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 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#590194

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> tarded:

>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.

You repeatedly CLAIMED that, but where is the evidence?
Where is the scientific falsification?  Where is there an
observation or experiment where the outcome if a lower
level of order exists is A but the outcome if there is no
lower level of order is B?

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

#590212

Michael said
"ou repeatedly CLAIMED that, but where is the evidence? 
Where is the scientific falsification?  Where is there an 
observation or experiment where the outcome if a lower 
level of order exists is A but the outcome if there is no 
lower level of order is B? "

The thing is, Michael, that if you have order
ANYWHERE, then there must be order
both up and down the scale.
Mathematics proves this.

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

#590264

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> tarded:

>The thing is, Michael, that if you have order
>ANYWHERE, then there must be order
>both up and down the scale.
>Mathematics proves this.

How?

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

#590238 — haxacontaDELTAhedronic

a.k.a soccerballene, but that is just the C_60 variant, since
one can find any C_2n form, including I thing C_2.  anyway,
I dyscovered a long time ago, what Bucky should have:
what is the dual representation

> "Yeah, but so what?  Or are you going to claim that buckminsterfullerene is 

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

#590710 — stab a guess (or an i.s.i.s): hexacontaDELTAhedron a.k.a C_sixty

of course, photons do not have mass;
they are completely spatial waves in the elctrons\protons
of free space ... why, they are "electron-magnetic, although
the protons must also have a succinct role, even if
no-one has ever dycussed this. so,
now, the deltahedra in my dual model constitute the atoms of carbon,
in contrast to the usual representation as trivalent vertices
of the soccerball; but
there are two ways to represent them

> a.k.a soccerballene, but that is just the C_60 variant, since
> one can find any C_2n form, including I thing C_2.  anyway,
> I dyscovered a long time ago, what Bucky should have:
> what is the dual representation
> 
> > "Yeah, but so what?  Or are you going to claim that buckminsterfullerene is

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

#590764 — stab a guess (or those flamethrowers): hexacontaDELTAhedron a.k.a C_sixty

it is simply whether one uses equigonal deltahedra
-- but that is not convex -- or isoceles deltahedra;
so, surely, either has gOOd aspects

> now, the deltahedra in my dual model constitute the atoms of carbon,
> in contrast to the usual representation as trivalent vertices
> of the soccerball; but
> there are two ways to represent them
> 
> > a.k.a soccerballene, but that is just the C_60 variant, since
> > one can find any C_2n form, including I thing C_2.  anyway,

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

#590163

On 7/20/2016 7:32 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.)
>
HVAC's method was to always answer "b" no matter what. It got him the 
second highest grades in the class!

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

#590166

Benj said
"HVAC's method was to always answer "b" no matter what. It got him the 
second highest grades in the class! "
Yes.
That's why I made the question like that.
He's better on true or false

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

#590157

On 7/20/2016 6:58 PM, HVAC wrote:
> 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
>
Non-sequitur.

HVAC, give up journalism and learn a real trade.

Your insane babble is getting as bad as Treebert.

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

#590190

BJ quacked
Non-sequitur. 

HVAC, give up journalism and learn a real trade. 
-------------

I have a real trade. It's being lazy. I spend my days in idle contemplation and fishing. Say, how's the job bagging groceries at the market going? 

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

#590355

On 7/21/2016 10:44 AM, HVAC drooled:
> BJ quacked Non-sequitur.
>
> HVAC, give up journalism and learn a real trade. -------------
>
> I have a real trade. It's being lazy. I spend my days in idle
> contemplation and fishing. Say, how's the job bagging groceries at
> the market going?

Folks, the above post is what HVAC calls "coauthoring books on 
differential geometry".  Got it?

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

#590149

On 7/20/2016 5:06 PM, john wrote:
> Yes, particles are energy.
> But is the energy making up
> subatomic particles, itself,
> patterned in any way?

I think you need different word...

pat·tern  (păt′ərn)
n.
1.
a. A usually repeating artistic or decorative design: a paisley pattern. 
See Synonyms at figure.
b. A natural or accidental arrangement or sequence: the pattern of 
rainfall over the past year.
2.
a. A plan, diagram, or model to be followed in making things: a dress 
pattern.
b. A model or original used for imitation or as an archetype. See 
Synonyms at ideal.
3. A consistent, characteristic form, style, or method, as:
a. A composite of traits or features characteristic of an individual or 
a group: one's pattern of behavior.
b. Form and style in an artistic work or body of artistic works.
4.
a. The configuration of gunshots upon a target that is used as an 
indication of skill in shooting.
b. The distribution and spread, around a targeted region, of spent 
shrapnel, bomb fragments, or shot from a shotgun.
5. Enough material to make a complete garment.
6. A test pattern.
7. The flight path of an aircraft about to land: a flight pattern.
8. Football A pass pattern.


