Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #590110 > unrolled thread

Small enough- to be zero?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 11:11 -0700
    Re: Small enough- to be zero? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 13:18 -0500
    Re: Small enough- to be zero? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-20 12:57 -0700
    Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-20 16:30 -0500
      Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 14:45 -0700
        Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:06 -0700
          Re: Small enough- to be zero? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:16 -0700
            Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:42 -0700
              Re: Small enough- to be zero? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:59 -0700
          Re: Small enough- to be zero? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:58 -0700
            Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 16:32 -0700
              Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-20 18:39 -0500
                Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 17:03 -0700
                  Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-20 20:06 -0500
                  Re: Small enough- to be zero? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-21 14:20 +0000
                    Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 07:51 -0700
                      Re: Small enough- to be zero? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 08:25 -0700
                        Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-22 16:36 -0400
                          Re: Small enough- to be zero? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-07-22 14:05 -0700
                            Re: Small enough- to be zero? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-07-22 14:52 -0700
                      Re: Small enough- to be zero? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-21 15:25 +0000
                        Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 11:25 -0700
                          Re: Small enough- to be zero? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-22 00:48 +0000
                      haxacontaDELTAhedronic noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 13:47 -0700
                        stab a guess (or an i.s.i.s): hexacontaDELTAhedron a.k.a C_sixty noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:52 -0700
                          stab a guess (or those flamethrowers): hexacontaDELTAhedron a.k.a C_sixty noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 19:27 -0700
              Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-20 20:55 -0400
                Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 18:04 -0700
            Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-20 20:37 -0400
              Re: Small enough- to be zero? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 07:44 -0700
                Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-22 16:33 -0400
          Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-20 18:39 -0500
          Re: Small enough- to be zero? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 02:08 -0700
            Re: Small enough- to be zero? "Eduardo J. Berringer" <invalid@example.com> - 2016-07-24 11:21 -0700
            Re: Small enough- to be zero? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-07-24 12:48 -0700
    Re: Small enough- to be zero? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 09:39 -0700
      Re: Small enough- to be zero? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 15:21 -0700
        Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-22 16:49 -0400
    Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-22 12:04 +1000
      Re: Small enough- to be zero? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-21 23:54 -0700
        Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-23 11:57 +1000
          Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-23 17:01 -0400
            Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-24 10:52 +1000
              Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-23 21:25 -0400
    Re: Small enough- to be zero? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 18:09 -0700
    Re: Small enough- to be zero? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 13:31 -0700
      Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-23 17:20 -0400

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#590110 — Small enough- to be zero?

Some posters, here, think that
at small enough scales, there
are no more particles. Just energy
of some sort, I suppose.
I'm guessing these are the same
ones who deny that organization 
might be found on a Cosmic scale.
And, probably, the same ones
who think that Humans are a total fluke
on our Earth alone, and chances
of it happening on some other planet
are nil to none. And probably, also,
total atheists.

Hmm. Just trying to see the pattern:
they're in pattern-denial

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#590112

On 7/20/2016 1:11 PM, john wrote:
> Some posters, here, think that
> at small enough scales, there
> are no more particles. Just energy
> of some sort, I suppose.

Yes.

> I'm guessing these are the same
> ones who deny that organization
> might be found on a Cosmic scale.

No, no denying that. Just not the same kind of organization you see in 
atoms.

> And, probably, the same ones
> who think that Humans are a total fluke
> on our Earth alone, and chances
> of it happening on some other planet
> are nil to none.

Heck no. Intelligent life almost certainly exists elsewhere in the 
universe. Just not very likely to be close enough to us to visit us in 
little ships. Nor very likely to be interested enough in us to make the 
visit.

> And probably, also,
> total atheists.

Well, I'm sure there are some on both sides of that camp.

>
> Hmm. Just trying to see the pattern:
> they're in pattern-denial
>

Maybe some of the patterns you see are you jumping to enormous and 
unsubstantiated conclusions. Such as: Everybody that disbelieves one 
thing you believe also disbelieves everything else you believe. Such as: 
Anybody who doesn't believe what you believe is in denial. (What 
arrogance, John!)


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590122

john wrote:
> 
> Some posters, here, think that
> at small enough scales, there
> are no more particles. Just energy
> of some sort, I suppose.
> I'm guessing these are the same
> ones who deny that organization
> might be found on a Cosmic scale.
> And, probably, the same ones
> who think that Humans are a total fluke
> on our Earth alone, and chances
> of it happening on some other planet
> are nil to none. And probably, also,
> total atheists.
> 
> Hmm. Just trying to see the pattern:
> they're in pattern-denial


Do you see a pattern or a repeat of the planet Earth anywhere?
https://www.google.com/#q=define+pattern

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590124

On 7/20/2016 1:11 PM, john wrote:
> Some posters, here, think that
> at small enough scales, there
> are no more particles. Just energy
> of some sort, I suppose.

particles are energy

> I'm guessing these are the same
> ones who deny that organization
> might be found on a Cosmic scale.

what type of organization ?
"might be found " ?
why be concerned on "the same ones who deny" ?
       that is obtuse.

