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

Groups > sci.physics > #592728 > unrolled thread

The New Gravity Theory

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The New Gravity Theory Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 22:14 -0400
    Re: The New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-10 22:36 -0400
      Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-11 05:34 -0400
    Re: The New Gravity Theory Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 20:30 -0700
      Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-11 05:29 -0400
    Re: The New Gravity Theory bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 13:16 +0200
      Re: The New Gravity Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 06:41 -0700
        Re: The New Gravity Theory bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 16:29 +0200
        Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 09:35 -0500
          Re: The New Gravity Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 08:11 -0700
            Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 10:49 -0500
              Re: The New Gravity Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 09:14 -0700
                Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 11:28 -0500
                Re: The New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-11 17:48 +0000
                  Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 13:21 -0500
                    Re: The New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-11 18:20 -0400
                      Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 17:35 -0500
                        Re: The New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-11 22:30 -0400
                          Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 07:27 -0500
                  Re: The New Gravity Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 11:24 -0700
                    Re: The New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-12 15:36 +0000
                      "theory of **** noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 12:38 -0700
                        "theory of **** john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 16:22 -0700
                          "theory of **** john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 19:33 -0700
                            Re: "theory of **** moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-13 03:11 +0000
                              Re: "theory of **** john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 08:06 -0700
                                Re: "theory of **** Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 11:40 -0500
                                Re: "theory of **** moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-13 17:23 +0000
                                "theory of ideal gasses & beyond them noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 10:30 -0700
                  Re: The New Gravity Theory margaretporat@gmail.com - 2016-08-15 01:58 -0700
      Re: The New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-11 17:59 -0400
        Re: The New Gravity Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 16:18 -0700
        Re: The New Gravity Theory bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 14:45 +0200
    Re: The New Gravity Theory LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 10:10 -0700
      Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 12:38 -0500
        Re: The New Gravity Theory LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 11:05 -0700
          Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 13:30 -0500
            Re: The New Gravity Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 11:47 -0700
              Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 14:19 -0500
                Re: The New Gravity Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 13:21 -0700
                  Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 15:47 -0500
                    Re: The New Gravity Theory xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-11 13:55 -0700
                      Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 16:32 -0500
                  Re: The New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-12 15:50 +0000
                    Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 10:59 -0500
                Re: The New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-11 18:31 -0400
                  Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 17:39 -0500
            Re: The New Gravity Theory noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 13:43 -0700
            Re: The New Gravity Theory LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 15:40 -0700
              Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 17:45 -0500
                Re: The New Gravity Theory LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 16:37 -0700
                  Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 19:10 -0500
                    Re: The New Gravity Theory LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 17:31 -0700
            Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 02:54 -0700
            Re: The New Gravity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-14 10:35 +0200
              Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 08:17 -0500
                Re: The New Gravity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-15 21:19 +0200
                  Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 13:26 -0500
                    Re: The New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-16 19:17 +0000
                      Re: The New Gravity Theory Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 12:44 -0700
                      Re: The New Gravity Theory noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 14:54 -0700
                      Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 13:52 -0500
                        zero thus defined noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 11:08 -0700
                      Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-19 23:07 -0700
                        Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 10:14 -0500
                          Re: The New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-20 20:59 -0400
                          Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-20 23:00 -0700
                            Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 18:12 -0500
                              Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-21 23:31 -0700
                it's a military-marhcing theme noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 15:43 -0700
                  Re: it's a military-marhcing theme LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 16:28 -0700
        Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-12 04:59 -0400
          Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 10:38 -0500
            Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 23:35 -0700
            Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-14 20:07 -0400
              Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 08:43 -0500
        Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 02:49 -0700
    Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 02:39 -0700
      Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-12 06:41 -0400
        Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 08:49 -0700
    Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 04:28 -0700
    Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 23:34 -0700
      skwaresville noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 10:35 -0700
        skwaresville john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 15:03 -0700
          Re: skwaresville moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-14 00:50 +0000
        Re: skwaresville poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-14 00:04 -0700
    Re: The New Gravity Theory xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-13 18:30 -0700
      Re: The New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-13 21:50 -0400
        Re: The New Gravity Theory xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-14 10:29 -0700
      Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-14 20:11 -0400
        Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-14 17:46 -0700
          Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-14 23:54 -0700
            Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-15 05:52 -0700

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#593439

so, an electron has to hop to your orbit, or
where ever

> >photon-charged-particle vertex, so that photons interact with photons 
> >only via a charged particle intermediary.
> 
> >Photons only interact with things bearing electric charge.
> 
> Yes, photons don't interact with photons directly. However, a photon
> could become a virtual e+e- pair momentarily and a second  photon
> could interact with the e+ or e- before they annihilate into the
> first photon again. Kind of like Hawking radiation starts out as
> a virtual e+e- pair.

