Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #605793 > unrolled thread
| Started by | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-21 17:08 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-11-30 06:05 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 138 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-21 17:08 -0500
REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 14:33 -0800
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 07:18 -0600
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 05:47 -0800
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 11:51 -0600
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-22 17:56 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 08:55 -0600
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 07:39 -0800
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 10:05 -0600
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 09:07 -0800
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 11:11 -0600
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 10:15 -0800
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 12:31 -0600
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-23 18:52 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-23 18:23 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-23 18:49 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 09:46 -0600
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-26 20:09 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 07:35 -0600
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-28 17:11 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 16:15 -0600
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-28 19:37 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 09:04 -0600
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 12:50 -0800
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-30 17:55 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 12:53 -0800
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-30 17:56 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 08:11 -0800
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-01 16:33 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 03:59 -0800
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 10:49 -0800
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 11:50 -0800
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-02 18:18 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-12-02 23:54 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-02 19:07 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-12-03 01:10 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-02 18:14 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-12-02 23:27 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-02 19:11 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-12-03 01:12 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 05:19 -0800
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-03 18:13 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-04 09:48 -0800
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-22 17:40 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-22 17:50 +0000
REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 15:12 -0800
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-21 19:14 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 18:50 -0800
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-22 17:31 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-22 23:06 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-22 20:29 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-23 01:50 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-23 18:22 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-24 01:03 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-26 19:39 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-27 02:03 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-26 21:53 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-27 04:07 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-28 16:29 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-29 01:41 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 17:38 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-29 23:40 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 19:16 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-30 01:34 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 21:43 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-30 05:58 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 17:12 -0800
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-22 20:27 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-23 01:52 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-23 18:25 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-24 01:06 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-26 19:42 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-27 02:06 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-26 21:55 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-27 04:09 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-28 16:30 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-29 01:42 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 17:40 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-29 23:43 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 19:18 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-30 01:35 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 21:43 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-30 05:59 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 04:35 -0800
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-23 18:20 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-23 18:59 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-24 01:09 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-26 19:44 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-27 02:16 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-26 21:58 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-27 04:14 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-28 16:32 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-29 01:52 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 17:41 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-29 23:45 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 19:26 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-30 01:43 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 21:45 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-30 06:02 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-23 18:41 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-24 01:10 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-26 19:46 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-27 02:17 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-26 21:59 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-27 04:15 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-28 16:33 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-29 01:54 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 17:43 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-29 23:46 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 19:31 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-30 01:44 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 21:46 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-30 06:04 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 07:59 -0800
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 08:13 -0800
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 08:20 -0800
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 09:46 -0800
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 08:57 -0800
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 10:38 -0800
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-28 17:16 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-28 16:47 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-28 16:43 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-28 16:37 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 18:31 -0800
