don't want to learn Spanish? Stay the fuck away from >> Nicaragua. Don't want to learn math? Stay the fuck away from physics. >> And don't bitch about it. >> >>> law. Get a fucking clue. >>> >>> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... >>> >>> PS. Fuck you. >>> > Eat shit, you dumb fuck. > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > And so the conversation goes. Just to recap: You have some idea of what physics SHOULD BE, according to you. Not what it actually is, or in fact ever was, mind you. Just some idea that you have come up with. And according to that idea, you have some pithy comments about "mechanisms", about the worthlessness of math, about peer review and how physicists work together, and about some fabricated history of the development of physics. This collection of half-assed ideas, NONE of which comes from reading much of anything from real physicists, is what you call "good solid physics". And when it turns out that your "vision" for good solid physics doesn't actually line up with facts, then you use "fuck you" as a punctuation mark. If there is a disconnect between you and the rest of the world, then it's probably just worth noting on a Post-It Note on your desk that the problem is then you. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 13:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1f87b79e-560a-4ace-97e8-b787855f2582@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589992 |
On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 1:08:49 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >[crap] Pack it up your ass, moron. ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 16:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f8550cc5-a7aa-4819-b972-9dcf85928005@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589982 |
it has nothing to do with the regular tetragon per se ... we could accomodate a fOOtbAll fIEld, though it is only about an inch, high > explanatory language. For example, the inverse square law does not explain why there is an inverse square law. Get a fucking clue. > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... effem, when I get it "up
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-19 19:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a92f8edf-eff8-4aa4-9754-754a2117e931@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589982 |
On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 3:30:18 PM UTC-4, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
[]
> Moron. Math does not explain anything. Math is a descriptive language,
> not an explanatory language. For example, the inverse square law does
> not explain why there is an inverse square law. []clue.
>
[]
You want to know the why. he TV show Barney Miller had a great episode.
At the end Barney explained it this way:
Barney: Do you know why the Blue whale, the world's largest creature,
has a throat this wide. (shows the size of about a fist)
Woj: No, I don't. Why is that.
Barney: It just is.
See the problem is you want the certainty of 19th century physics.
At that point the physic world was sure all the big laws were known.
There were just a few loose ends to tie up.
But the fact is we do not know. Each theory may be better than
the previous ones but we never reach the TRUTH.
A friend of mine puts it this way:
All theories are wrong, but some are useful.
Newton's theory is wrong, but it happens to compute motion
well enough to place a man on the moon. So it is useful.
Newton's theory happens to fail in computing the precession
of the perihelion of Mercury. General relativity was able to
solve that problem.
Maybe someday we find the sources of what we currently call
dark matter and dark energy with a theory that calculates
there effects better than Relativity.
Point is, we approach the truth in a methodical manner in
science. Even as you brand me a defender of Einstein, I
find no reason to curse Newton's theory as wrong. And
I will be perfectly happy to advance beyond what Einstein
was able to discovery without calling others names.
Hell, if JM could ever present ANY evidence of his water theory,
I would see that as a good thing.
Scientific training is more about keeping your mind OPEN.
If you are unable or unwilling to do that, well like JM, I
have little hope for you.
And again, have a great day.
Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 10:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <516c1707-6a18-47de-bd07-34778de2c1ed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590045 |
On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 7:32:42 PM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 3:30:18 PM UTC-4, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > [] > > Moron. Math does not explain anything. Math is a descriptive language, > > not an explanatory language. For example, the inverse square law does > > not explain why there is an inverse square law. []clue. > > > [] > > You want to know the why. he TV show Barney Miller had a great episode. > At the end Barney explained it this way: > > Barney: Do you know why the Blue whale, the world's largest creature, > has a throat this wide. (shows the size of about a fist) > Woj: No, I don't. Why is that. > Barney: It just is. > > See the problem is you want the certainty of 19th century physics. > At that point the physic world was sure all the big laws were known. > There were just a few loose ends to tie up. > > But the fact is we do not know. Each theory may be better than > the previous ones but we never reach the TRUTH. > > A friend of mine puts it this way: > All theories are wrong, but some are useful. > > Newton's theory is wrong, but it happens to compute motion > well enough to place a man on the moon. So it is useful. > > Newton's theory happens to fail in computing the precession > of the perihelion of Mercury. General relativity was able to > solve that problem. Anybody can put together a theory that predicts things precisely by fudging it to fit observation. GR's Mercury "prediction" was and after-the-fact postdiction. Ptolemaic epicycles can be just as accurate if you add more epicycles. It's all crap. > Maybe someday we find the sources of what we currently call > dark matter and dark energy with a theory that calculates > there effects better than Relativity. > > Point is, we approach the truth in a methodical manner in > science. Even as you brand me a defender of Einstein, I > find no reason to curse Newton's theory as wrong. And > I will be perfectly happy to advance beyond what Einstein > was able to discovery without calling others names. > > Hell, if JM could ever present ANY evidence of his water theory, > I would see that as a good thing. > > Scientific training is more about keeping your mind OPEN. > If you are unable or unwilling to do that, well like JM, I > have little hope for you. > > And again, have a great day. > Ed IOW, you are clueless and you're perpetrating a lie. Einstein's equivalence principle is a steaming pile of bullshit. ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 13:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmof06$1p3n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590109 |
On 7/20/2016 12:54 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > Anybody can put together a theory that predicts things precisely by fudging it to fit > observation. GR's Mercury "prediction" was and after-the-fact postdiction. Ptolemaic > epicycles can be just as accurate if you add more epicycles. It's all crap. Postdiction -- yes it was. Fudge? No, it wasn't. There's not enough free parameters in general relativity to get it to fit that datum AND get other things right. Plus, you're generally ignoring the fact that precession anomalies were NOT measured for other planets at the time, but were predicted by relativity and have SINCE been verified by experimental measurement. Thus, it would have been impossible for Einstein to fudge a theory to fit data he didn't yet have, and this made them verified predictions. I completely get that you hate little facts like this, because they get in the way of you making a sensible objection to relativity, when you've got other really deep-seated emotional motivations to hate relativity. But c'est la vie. Lots of bigots are constantly pissed. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 11:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c149b2f7-e655-4313-8fe4-61ca1b09da2f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590111 |
On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 11:13:31 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/20/2016 12:54 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > Anybody can put together a theory that predicts things precisely by fudging it to fit > > observation. GR's Mercury "prediction" was and after-the-fact postdiction. Ptolemaic > > epicycles can be just as accurate if you add more epicycles. It's all crap. > > Postdiction -- yes it was. Fudge? No, it wasn't. There's not enough free > parameters in general relativity to get it to fit that datum AND get > other things right. > > Plus, you're generally ignoring the fact that precession anomalies were > NOT measured for other planets at the time, but were predicted by > relativity and have SINCE been verified by experimental measurement. > Thus, it would have been impossible for Einstein to fudge a theory to > fit data he didn't yet have, and this made them verified predictions. > > I completely get that you hate little facts like this, because they get > in the way of you making a sensible objection to relativity, when you've > got other really deep-seated emotional motivations to hate relativity. > But c'est la vie. Lots of bigots are constantly pissed. > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Predictions are a dime a dozen. My dog, too, is a scientist. He can predict there will be food in his plate when he hears the can opener in the kitchen. Scientific theories are a dime a dozen. What separates the pussies from Conan the Barbarian is that Conan has got the real thing. You mental midgets don't have shit. All you got are equations, not explanations. Equations are abstract creations. Particles do not solve equations as they move. They don't fucking care about space, spacetime, frames of reference or observers. They obey conservation principles which are the basis of causality. And the mother of all conservation principles is the conservation of Nothing. Everything sums up to ZERO. Unless your explanation of a phenomenon is couched in terms of a conservation principle, all you got is a big fucking pile of useless crap. Of course, your miniscule, tree-dwelling, marsupial brain will never understand these things. ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 14:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmoib5$1uj9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590113 |
On 7/20/2016 1:31 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 11:13:31 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/20/2016 12:54 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Anybody can put together a theory that predicts things precisely by fudging it to fit
>>> observation. GR's Mercury "prediction" was and after-the-fact postdiction. Ptolemaic
>>> epicycles can be just as accurate if you add more epicycles. It's all crap.