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

#593689

On 8/16/2016 2:17 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 8/15/2016 2:19 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/14/2016 3:35 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> But photons do not interact with photons.
>>>>> How did you get that idea?
>>>>
>>>> Photons only interact with charged particles.
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics>
>>>
>
>> Right, and take a look at the Feynman diagrams in that article. Do you
>> see any photon-photon vertices? No. What you see is a
>> photon-charged-particle vertex, so that photons interact with photons
>> only via a charged particle intermediary.
>
>> Photons only interact with things bearing electric charge.
>
> Yes, photons don't interact with photons directly. However, a photon
> could become a virtual e+e- pair momentarily and a second  photon
> could interact with the e+ or e- before they annihilate into the
> first photon again. Kind of like Hawking radiation starts out as
> a virtual e+e- pair.
>

Yes, and I called this out too in my original response. The key 
distinction is that there is a gluon-gluon vertex in QCD, whereas there 
is no photon-photon vertex in QED. This of course has lots of 
implications (antiscreening in vacuum polarization, for example).

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

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

#593813 — zero thus defined

it is really just a matter of the dystinction
netween bosons & anti-bosons

> > first photon again. Kind of like Hawking radiation starts out as
> > a virtual e+e- pair.
> >
> 
> Yes, and I called this out too in my original response. The key 
> distinction is that there is a gluon-gluon vertex in QCD, whereas there 
> is no photon-photon vertex in QED. This of course has lots of 
> implications (antiscreening in vacuum polarization, for example).
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#593912

בתאריך יום שלישי, 16 באוגוסט 2016 בשעה 22:19:01 UTC+3, מאת Michael Moroney:
> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >On 8/15/2016 2:19 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 8/14/2016 3:35 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>> But photons do not interact with photons.
> >>>> How did you get that idea?
> >>>
> >>> Photons only interact with charged particles.
> >>
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics>
> >>
> 
> >Right, and take a look at the Feynman diagrams in that article. Do you 
> >see any photon-photon vertices? No. What you see is a 
> >photon-charged-particle vertex, so that photons interact with photons 
> >only via a charged particle intermediary.
> 
> >Photons only interact with things bearing electric charge.
> 
> Yes, photons don't interact with photons directly. However, a photon
> could become a virtual e+e- pair momentarily and a second  photon
> could interact with the e+ or e- before they annihilate into the
> first photon again. Kind of like Hawking radiation starts out as
> a virtual e+e- pair.
=============================
Take 2  light torches
direct them one against the other 

THEY WILL   *ACT* ONE AGAINST THE OTHER !!
you will see some of that light 
dispersed sideways !!!

(copyright experiment) 
20/8/2016

============================
Y.Porat
================================

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

#593940

On 8/20/2016 1:07 AM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote:
> =============================
> Take 2  light torches
> direct them one against the other
>
> THEY WILL   *ACT* ONE AGAINST THE OTHER !!
> you will see some of that light
> dispersed sideways !!!
>
> (copyright experiment)
> 20/8/2016
>
> ============================
> Y.Porat
> ================================

What, are you nuts???

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

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

#593993

On 8/20/2016 11:14 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/20/2016 1:07 AM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote:
>> =============================
>> Take 2  light torches
>> direct them one against the other
>>
>> THEY WILL   *ACT* ONE AGAINST THE OTHER !!
>> you will see some of that light
>> dispersed sideways !!!
>>
>> (copyright experiment)
>> 20/8/2016
>>
>> ============================
>> Y.Porat
>> ================================
>
> What, are you nuts???

What? You have to ask Y if he's nuts?

You might as well as me if I'm a kook!