premote fiewing **** noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 19:59 -0800
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-24 01:12 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-26 19:47 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-27 02:19 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-26 22:05 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-27 04:17 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-28 16:34 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-29 01:55 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 17:44 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-29 23:49 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 19:32 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-30 01:49 +0000
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 21:46 -0500
Re: REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-30 06:05 +0000
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-21 17:08 -0500 |
| Subject | REMOTE VIEWER CALLS HVAC A LOSER |
| Message-ID | <58337059$0$10154$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com> |
HVAC, the idiot journalist denies that remote viewing experiments ever took place. He lies about everything. But Joe McMoneagle, one of the members of the Army/Defense Intelligece agency Remote viewing program said the following about clowns like HVAC: "There is no way to say that remote viewing doesn't work either, but people find a way. You can demonstrate an in-your-face remote viewing and they'll look at you and say 'Well, that was one hell of a good guess'. I've had that said to me literally hundreds of times. It flies in the face of reality. It's ludicrous." Bottom Line: HARDBLOW = Fantasy Loser
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-21 14:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3e65e047-7089-45ab-b851-d22b909a1d8e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #605793 |
HVAC and Odd and to a lesser extent Mickey have some kind of mind block in play. They are literally unable to use logic. I almost think they must be programmed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-22 07:18 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o11gi3$kt$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #605795 |
On 11/21/2016 4:33 PM, john wrote: > HVAC and Odd and to a lesser > extent Mickey > have some kind of mind block > in play. It's fascinating that you call anyone who doesn't hold the same beliefs as you as having "some kind of mind block". As though your beliefs come purely from having a free mind.... > They are literally unable to use > logic. John, don't confuse the several scattered, unjustified beliefs that you hold true with "logic". > I almost think they must be programmed > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-22 05:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8690d6d0-9386-4276-aaaa-74a8bdf1d2c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #605882 |
Odd "John, don't confuse the several scattered, unjustified beliefs that you hold true with "logic". " Odd, everything IN YOUR LIFE that you have been able to examine UP CLOSE has underlying structure. The electron is very difficult to examine because it is so small and moves so fast, so structure has not been demonstrated. YOUR WHOLE PARADIGM is based on an electron being a point with no structure. Now- anyone with a shred of logic will say, "The electron must have structure but we can't see it, so let's work from there." Unfortunately, you're a zombie
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-22 11:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o120ib$ukg$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #605886 |
On 11/22/2016 7:47 AM, john wrote: > Odd > "John, don't confuse the several scattered, unjustified beliefs that you > hold true with "logic". " > > Odd, everything IN YOUR LIFE that you have > been able to examine UP CLOSE has underlying > structure. I'm sorry, but that's just not true. Everything that is in the very narrow range of my senses that I can approach and touch and smell and look at has structure, yes. But that's limited to things between about 10 microns in size and 1000 meters in size. Anything smaller than that or larger than that, I cannot examine as a whole or see inside. The wavelengths I can see are limited to ONE OCTAVE (a factor of two) in a range that spans a dozen orders of magnitude. This would be equivalent to someone playing a piano and you only being aware of middle-C and C-sharp above middle-C being hit. My access to the range of nature through my senses and my ordinary experience is EXTREMELY limited. Which is why what is represented there is NOT representative of the whole of nature. > The electron is > very difficult to examine because it is > so small and moves so fast, so structure > has not been demonstrated. > > YOUR WHOLE PARADIGM is based > on an electron being a point with no > structure. > > Now- anyone with a shred of logic > will say, "The electron must have > structure but we can't see it, so let's > work from there." No, John, I disagree. What you're calling logic is "what I know from everyday experience should be assumed to apply universally." That's not logic. Here's logic. ================================== Let's suppose two possibilities: Possibility 1: That electrons have structure. What would be the implications of that structure? Well, being able to break it down consistently into the same kinds of pieces would be one. Also, if I shine radiation at it with a wavelength smaller than the size of the electron, then I should be able to see the smaller things inside it scattering that radiation, as is universally true with other things having structure. So what experiments can be set up to look for those outcomes? And having set those experiments up, what are the outcomes of those experiments? Possibility 2: That electrons have no structure. What would be the implications of having no structure? Well, the elastic scattering cross section would proceed downward with energy without any discontinuity or change in slope. Also I should be able to do some calculations for proton-electron scattering, where protons are known to contain smaller charged objects like quarks, and the rate of scattering assuming one thing scattering off of a few things would be different than if the electron had smaller things in it and and it would be many-on-many. So what experiments can be set up to look for those outcomes. And having those experiments set up, what are the outcomes of those experiments? And given BOTH possibilities, and then examining the evidence (not the naturalness of the assumptions, but the EVIDENCE) for or against each possibility, what does nature tell us about the true nature of electrons? ============================================ THAT, John, is logic. THAT, John, is how science works and how scientists think. Not what's the most natural thing to assume given what everyday experience tells you -- that kind of thinking isn't logic at all. > > Unfortunately, you're a zombie > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-22 17:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5834cd34$0$40907$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #605946 |