>>
>> Postdiction -- yes it was. Fudge? No, it wasn't. There's not enough free
>> parameters in general relativity to get it to fit that datum AND get
>> other things right.
>>
>> Plus, you're generally ignoring the fact that precession anomalies were
>> NOT measured for other planets at the time, but were predicted by
>> relativity and have SINCE been verified by experimental measurement.
>> Thus, it would have been impossible for Einstein to fudge a theory to
>> fit data he didn't yet have, and this made them verified predictions.
>>
>> I completely get that you hate little facts like this, because they get
>> in the way of you making a sensible objection to relativity, when you've
>> got other really deep-seated emotional motivations to hate relativity.
>> But c'est la vie. Lots of bigots are constantly pissed.
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Predictions are a dime a dozen. My dog, too, is a scientist. He can predict
> there will be food in his plate when he hears the can opener in the kitchen.
>
> Scientific theories are a dime a dozen. What separates the pussies from Conan
> the Barbarian is that Conan has got the real thing. You mental midgets don't
> have shit.
Well, OK, so you are saying that math and predictions are useless. So at
this point I'll just comment that the requirement to be able to
calculate and to be able to test your hypothesis by making predictions
has been the heart and soul of natural science since Galileo. It is not
ancillary to science, it is CENTRAL to science.
Since you obviously think that's horseshit, then all you're saying is
that you don't think much of science and its methods. You're not a big
fan of the scientific method.
And if that's the case, then why are you posting to a discussion group
for fans of science?
> All you got are equations, not explanations. Equations are abstract
> creations. Particles do not solve equations as they move. They don't fucking
> care about space, spacetime, frames of reference or observers. They obey
> conservation principles which are the basis of causality. And the mother of
> all conservation principles is the conservation of Nothing. Everything sums
> up to ZERO.
>
> Unless your explanation of a phenomenon is couched in terms of a conservation
> principle, all you got is a big fucking pile of useless crap.
Well, interestingly enough, that is also a well-known principle in
physics today, and general relativity reflects this.
You're right, particles do not solve equations as they move. They just
obey the rules of nature. The rules of nature, as it turns out, are all
fundamentally steeped in various categories of symmetry that nature has.
It's been proven (as in, rigorous mathematical proof) by Noether that
every conservation law is tied to some category of symmetry in nature.
So you are right, in that
physical laws <==> symmetries <==> conservation rules
Do you know the symmetry that general relativity is based on?
Did you know that the first physicist to recognize the power of
symmetries in nature was Einstein?
>
> Of course, your miniscule, tree-dwelling, marsupial brain will never understand
> these things.
Don't presume such things until you have checked by reading whether this
dramatic insight you think you have is also known by others.