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

#594005

בתאריך יום שבת, 20 באוגוסט 2016 בשעה 18:14:30 UTC+3, מאת Odd Bodkin:
> On 8/20/2016 1:07 AM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote:
> > =============================
> > Take 2  light torches
> > direct them one against the other
> >
> > THEY WILL   *ACT* ONE AGAINST THE OTHER !!
> > you will see some of that light
> > dispersed sideways !!!
> >
> > (copyright experiment)
> > 20/8/2016
> >
> > ============================
> > Y.Porat
> > ================================
> 
> What, are you nuts???
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
=============================
imbecile parrot   block  head 
have you ever heard about 
interference of waves ??!!!!
Y.Porat
==================================

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

#594117

On 8/21/2016 1:00 AM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote:
> בתאריך יום שבת, 20 באוגוסט 2016 בשעה 18:14:30 UTC+3, מאת Odd Bodkin:
>> On 8/20/2016 1:07 AM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote:
>>> =============================
>>> Take 2  light torches
>>> direct them one against the other
>>>
>>> THEY WILL   *ACT* ONE AGAINST THE OTHER !!
>>> you will see some of that light
>>> dispersed sideways !!!
>>>
>>> (copyright experiment)
>>> 20/8/2016
>>>
>>> ============================
>>> Y.Porat
>>> ================================
>>
>> What, are you nuts???
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> =============================
> imbecile parrot   block  head
> have you ever heard about
> interference of waves ??!!!!
> Y.Porat
> ==================================

Yes of course. That is not the result of two beams colliding and being 
dispersed sideways. Good grief.


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

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

#594162

בתאריך יום שני, 22 באוגוסט 2016 בשעה 02:12:22 UTC+3, מאת Odd Bodkin:
> On 8/21/2016 1:00 AM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote:
> > בתאריך יום שבת, 20 באוגוסט 2016 בשעה 18:14:30 UTC+3, מאת Odd Bodkin:
> >> On 8/20/2016 1:07 AM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> =============================
> >>> Take 2  light torches
> >>> direct them one against the other
> >>>
> >>> THEY WILL   *ACT* ONE AGAINST THE OTHER !!
> >>> you will see some of that light
> >>> dispersed sideways !!!
> >>>
> >>> (copyright experiment)
> >>> 20/8/2016
> >>>
> >>> ============================
> >>> Y.Porat
> >>> ================================
> >>
> >> What, are you nuts???
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > =============================
> > imbecile parrot   block  head
> > have you ever heard about
> > interference of waves ??!!!!
> > Y.Porat
> > ==================================
> 
> Yes of course. That is not the result of two beams colliding and being 
> dispersed sideways. Good grief.
> 
>
=====================
the problem with you that you was born as a parrot
and will die as such !!
our issue was 
does photons interact with each other 
you said no!! 
I showed you that you didn't think originally ---just parroting  
ie
no matter if they act on each other
by counter collision or 
side by side interaction !!

bottom line
PHOTONS CAN INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER!!
''by hook or by crock ''
right ??
(is it a copyright  insight of mine of mine
or not ??
or at least a right remark of mine ??

can you be decent for a change ??
2
had you understand my historic insight
====================================
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !!
==============================================
YOU WOUD UNDEWRSTAND THAT
SINCE
PHOTONS HAVE MASS - THE  ONLY MASS!!
THEY CAN INTERACT ONE WITH ANOTHER 
===================================

TIA
Y.Porat
===========================================

 

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

#593286 — it's a military-marhcing theme

it seems that the only impediment to comprehending light,
is Newton's falied corucular "theory, but
which is so predfominant becase of a)
Einstien, and b)
British public sch00ls hegemony in many areas (of course,
Oxford is the original Harry potteR p.s_1

> Correction: the only path for electrons to interact electromagnetically 
> with electrons is through an intermediary photon (where the photon 
> itself may have internal loop diagrams).
> 
> >
> >> But photons do not interact with photons.
> >
> > How did you get that idea?
> >
> 
> Photons only interact with charged particles.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#593301 — Re: it's a military-marhcing theme

On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 3:43:29 PM UTC-7, noTthaTguY wrote:
> it seems that the only impediment to comprehending light,
> is Newton's falied corucular "theory, but
> which is so predfominant becase of a)
> Einstien, and b)
> British public sch00ls hegemony in many areas (of course,
> Oxford is the original Harry potteR p.s_1
> 
> > Correction: the only path for electrons to interact electromagnetically 
> > with electrons is through an intermediary photon (where the photon 
> > itself may have internal loop diagrams).
> > 
> > >
> > >> But photons do not interact with photons.
> > >
> > > How did you get that idea?
> > >
> > 
> > Photons only interact with charged particles.
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Whoever is running this bot should stop it. It's a stinking pile of crap.