> And, probably, the same ones
> who think that Humans are a total fluke
> on our Earth alone, and chances
> of it happening on some other planet
> are nil to none.

the same ones ?
trying to blame a group of people for their beliefs ?
this is the USA

how many planets have liquid water on them that get about 1000 watts per 
sq meter from its sun, and has a gravity like earths, 3 to 0.5 as much ?

got anything ?

> And *probably*, also,
> total atheists.

*weasel word*


>
> Hmm. Just trying to see the pattern:
> they're in pattern-denial

patterns are a human construct.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590126

Sergio said
"
patterns are a human construct. 
"
What about diamond?
Buckyballs?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590131

Yes, particles are energy.
But is the energy making up
subatomic particles, itself,
patterned in any way?
And is there, anywhere in the
Cosmos, a sphere of 60 identical
galaxies?
Why or why not?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590134

well, why don't you make a tiny stab at hypothesis

> And is there, anywhere in the
> Cosmos, a sphere of 60 identical
> galaxies?
> Why or why not?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590140

Yes
I thought: a very tiny stab

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590142

the thing is that,
you aresupposed to thinkfirst,
typelater

> I thought: a very tiny stab

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590141

john
Yes, particles are energy. 
But is the energy making up 
subatomic particles, itself, 
patterned in any way? 
And is there, anywhere in the 
Cosmos, a sphere of 60 identical 
galaxies? 
Why or why not? 
----------

John you're as soft as a sneaker full of warm puppy shit

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590148

HVAC
Do you know what pattern the
Buckyball is in?
a. baseball
b. soccer ball
c. basketball 

(I'm trying to make HVAC comfortable 
by making the questions identical
to every test he ever took.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590150

On 7/20/2016 6:32 PM, john wrote:
> HVAC
> Do you know what pattern the
> Buckyball is in?
> a. baseball
> b. soccer ball
> c. basketball
>
> (I'm trying to make HVAC comfortable
> by making the questions identical
> to every test he ever took.)
>

d. none of the above

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590151

Sergio said
"d. none of the above "
Bzzt!! Wrong!
From whereverpedia 
"
Buckminsterfullerene is a spherical fullerene molecule with the formula C₆₀. It has a cage-like fused-ring structure which resembles a football, made of twenty hexagons and twelve pentagons, with ... Wikipedia"
In this case, "football" is a soccer ball
for you Americans that waited behind

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590167

On 7/20/2016 7:03 PM, john wrote:
> Sergio said "d. none of the above " Bzzt!! Wrong! From whereverpedia
>  " Buckminsterfullerene is a spherical fullerene molecule with the
> formula C₆₀. It has a cage-like fused-ring structure which resembles
> a football, made of twenty hexagons and twelve pentagons, with ...
> Wikipedia" In this case, "football" is a soccer ball for you
> Americans that waited behind
>

you are right !

you win, I am so humaniliated...

I didnt know... the shame, ugh,,,

    but so easy to visulize

from a socker site;

Twelve pentagons and 20 hexagons form a figure known to mathematicians
as a truncated icosahedron, to chemists as the buckminsterfullerene
molecule—and to nearly everybody else as the standard soccer ball. As
this summer's World Cup competition approached, a soccer
bail-shaped information pavilion toured the German cities preparing to
host World Cup matches. Here the "football globe" makes a stop
in Leipzig. The iconic black and white soccer ball is also an intriguing
puzzle amenable to mathematical analysis. Other soccer balls that may
never be seen on the playing field also offer interesting solutions to
the mathematical questions posed by the standard design


So Carbon stole that shape from Soccker ball !

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590188

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Sergio said
>"d. none of the above "
>Bzzt!! Wrong!
>From whereverpedia 
>"
>Buckminsterfullerene is a spherical fullerene molecule with the formula C>₆₀. It has a cage-like fused-ring structure which resembles> a football, made of twenty hexagons and twelve pentagons, with ... Wikiped>ia"
>In this case, "football" is a soccer ball
>for you Americans that waited behind

Yeah, but so what?  Or are you going to claim that buckminsterfullerene is
proof that those creatures "on the next level down" are huge soccer fans?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590191