>
> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
>
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 11:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f18fbd62-927a-4063-9556-dd893397d5c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590113 |
On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 2:31:49 PM UTC-4, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: [] > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... Yep, Just like JM. We try to teach you something and you reply with insults. Clearly you do not want to learn. But have a nice day anyway. :) ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kent Evans <kenev@bluebarryinfo.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 18:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nmtoi7$10ad$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590320 |
edprochak wrote: > On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 2:31:49 PM UTC-4, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > [] >> >> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > > Yep, Just like JM. We try to teach you something and you reply with insults. > > Clearly you do not want to learn. > But have a nice day anyway. :) > ed untrue
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 11:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <08cabc0b-92fa-4715-9821-1f829e2b94b2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590320 |
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:24:38 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 2:31:49 PM UTC-4, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > [] > > > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > > Yep, Just like JM. We try to teach you something and you reply with insults. > > Clearly you do not want to learn. > But have a nice day anyway. :) > ed Fuck you. And your momma. ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 23:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9b97be1c-22b5-423d-a81b-1d1838c5841f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590109 |
On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 1:54:13 PM UTC-4, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 7:32:42 PM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 3:30:18 PM UTC-4, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: [] > > > > A friend of mine puts it this way: > > All theories are wrong, but some are useful. > > > > Newton's theory is wrong, but it happens to compute motion > > well enough to place a man on the moon. So it is useful. > > > > Newton's theory happens to fail in computing the precession > > of the perihelion of Mercury. General relativity was able to > > solve that problem. > > Anybody can put together a theory that predicts things precisely > by fudging it to fit observation. GR's Mercury "prediction" was > and after-the-fact postdiction. Ptolemaic epicycles can be just > as accurate if you add more epicycles. It's all crap. You really need to learn a lot about science. Epicycles were empirical hacks. There was no theory to predict motion of a newly discovered planet for example. Newton made a set of assumptions and his equations calculated a precession that was off. Einstein used different assumptions and his equations calculated the precession very closely. The first test of any theory is: Does it fit known facts. So yes, even a hack like James M. can hack out a parameter based equation for the motion. (Oops, not forget I said that. he could not even figure out an empirical equation to predict mercury's precession given the data up front.) BUT the second step is that it must make predictions. One prediction Einstein's theory predicted (since it was not measured until AFTER he published his theory) was the deflection of light by massive bodies like the sun. Newton's theory also can calculate such a deflection. There was a clear difference in the two theories by IIRC a factor of 2. Once the measurements were made, the data showed Einstein's calculations matched the measurements while newton's did not. [] > > IOW, you are clueless and you're perpetrating a lie. > Einstein's equivalence principle is a steaming pile of [] Well if you think insults are a good method of argument, I hate to tell you you are wrong. Insults don't bother me. I deal with the facts: the calculations and measurements. You can believe what you like. And it won't hurt Mother nature's feelings either. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 00:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4df392f9-0055-41c8-83ce-f6125f01c813@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590556 |
On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 11:22:05 PM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 1:54:13 PM UTC-4, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 7:32:42 PM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 3:30:18 PM UTC-4, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > [] > > > > > > A friend of mine puts it this way: > > > All theories are wrong, but some are useful. > > > > > > Newton's theory is wrong, but it happens to compute motion > > > well enough to place a man on the moon. So it is useful. > > > > > > Newton's theory happens to fail in computing the precession > > > of the perihelion of Mercury. General relativity was able to > > > solve that problem. > > > > Anybody can put together a theory that predicts things precisely > > by fudging it to fit observation. GR's Mercury "prediction" was > > and after-the-fact postdiction. Ptolemaic epicycles can be just > > as accurate if you add more epicycles. It's all crap. > > You really need to learn a lot about science. > Epicycles were empirical hacks. There was no theory to predict motion of a newly discovered