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

#592883

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 12:38:12 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
wrote:

...

>In science, anyway, experiment trumps all human expectations of how the universe 
>should work.

While I like your description of QCD, I must admit I'm getting tired
of that old "experiments trump expectations" and logic which are based
on the multitude of experiments consistent with expectations which
came before and not just arbitrary whims that strike the theorist's
fancy.

The problem with experiments is that they are usually designed to test
a hypothesis and there is a bias toward or away from confirming that
hypothesis. The methods and apparatus may easily introduce known and
unknown effects which are not properly accounted for and which would
counter or distort any conclusions derived from the data.

There is also a bias toward discovering and reporting new phenomena
whether they exist of not in order to gain attention and funding. Once
a new phenomenon is accepted by the scientific community, all later
theories must be reconciled with it in order to be accepted even
though its not very likely that all our accepted theories are correct.

Therefore I don't consider experiments to be as sacrosanct as many
people. The data may be misinterpreted and the conclusions may neglect
other processes and effects.

---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

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

#592914

On 8/12/2016 3:59 AM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 12:38:12 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> In science, anyway, experiment trumps all human expectations of how the universe
>> should work.
>
> While I like your description of QCD, I must admit I'm getting tired
> of that old "experiments trump expectations" and logic which are based
> on the multitude of experiments consistent with expectations which
> came before and not just arbitrary whims that strike the theorist's
> fancy.
>
> The problem with experiments is that they are usually designed to test
> a hypothesis and there is a bias toward or away from confirming that
> hypothesis. The methods and apparatus may easily introduce known and
> unknown effects which are not properly accounted for and which would
> counter or distort any conclusions derived from the data.

I would contest this. I disagree that there is "usually" a bias toward 
or away from confirming a hypothesis. A well designed experiment 
provides valuable information regardless of outcome.

Now it is true that if there are multiple hypotheses, and experiment can 
be designed so that it gives a clearer answer (yea or nay) about one of 
those hypotheses than for the other hypotheses.

One of the core skills of an experimental team is to *thoroughly* 
understand sources of error and misleading background, and it this is 
where most of the work is in setting the uncertainty value in the quoted 
result.

>
> There is also a bias toward discovering and reporting new phenomena
> whether they exist of not in order to gain attention and funding. Once
> a new phenomenon is accepted by the scientific community, all later
> theories must be reconciled with it in order to be accepted even
> though its not very likely that all our accepted theories are correct.
>
> Therefore I don't consider experiments to be as sacrosanct as many
> people. The data may be misinterpreted and the conclusions may neglect
> other processes and effects.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
> ---------------------------------------------------
>


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

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

#593001

בתאריך יום שישי, 12 באוגוסט 2016 בשעה 18:38:12 UTC+3, מאת Odd Bodkin:
> On 8/12/2016 3:59 AM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 12:38:12 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> In science, anyway, experiment trumps all human expectations of how the universe
> >> should work.
> >
> > While I like your description of QCD, I must admit I'm getting tired
> > of that old "experiments trump expectations" and logic which are based
> > on the multitude of experiments consistent with expectations which
> > came before and not just arbitrary whims that strike the theorist's
> > fancy.
> >
> > The problem with experiments is that they are usually designed to test
> > a hypothesis and there is a bias toward or away from confirming that
> > hypothesis. The methods and apparatus may easily introduce known and
> > unknown effects which are not properly accounted for and which would
> > counter or distort any conclusions derived from the data.
> 
> I would contest this. I disagree that there is "usually" a bias toward 
> or away from confirming a hypothesis. A well designed experiment 
> provides valuable information regardless of outcome.
> 
> Now it is true that if there are multiple hypotheses, and experiment can 
> be designed so that it gives a clearer answer (yea or nay) about one of 
> those hypotheses than for the other hypotheses.
> 
> One of the core skills of an experimental team is to *thoroughly* 
> understand sources of error and misleading background, and it this is 
> where most of the work is in setting the uncertainty value in the quoted 
> result.
> 
> >
> > There is also a bias toward discovering and reporting new phenomena
> > whether they exist of not in order to gain attention and funding. Once
> > a new phenomenon is accepted by the scientific community, all later
> > theories must be reconciled with it in order to be accepted even
> > though its not very likely that all our accepted theories are correct.
> >
> > Therefore I don't consider experiments to be as sacrosanct as many
> > people. The data may be misinterpreted and the conclusions may neglect
> > other processes and effects.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
> > 
> >=============================
very nice !!!