Michael obtused
"Yeah, but so what?  Or are you going to claim that buckminsterfullerene is 
proof that those creatures "on the next level down" are huge soccer fans? "
I think you missed the point.
The point is: there is ORDER at a
size scale JUST ABOVE where you say
there is no order.
Ergo.
QM is totally full of shit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590193

john
Michael obtused 
"Yeah, but so what?  Or are you going to claim that buckminsterfullerene is 
proof that those creatures "on the next level down" are huge soccer fans? " 
I think you missed the point. 
The point is: there is ORDER at a 
size scale JUST ABOVE where you say 
there is no order. 
Ergo. 
QM is totally full of shit. 
----------

John while you and BJ may believe in ghosts, UFOs, esp, and many other batshit crazy ideas, at least you make me pretense of being a scientist. BJ has learned to repeat a few sciencey sounding words but he fails to show any scientific discipline. He lives in the fantasy land of make believe 'science'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590356

On 7/21/2016 11:25 AM, HVAC wrote:
> john Michael obtused "Yeah, but so what?  Or are you going to claim
> that buckminsterfullerene is proof that those creatures "on the next
> level down" are huge soccer fans? " I think you missed the point. The
> point is: there is ORDER at a size scale JUST ABOVE where you say
> there is no order. Ergo. QM is totally full of shit. ----------
>
> John while you and BJ may believe in ghosts, UFOs, esp, and many
> other batshit crazy ideas, at least you make me pretense of being a
> scientist. BJ has learned to repeat a few sciencey sounding words but
> he fails to show any scientific discipline. He lives in the fantasy
> land of make believe 'science'
>
John, this is post is what HVAC calls a "discussion of science" where he 
avoids "sciencey sounding words" and demonstrates his vast education in 
science. Certainly no fantasy in any of HVAC's "ghost" posts.

Anyone EVER heard him use a "sciencey" term?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590371

On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 1:36:34 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
> On 7/21/2016 11:25 AM, HVAC wrote:
> > john Michael obtused "Yeah, but so what?  Or are you going to claim
> > that buckminsterfullerene is proof that those creatures "on the next
> > level down" are huge soccer fans? " I think you missed the point. The
> > point is: there is ORDER at a size scale JUST ABOVE where you say
> > there is no order. Ergo. QM is totally full of shit. ----------
> >
> > John while you and BJ may believe in ghosts, UFOs, esp, and many
> > other batshit crazy ideas, at least you make me pretense of being a
> > scientist. BJ has learned to repeat a few sciencey sounding words but
> > he fails to show any scientific discipline. He lives in the fantasy
> > land of make believe 'science'
> >
> John, this is post is what HVAC calls a "discussion of science" where he 
> avoids "sciencey sounding words" and demonstrates his vast education in 
> science. Certainly no fantasy in any of HVAC's "ghost" posts.
> 
> Anyone EVER heard him use a "sciencey" term?


I think Harlow has often dreamed of being a scientist!

Double-A

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590388

"Double-A" <double-a3@hush.com> admitted & wrote:
> I think "AA" is the filthy SWINE <double-a3@hush.com> 
"Abner Afterduft" the "Alcoholic Addict" doubles as 
<nobody@home.invalid> "Anon E. Mouse" or Anon Y. Mouse", 
"Anon Yidd Mouse" who does NOT mind that Full-swine Glazier 
is a Face shitter and a criminal Grave yard vandal who never 
recanted nor apologized for that.....

...Aux contraire, SWINE <double-a3@hush.com> cum Yidd 
Mouse, the Kike, comes to the defense & aid of Full Swine Glazier's 
criminality, & worse, the Jewish Pig "AA Anon Yidd Mouse" curses 
folks that point at Glazier's behavior, which makes AA Yidd Mouse 
to be a perfect example of the lurid "Closeness" which the eminent 
Jewish Scholar Harold Wallace Rosenthal ||R:|| describes in his epic
<http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>
wherein it says:
||R:|| We Jews have a solidarity & a closeness to
||R:|| fellow Jews like none other in the world.
||R:|| We Jews are always 'as one' when it counts.
>> > >
||R:|| It's no secret that we Jews do not respect
||R:|| you gentiles. All of you are our enemies.
||R:|| Our Jewish beliefs are entirely different from yours.
||R:|| Our Talmud/Nedarim/Kol Nidre = "all vows" allows
||R:|| us Jews to lie, subvert and cheat you, the Goyim
>> > >
which is echoed by 
benj" Ben Jacoby <nobody@gmail.com> wh9o wrote:
One only has to read Glazier's posts to see when Bert was lobotomized.
But Herb found poster "Double-A" who likes to be like Glazier,
but "Alkie-Alkie Mouse" is another kook who is as dumb as Bert is...
and promote that shitting into a bucket in a car is an achievement
that is a laudable accomplishment... and both being Communists
they demand entitlement to goods and services that were created
by hardworking people while they themselves drink, party and frolic!...
... still waiting "to be loved by all"...


>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web