planet for example. > > Newton made a set of assumptions and his equations calculated a precession that was off. > > Einstein used different assumptions and his equations calculated > the precession very closely. > > The first test of any theory is: > Does it fit known facts. So yes, even a hack like James M. > can hack out a parameter based equation for the motion. > (Oops, not forget I said that. he could not even figure out > an empirical equation to predict mercury's precession > given the data up front.) > > BUT the second step is that it must make predictions. > > One prediction Einstein's theory predicted (since it was not measured until AFTER he published his theory) was the deflection of light by massive bodies like the sun. Newton's theory also can calculate such a deflection. There was a clear difference in the two theories by IIRC a factor of 2. Once the measurements were made, the data showed Einstein's calculations matched the measurements while newton's did not. > > > [] > > > > IOW, you are clueless and you're perpetrating a lie. > > Einstein's equivalence principle is a steaming pile of [] > > Well if you think insults are a good method of argument, > I hate to tell you you are wrong. > > Insults don't bother me. I deal with the facts: > the calculations and measurements. > You can believe what you like. And it won't hurt > Mother nature's feelings either. > :) Einstein was a third rate scientist, if you can call him that. He was wrong about so many things, it's not even funny. After all is said and done, he will be just a footnote in the annals of science, filed under "Aberration" and "Absurd Science". Eventually, he will be forgotten. How wrong was he? Let me count the ways. 1. He was wrong about continuity. Fact: The universe is discrete. 2. He was wrong about time. Fact: A time dimension makes motion impossible. Time cannot change by definition. 3. He was wrong about spacetime. Fact: Spacetime is a block universe in which nothing moves and nothing happens. 4. He was wrong about space. Fact: Space does not exist. 5. He was wrong about "spooky action at a distance". Fact: The universe is nonlocal. 6. He was wrong about the speed of gravity. Fact: Gravity is an instantaneous or nonlocal phenomenon. 7. He was wrong about determinism. Fact: God loves playing dice with the universe. 8. Finally, he was wrong about relativity. Fact: A universe in which only the relative exists is a self-referential universe. Deep down where it counts, everything is absolute. There is more but why beat a dead horse? ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 13:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <296dd05a-5daf-4702-b7c4-cc9c428ff14b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590558 |
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 3:09:19 AM UTC-4, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 11:22:05 PM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > > [] > > > > > > IOW, you are clueless and you're perpetrating a lie. > > > Einstein's equivalence principle is a steaming pile of [] > > > > Well if you think insults are a good method of argument, > > I hate to tell you you are wrong. > > > > Insults don't bother me. I deal with the facts: > > the calculations and measurements. > > You can believe what you like. And it won't hurt > > Mother nature's feelings either. > > :) > > Einstein was a third rate scientist, if you can call him that. > He was wrong about so many things, it's not even funny. After > all is said and done, he will be just a footnote in the annals > of science, filed under "Aberration" and "Absurd Science". More argument by insult. You can't seem to even buy a clue. > Eventually, he will be forgotten. How wrong was he? Let me count the ways. > > 1. He was wrong about continuity. Fact: The universe is discrete. And you experimental proof is...? > 2. He was wrong about time. Fact: A time dimension makes motion > impossible. Time cannot change by definition. By your definition of time? Granted there is interest in research in this area, what is time? But you claim to already have solved it, "by definition". > 3. He was wrong about spacetime. Fact: Spacetime is a block > universe in which nothing moves and nothing happens. Still looking for the proof, my friend. :) > 4. He was wrong about space. Fact: Space does not exist. Spacetime is a block but space doesn't exits. You cannot even make consistent statements. > 5. He was wrong about "spooky action at a distance". > Fact: The universe is nonlocal. Even he never claimed infallibility. That could be true. He only said he was uncomfortable with the idea. > 6. He was wrong about the speed of gravity. Fact: > Gravity is an instantaneous or nonlocal phenomenon. Well we are pretty sure you are wrong on this one, unless you have joined the LIGO deniers. > 7. He was wrong about determinism. Fact: God loves > playing dice with the universe. Hmm. So the universe is a block where nothing happens, yet it is non-deterministic. How contradictory do you really want to go? You are starting to sound like Trump! > 8. Finally, he was wrong about relativity. Fact: A > universe in which only the relative exists is a > self-referential universe. Deep down where it counts, > everything is absolute. Except of course where it is non-deterministic. > > There is more but why beat a dead horse? > > ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... So the universe is an unchanging block of discrete parts, where nothing happens, in a non-deterministic and absolute manner, instantly. All proven facts based on your authority. Now it's our turn to laugh. :) :) :) including me- 8^) ^^^ smiley with glasses
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 14:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <78fd7ebf-3f4a-4f3b-92fa-a8fe0d8e08db@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590599 |