it seems that the  anonymous crok thief Paul  Draper (bodkin)
starts to be influenced by us (the opposition guys 
and stick to his blockhead   parroting head 
that 
EXPERIMENTS ARE ''EXPERIMENTS '''' 
AND CAN BE SUBJECTED T A BISED (EVEN CROOCKED )
INTERESNANTIC 
**INTERPRETATIONS **(AGAIN
HUMAN INTERESTS BIASED **INTERPRETATIONS **
AGAIN
**INTERPPRETATIONS **
FOR EXAMPLE 
DI DANYONE EVER
MEASURED 'CUVAURE OF SOACE ??!!!

on the other hand 
MASS CAN BE MEASURED EVEN BY A CHIELD !!
SO
=================================================
MASS IS THE MOTHER OF ALL !!! FORCES -INCLUDING **GRAVITY !!
===============================================
not curvature and not schmervature of space ==
----------
historic landmark  copyright 
Eng
Yehiel Porat 
=========================================== 
==============================================
> 
>

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

#593166

On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 10:38:10 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 8/12/2016 3:59 AM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 12:38:12 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> In science, anyway, experiment trumps all human expectations of how the universe
>>> should work.
>>
>> While I like your description of QCD, I must admit I'm getting tired
>> of that old "experiments trump expectations" and logic which are based
>> on the multitude of experiments consistent with expectations which
>> came before and not just arbitrary whims that strike the theorist's
>> fancy.
>>
>> The problem with experiments is that they are usually designed to test
>> a hypothesis and there is a bias toward or away from confirming that
>> hypothesis. The methods and apparatus may easily introduce known and
>> unknown effects which are not properly accounted for and which would
>> counter or distort any conclusions derived from the data.
>
>I would contest this. I disagree that there is "usually" a bias toward 
>or away from confirming a hypothesis. A well designed experiment 
>provides valuable information regardless of outcome.

I said "usually designed to test a hypothesis" and maybe I should have
said "often" which is the old non-committal "more than one" unlike
"usually" which is taken to mean "more than half" - lol.

I don't mean to sound too cynical but many experiments are designed to
test or re-test a theory (which I define as an old and accepted
hypothesis with a following - lol) and these definitely have a human
bias at least toward the opinion of the experimenters. I agree some
experiments are objectively investigative and employ a "Hey lets do
this and see what happens" motive/mentality. These may be the most
useful in terms of advancing science however, if they demonstrate
something inconsistent with currently accepted theory, there is an
incentive for the observer/reporter to suppress them since
contradicting current theory is risky in terms of reputation and
involves a lot of work responding to rebuttals and  clarifying. Most
theories have a large following which will argue their opinion
regardless of evidence to the contrary and it can get too taxing to
respond to each and every one of them.

I could cite the example of cold fusion. I'm "on the fence" as to
whether I believe it is viable. The "cold fusion" principle has been
demonstrated decades ago with a high negatively charged electrode
embedded in a positive plasma. Some fusion occurs but as I see it, the
positive  fusion products will likely build up on the electrode and
reduce its negative charge (like a saturated dielectric reduces the
resultant  E-field) to poison the fusion. I can think of a few
"engineering solutions" for this minor problem (e.g. cycling the
voltage to "slough off fusion products, placing a screen grid between
the plasma and negative electrode with  a disposable sheathing that
runs on a track through the fusion chamber, etc...). For the reported
"cold fusion", even in chemical reactions, atoms may encounter high
enough electric fields in the vicinity of electrons to "fuse" their
nuclei in this manner. Picture an atom with its electron cloud lagging
it impacting the electron cloud of a target atom (the way atoms bond).
The electrons in the shell of the target atom could easily (in some
cases) shear the impacting atom's electrons clean away. The impacting
nucleus is then accelerated into the target nucleus as it encounters
the target nucleus's electron shell/cloud where it "sticks" to the
negative part of the target nucleus (fuses).


>Now it is true that if there are multiple hypotheses, and experiment can 
>be designed so that it gives a clearer answer (yea or nay) about one of 
>those hypotheses than for the other hypotheses.
>
>One of the core skills of an experimental team is to *thoroughly* 
>understand sources of error and misleading background, and it this is 
>where most of the work is in setting the uncertainty value in the quoted 
>result.