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

how identical ?  100% of all atoms in same realitve 60 locations in save 
vibratory state ?  nope.

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

#590561

On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 1:06:44 AM UTC+3, john wrote:
> Yes, particles are energy.
========================
particles are one thing 
and energy is another thing !!!
THOUGH 
ALL OF THEM HAS MASS !!
=================================================
NO MASS - THE ONLY !!! MASS - NO REAAL PHYSICS ??
==================================================
even photons has mass -the only mass !!
not relativist c and not schmelativistic mass 

there is no such thing as 'relativistic Mass'
the photon mass
is an exception to the rule that
''no mass can reach c 
iow
it has mass the only mass
and yet - move at c !!!
=====================================
ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION !!
--------------------------------
PARTICLES IS 
SOME MORE COMPOSURE  OF  SUB PARTICLES
---------------------------------------- 
JUST AS SIMPLE AS THAT !!!
--
so we don't need more balls boggling's
----
old  copyright of
Y.Porat
to make some law and simple order 
in some  confused minds !!
=================
TIA
Y.Porat
=============================================
============================= 
 

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

#590585

shitpost

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

#590592

On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 2:08:57 AM UTC-7, Y.Porat wrote:
> On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 1:06:44 AM UTC+3, john wrote:
> > Yes, particles are energy.
> ========================
> particles are one thing 
> and energy is another thing !!!
> THOUGH 
> ALL OF THEM HAS MASS !!
> =================================================
> NO MASS - THE ONLY !!! MASS - NO REAAL PHYSICS ??
> ==================================================
> even photons has mass -the only mass !!
> not relativist c and not schmelativistic mass 
> 
> there is no such thing as 'relativistic Mass'
> the photon mass
> is an exception to the rule that
> ''no mass can reach c 
> iow
> it has mass the only mass
> and yet - move at c !!!
> =====================================
> ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION !!
> --------------------------------
> PARTICLES IS 
> SOME MORE COMPOSURE  OF  SUB PARTICLES
> ---------------------------------------- 
> JUST AS SIMPLE AS THAT !!!
> --
> so we don't need more balls boggling's
> ----
> old  copyright of
> Y.Porat
> to make some law and simple order 
> in some  confused minds !!
> =================
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> =============================================
> =============================


I think c, celeritis, is more of a limit that nothing can reach, not even photons.  But photons, perhaps having the least mass, may come the closest to it.  

Double-A

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

#590200

On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 11:11:41 AM UTC-7, 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

Energy and matter can never be brought to zero.That is a given. TreBert

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

#590252

reber g=emc^2
- show quoted text -
Energy and matter can never be brought to zero.That is a given. TreBert 
---------

What in the flying fandango fuck are you talking about now? 

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

#590363

On 7/21/2016 6:21 PM, HVAC drooled:
> reber g=emc^2
> - show quoted text -
> Energy and matter can never be brought to zero.That is a given. TreBert
> ---------
>
> What in the flying fandango fuck are you talking about now?
>
Folks, this is what HVAC thinks is a "sciencey" explanation to treebert 
attempting to straighten out his imperial thinking.

Who left the door open and the nutjobs wandered in?

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

#590272

On 21/07/2016 4:11 AM, 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
>

We have no basis for forming a view about the likelihood  of intelligent 
life on other planets. All we know about intelligent life (and indeed 
life at all) is that it's possible. The universe could be teeming with 
life, or Earth could be the only place. Until we have more data, that's 
all we can say.

Finding life on Europa or Mars, or evidence of past life (being life 
clearly unrelated to life on Earth), would be a huge step forward. Not 
finding it there would tell us little.

Sylvia.

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

#590285

Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
> On 21/07/2016 4:11 AM, 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
> >
> 
> We have no basis for forming a view about the likelihood  of intelligent
> life on other planets. All we know about intelligent life (and indeed
> life at all) is that it's possible. 


No, is that it's impossible.



Where does it say that..."that it's possible"? You mean wishful
thinkers...


Truth is...


All 'we' know about intelligent life (and indeed
life at all on other planets) is that it's Impossible. 


Impossible!


Say it, Impossible.


Somebody Mrs. Else is giving you the wrong information...who?

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web