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 1:11:45 PM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 3:09:19 AM UTC-4, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 11:22:05 PM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > [] > > > > > > > > IOW, you are clueless and you're perpetrating a lie. > > > > Einstein's equivalence principle is a steaming pile of [] > > > > > > Well if you think insults are a good method of argument, > > > I hate to tell you you are wrong. > > > > > > Insults don't bother me. I deal with the facts: > > > the calculations and measurements. > > > You can believe what you like. And it won't hurt > > > Mother nature's feelings either. > > > :) > > > > Einstein was a third rate scientist, if you can call him that. > > He was wrong about so many things, it's not even funny. After > > all is said and done, he will be just a footnote in the annals > > of science, filed under "Aberration" and "Absurd Science". > > More argument by insult. You can't seem to even buy a clue. > > > > Eventually, he will be forgotten. How wrong was he? Let me count the ways. > > > > 1. He was wrong about continuity. Fact: The universe is discrete. > > And you experimental proof is...? > > > 2. He was wrong about time. Fact: A time dimension makes motion > > impossible. Time cannot change by definition. > > By your definition of time? > Granted there is interest in research in this area, what is time? > But you claim to already have solved it, "by definition". > > > 3. He was wrong about spacetime. Fact: Spacetime is a block > > universe in which nothing moves and nothing happens. > > Still looking for the proof, my friend. :) > > > 4. He was wrong about space. Fact: Space does not exist. > > Spacetime is a block but space doesn't exits. > You cannot even make consistent statements. > > > 5. He was wrong about "spooky action at a distance". > > Fact: The universe is nonlocal. > > Even he never claimed infallibility. That could be true. > He only said he was uncomfortable with the idea. > > > 6. He was wrong about the speed of gravity. Fact: > > Gravity is an instantaneous or nonlocal phenomenon. > > Well we are pretty sure you are wrong on this one, unless you > have joined the LIGO deniers. > > > 7. He was wrong about determinism. Fact: God loves > > playing dice with the universe. > > Hmm. So the universe is a block where nothing happens, > yet it is non-deterministic. How contradictory do you > really want to go? You are starting to sound like Trump! > > > > 8. Finally, he was wrong about relativity. Fact: A > > universe in which only the relative exists is a > > self-referential universe. Deep down where it counts, > > everything is absolute. > > Except of course where it is non-deterministic. > > > > > There is more but why beat a dead horse? > > > > ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > > So the universe is an unchanging block of discrete parts, > where nothing happens, in a non-deterministic and absolute > manner, instantly. All proven facts based on your authority. > > Now it's our turn to laugh. > :) :) :) > including me- > 8^) > ^^^ smiley with glasses From my vantage point, you are an idiot and an ass kisser. You're stupid as shit. LOL. I bet you're a gutless physicist too. But, unfortunately for you, this "conversation" has come to an end. ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 19:16 -0700 |
| Subject | light is waves through the electronic matters of free space |
| Message-ID | <a14e35fd-ac18-4f85-bea7-264a7006e344@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590599 |
it was most unfortunate that Minkowski made such a gross ideal of a simple phase-space, with sylli slogans about time being equivalent to time, merely because of a graph; then, he died at 43, although he has a ton of other results in the theory of numbers e.g > Granted there is interest in research in this area, what is time? > But you claim to already have solved it, "by definition". > > > 3. He was wrong about spacetime. Fact: Spacetime is a block > > universe in which nothing moves and nothing happens. > > Still looking for the proof, my friend. :) > > > 4. He was wrong about space. Fact: Space does not exist. > > Spacetime is a block but space doesn't exits. > You cannot even make consistent statements. > > > 5. He was wrong about "spooky action at a distance". > > Fact: The universe is nonlocal. > > Even he never claimed infallibility. That could be true. > He only said he was uncomfortable with the idea. > > > 6. He was wrong about the speed of gravity. Fact: > > Gravity is an instantaneous or nonlocal phenomenon. > > Well we are pretty sure you are wrong on this one, unless you > have joined the LIGO deniers. > > > 7. He was wrong about determinism. Fact: God loves > > playing dice with the universe. > > Hmm. So the universe is a block where nothing happens, > yet it is non-deterministic. How contradictory do you > really want to go? You are starting to sound like Trump! > > > > 8. Finally, he was wrong about relativity. Fact: A > > universe in which only the relative exists is a > > self-referential universe. Deep down where it counts, > > everything is absolute. > > Except of course where it is non-deterministic. > > > > > There is more but why beat a dead horse? > > > > ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > > So the universe is an unchanging block of discrete parts, > where nothing happens, in a non-deterministic and absolute > manner, instantly. All proven facts based on your authority. > > Now it's our turn to laugh. > :) :) :) > including me- > 8^) > ^^^ smiley with glasses
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web