Agreed. But they are not always "perfect" at noticing (imagining) the
varied sources of error/distortion/bias, prioritizing the effects of
them, and correctly accounting for them.

>> There is also a bias toward discovering and reporting new phenomena
>> whether they exist of not in order to gain attention and funding. Once
>> a new phenomenon is accepted by the scientific community, all later
>> theories must be reconciled with it in order to be accepted even
>> though its not very likely that all our accepted theories are correct.
>>
>> Therefore I don't consider experiments to be as sacrosanct as many
>> people. The data may be misinterpreted and the conclusions may neglect
>> other processes and effects.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>
---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

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

#593215

On 8/14/2016 7:07 PM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 10:38:10 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/12/2016 3:59 AM, Michael J. Strickland wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 12:38:12 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> In science, anyway, experiment trumps all human expectations of how the universe
>>>> should work.
>>>
>>> While I like your description of QCD, I must admit I'm getting tired
>>> of that old "experiments trump expectations" and logic which are based
>>> on the multitude of experiments consistent with expectations which
>>> came before and not just arbitrary whims that strike the theorist's
>>> fancy.
>>>
>>> The problem with experiments is that they are usually designed to test
>>> a hypothesis and there is a bias toward or away from confirming that
>>> hypothesis. The methods and apparatus may easily introduce known and
>>> unknown effects which are not properly accounted for and which would
>>> counter or distort any conclusions derived from the data.
>>
>> I would contest this. I disagree that there is "usually" a bias toward
>> or away from confirming a hypothesis. A well designed experiment
>> provides valuable information regardless of outcome.
>
> I said "usually designed to test a hypothesis" and maybe I should have
> said "often" which is the old non-committal "more than one" unlike
> "usually" which is taken to mean "more than half" - lol.
>
> I don't mean to sound too cynical but many experiments are designed to
> test or re-test a theory (which I define as an old and accepted
> hypothesis with a following - lol) and these definitely have a human
> bias at least toward the opinion of the experimenters. I agree some
> experiments are objectively investigative and employ a "Hey lets do
> this and see what happens" motive/mentality.

This isn't what I meant. I don't believe that an experiment has to be 
open-ended exploration ("let's just look for anything new out here") to 
be unbiased. Yes, many experiments are built to test a given hypothesis, 
but if done correctly, you wouldn't be able to tell whether the 
experimenters favored the hypothesis or disfavored it. Indeed, the whole 
point is to reserve judgement on the validity of a hypothesis until 
nature has spoken via experiment.

> These may be the most
> useful in terms of advancing science however, if they demonstrate
> something inconsistent with currently accepted theory, there is an
> incentive for the observer/reporter to suppress them since
> contradicting current theory is risky in terms of reputation and
> involves a lot of work responding to rebuttals and  clarifying. Most
> theories have a large following which will argue their opinion
> regardless of evidence to the contrary and it can get too taxing to
> respond to each and every one of them.

Here I think it depends on the form of the "rebuttal". If the rebuttal 
is on the basis that the hypothesis seems "weird" or "inelegant" or 
"against intuition" or "complicated", then I don't believe that's one 
that scientists will even muster much effort to counterargue. Secondly, 
I really don't think physicists are risk-averse, though they will check 
their work carefully before putting any result forward. As an example, 
look at the results of the OPERA experiment, which briefly claimed 
superluminal speeds of neutrinos until a problem was discovered. If they 
had been cowed by risk to reputation, that (incorrect) result would 
never have seen the light of day. Bottom line, the only form of rebuttal 
that means anything is experimental data.

>
> I could cite the example of cold fusion. I'm "on the fence" as to
> whether I believe it is viable. The "cold fusion" principle has been
> demonstrated decades ago with a high negatively charged electrode
> embedded in a positive plasma. Some fusion occurs but as I see it, the
> positive  fusion products will likely build up on the electrode and
> reduce its negative charge (like a saturated dielectric reduces the
> resultant  E-field) to poison the fusion. I can think of a few
> "engineering solutions" for this minor problem (e.g. cycling the
> voltage to "slough off fusion products, placing a screen grid between
> the plasma and negative electrode with  a disposable sheathing that
> runs on a track through the fusion chamber, etc...). For the reported
> "cold fusion", even in chemical reactions, atoms may encounter high
> enough electric fields in the vicinity of electrons to "fuse" their
> nuclei in this manner. Picture an atom with its electron cloud lagging
> it impacting the electron cloud of a target atom (the way atoms bond).
> The electrons in the shell of the target atom could easily (in some
> cases) shear the impacting atom's electrons clean away. The impacting
> nucleus is then accelerated into the target nucleus as it encounters
> the target nucleus's electron shell/cloud where it "sticks" to the
> negative part of the target nucleus (fuses).

Well, first of all, I don't think of any fusion happening inside a 
plasma as being "cold fusion". Cold fusion is by definition below 
temperatures sufficient to support a plasma.

But secondly, the main thing to consider about cold fusion is not 
whether there is a plausible idea about how or whether it happens. The 
main thing is that immediately after the results announced by Pons and 
Fleischmann, and I mean within three days, there were twelve -- count 
'em, twelve -- independent teams that spun up teams and equipment to try 
to corroborate the results. And none of them -- count 'em, none -- were 
able to corroborate the results. This speaks again to using data -- not 
ideas, not boldness, not models -- to determine whether cold fusion is 
real or not.

>
>
>> Now it is true that if there are multiple hypotheses, and experiment can
>> be designed so that it gives a clearer answer (yea or nay) about one of
>> those hypotheses than for the other hypotheses.
>>
>> One of the core skills of an experimental team is to *thoroughly*
>> understand sources of error and misleading background, and it this is
>> where most of the work is in setting the uncertainty value in the quoted
>> result.
>
>
> Agreed. But they are not always "perfect" at noticing (imagining) the
> varied sources of error/distortion/bias, prioritizing the effects of
> them, and correctly accounting for them.

Maybe not perfect (see OPERA), but the quality of an experiment is 
measured by how well they have done this at least to the degree that 
other unaccounted-for effects are known to be inconsequential to the result.

>
>>> There is also a bias toward discovering and reporting new phenomena
>>> whether they exist of not in order to gain attention and funding. Once
>>> a new phenomenon is accepted by the scientific community, all later
>>> theories must be reconciled with it in order to be accepted even
>>> though its not very likely that all our accepted theories are correct.
>>>
>>> Therefore I don't consider experiments to be as sacrosanct as many
>>> people. The data may be misinterpreted and the conclusions may neglect
>>> other processes and effects.
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>> Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
> ---------------------------------------------------
>


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

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

#592887

בתאריך יום חמישי, 11 באוגוסט 2016 בשעה 20:38:16 UTC+3, מאת Odd Bodkin:
> On 8/11/2016 12:10 PM, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote:
> > Any gravity theory that posits a "flux" of force particles is dead on arrival.
> > The reason is that gravity affects everything including the flux particles
> > themselves, thereby resulting in an infinite self-referential regress. Not even wrong.
> 
> You may be interested in a highly verified theory of the strong nuclear 
> interactions called quantum chromodynamics. Introduced in the 1960's, it 
> has had five decades of experimental test and verification. One of the 
> interesting features of this theory is that the "force particles", 
> called gluons, also feel the strong nuclear interaction. That is, gluons 
> interact with gluons. This is what I gather you call "self-referential 
> regress", something you think cannot possibly be (for some reason not 
> articulated). However, this aspect of QCD turns out to be the only way 
> to explain some of the observed phenomenology of strong interactions, 
> including jets of secondary particles in high transverse-pT collisions 
> at particle accelerators. Thus something you think cannot be true of the 
> universe does in fact appear to be true in experiment. In science, 
> anyway, experiment trumps all human expectations of how the universe 
> should work.
> 
> =====================
imbecile  pompous  crock 
did anyone nominated you to speak in behalf of 
Y.Porat
================================
universe ??

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

#592885

בתאריך יום חמישי, 11 באוגוסט 2016 בשעה 05:14:40 UTC+3, מאת Michael Strickland:
> Gravity results from an imbalance in the gravitational flux (gravitons
> if you will) on a line between two massive objects. A solitary mass
> sources a flux of gravitons which imparts momentum to anything they
> hit. The universe imparts equal momentum to this solitary mass on all
> sides so it has no net force on it.
> 
> Two objects placed near each other occult (block/eclipse) some of this
> ambient flux coming from the remainder of the masses in the universe.
> This occulting is proportional to the product of their cross section
> area (pi*r^2) and the linear thickness of matter this flux must
> traverse. It is also inversely proportional to the distance between
> the two masses squared (R^2).
> 
> The math/geometry is correct, the only question:
> 
> Is this a more useful model?
> 
> Mike
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
> ---------------------------------------------------==========
thanks you got something from me
but not good enough h !...
---
do you agree with me
that curved space has nothing to do with gravity
nothing to do with ANYTHING !!
2
so it is all done by the masses involved 

now
what is the way that your force lins
go 
is it &****in all directions** from mass 
(distributed evenly or not ??
if it is  as well in the opposite side direction from-
-connecting line between the  masses involved ??
if so 
those force line direction are useless for 
attraction or repulsion action ??
so 
it is only those directed mutually to 
the other mass involved
so ??
why not repelling ??
why attraction ??
3
have you ever seen the
Y Circlon   mechanism ?? !!!! 
at my site
'The Y Porat model - an abstract '
at its appendix ??.........

BTW
I am still not dead !!(:-)
 
 =
TIA
Y.Porat
====================================

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

#592890

On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 02:39:01 -0700 (PDT), poraty350@gmail.com wrote:

>?????? ??? ?????, 11 ??????? 2016 ???? 05:14:40 UTC+3, ??? Michael Strickland:
>> Gravity results from an imbalance in the gravitational flux (gravitons
>> if you will) on a line between two massive objects. A solitary mass
>> sources a flux of gravitons which imparts momentum to anything they
>> hit. The universe imparts equal momentum to this solitary mass on all
>> sides so it has no net force on it.
>> 
>> Two objects placed near each other occult (block/eclipse) some of this
>> ambient flux coming from the remainder of the masses in the universe.
>> This occulting is proportional to the product of their cross section
>> area (pi*r^2) and the linear thickness of matter this flux must
>> traverse. It is also inversely proportional to the distance between
>> the two masses squared (R^2).
>> 
>> The math/geometry is correct, the only question:
>> 
>> Is this a more useful model?
>> 
>> Mike
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
>> ---------------------------------------------------==========
>thanks you got something from me

I did not get anything from you. That is my original work from 10-15
years ago. That having been said, as other have pointed out, other
people have thought of the same thing or something similar centuries
ago (necessity being the mother of invention). Did they get it from
you also?

Careful, Y.Porat, You're approaching the precipice of my kill file -
lol. Seriously, don't ever accuse me of plagiarism. I never have and
never will plagiarize.

Mike


---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

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

#592915

בתאריך יום שישי, 12 באוגוסט 2016 בשעה 13:41:09 UTC+3, מאת Michael Strickland:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 02:39:01 -0700 (PDT), poraty350@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> >?????? ??? ?????, 11 ??????? 2016 ???? 05:14:40 UTC+3, ??? Michael Strickland:
> >> Gravity results from an imbalance in the gravitational flux (gravitons
> >> if you will) on a line between two massive objects. A solitary mass
> >> sources a flux of gravitons which imparts momentum to anything they
> >> hit. The universe imparts equal momentum to this solitary mass on all
> >> sides so it has no net force on it.
> >> 
> >> Two objects placed near each other occult (block/eclipse) some of this
> >> ambient flux coming from the remainder of the masses in the universe.
> >> This occulting is proportional to the product of their cross section
> >> area (pi*r^2) and the linear thickness of matter this flux must
> >> traverse. It is also inversely proportional to the distance between
> >> the two masses squared (R^2).
> >> 
> >> The math/geometry is correct, the only question:
> >> 
> >> Is this a more useful model?
> >> 
> >> Mike
> >> ---------------------------------------------------
> >> Michael J. Strickland			Reston, VA
> >> ---------------------------------------------------==========
> >thanks you got something from me
> 
> I did not get anything from you. That is my original work from 10-15
> years ago. That having been said, as other have pointed out, other
> people have thought of the same thing or something similar centuries
> ago (necessity being the mother of invention). Did they get it from
> you also?
> 
> Careful, Y.Porat, You're approaching the precipice of my kill file -
> lol. Seriously, don't ever accuse me of plagiarism. I never have and
> never will plagiarize.
> 
> Mike
> 
 ============================
lucky me 
you are not even close to be able to steal anything from me 
you are not even able to understand my 
Y.Circlon mechanism 
from 1993

Y.Porat
=======================

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

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web