On 11/22/2016 12:51 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/22/2016 7:47 AM, john wrote: >> Odd >> "John, don't confuse the several scattered, unjustified beliefs that you >> hold true with "logic". " >> >> Odd, everything IN YOUR LIFE that you have >> been able to examine UP CLOSE has underlying >> structure. > > I'm sorry, but that's just not true. Everything that is in the very > narrow range of my senses that I can approach and touch and smell and > look at has structure, yes. But that's limited to things between about > 10 microns in size and 1000 meters in size. Anything smaller than that > or larger than that, I cannot examine as a whole or see inside. The > wavelengths I can see are limited to ONE OCTAVE (a factor of two) in a > range that spans a dozen orders of magnitude. This would be equivalent > to someone playing a piano and you only being aware of middle-C and > C-sharp above middle-C being hit. > > My access to the range of nature through my senses and my ordinary > experience is EXTREMELY limited. Which is why what is represented there > is NOT representative of the whole of nature. > >> The electron is >> very difficult to examine because it is >> so small and moves so fast, so structure >> has not been demonstrated. >> >> YOUR WHOLE PARADIGM is based >> on an electron being a point with no >> structure. >> >> Now- anyone with a shred of logic >> will say, "The electron must have >> structure but we can't see it, so let's >> work from there." > > No, John, I disagree. What you're calling logic is "what I know from > everyday experience should be assumed to apply universally." That's not > logic. > > Here's logic. > ================================== > Let's suppose two possibilities: > Possibility 1: That electrons have structure. What would be the > implications of that structure? Well, being able to break it down > consistently into the same kinds of pieces would be one. Also, if I > shine radiation at it with a wavelength smaller than the size of the > electron, then I should be able to see the smaller things inside it > scattering that radiation, as is universally true with other things > having structure. So what experiments can be set up to look for those > outcomes? And having set those experiments up, what are the outcomes of > those experiments? > > Possibility 2: That electrons have no structure. What would be the > implications of having no structure? Well, the elastic scattering cross > section would proceed downward with energy without any discontinuity or > change in slope. Also I should be able to do some calculations for > proton-electron scattering, where protons are known to contain smaller > charged objects like quarks, and the rate of scattering assuming one > thing scattering off of a few things would be different than if the > electron had smaller things in it and and it would be many-on-many. So > what experiments can be set up to look for those outcomes. And having > those experiments set up, what are the outcomes of those experiments? > > And given BOTH possibilities, and then examining the evidence (not the > naturalness of the assumptions, but the EVIDENCE) for or against each > possibility, what does nature tell us about the true nature of electrons? > ============================================ > > THAT, John, is logic. THAT, John, is how science works and how > scientists think. Not what's the most natural thing to assume given what > everyday experience tells you -- that kind of thinking isn't logic at all. > >> >> Unfortunately, you're a zombie >> > > Odd you are as ignorant as HVAC. If electrons have no structure and are "nothing" then they have no properties. Experiments show this not to be the case. Hence electrons are not the fundamental particles of the universe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 08:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o14ali$bf5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #606020 |
On 11/22/2016 4:56 PM, benj wrote: > Odd you are as ignorant as HVAC. If electrons have no structure So far right. > and are > "nothing" Nope, doesn't follow. You don't get to declare that if they have no structure, then they must be nothing. > then they have no properties. Experiments show this not to be > the case. Hence electrons are not the fundamental particles of the universe. Sorry, bad logic there, Ben. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 07:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3c16f051-c20f-4e89-bee3-958e2716bca5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #606106 |
Odd "Sorry, bad logic there, Ben. " Odd you wouldn't know logic if it bit you in the face
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 10:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o14eo7$j4b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #606120 |
On 11/23/2016 9:39 AM, john wrote: > Odd > "Sorry, bad logic there, Ben. " > > Odd you wouldn't know logic > if it bit you in the face > I'll remind you John that logic does NOT mean obeying rules you happen to think are true, like "In order for something to have properties, it must have structure." That's not logic. That's a hunch that happens to be wrong. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 09:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bb5fe975-342d-4166-8258-3801c55bf3c5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #606125 |
Odd "I'll remind you John that logic does NOT mean obeying rules you happen to think are true, like "In order for something to have properties, it must have structure." That's not logic. That's a hunch that happens to be wrong. " And you know about Logic from the core Logic classes one must take to do Physics?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 11:11 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o14ik5$qda$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #606139 |
On 11/23/2016 11:07 AM, john wrote: > Odd > "I'll remind you John that logic does NOT mean obeying rules you happen > to think are true, like "In order for something to have properties, it > must have structure." That's not logic. That's a hunch that happens to > be wrong. " > And you know about Logic from > the core Logic classes one must take > to do Physics? > John, my majors in college were philosophy and mathematics. Yes, I took classes in logic. What you think logic is, is not logic. Logic to you means following your intuition. Logic to you means choosing to believe certain things (without justification needed) and then just declaring anything that is counter to those statements to be illogical. That's not what logic is. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 10:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b86e2c06-dc34-451b-b0cf-5bc596b67623@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #606142 |
Odd But things with no volume or structure can have properties, you say. How is that logical? Your ENTIRE defense is- we haven't seen EVERYTHING, so what we haven't seen could be ANYTHING! But then you reject UFOs because nobody has seen them? You're a zombie. You're straight out of "1984". Wow!!!! Master of double think. I would love to get you on any pool table and orient you to the reality that spin transfers and spinning balls curve- we'll play for your $1500 cue. I'll use one off the rack.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 12:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o14na3$1432$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #606158 |
On 11/23/2016 12:15 PM, john wrote: > Odd > But things with no volume or > structure can have properties, you say. > How is that logical? It's only illogical IF you believe (which you do) that properties COME FROM the volume or the structure. But that assumption is wrong. So there is nothing illogical about it. > Your ENTIRE defense is- > we haven't seen EVERYTHING, > so what we haven't seen could be > ANYTHING! No, John, the defense is what I've described. You build a hypothesis that the electron could have structure. You also build another hypothesis that the electron does not have structure. Then you develop the implications of each of those hypotheses into testable questions. Then you test them in experiment. The tests in experiment tell you which of those two hypotheses is mostly likely the truth. I walked you through that in some detail. In case this seems like just noise to you, what I've just described is called science. The defense I have is that science has been done on this front and the results are in. > But then > you reject UFOs because nobody > has seen them? I *never* said that. However, please note that one of your favorite experts, Bushman, DID state that he's not claiming he's seen one himself. And yet YOU use his remarks as eye-witness testimony to the existence of aliens. So what does that say about YOUR thinking? > You're a zombie. You're straight > out of "1984". > Wow!!!! > Master of double think. > I would love to get you > on any pool table and > orient you to the reality that > spin transfers and spinning > balls curve Dude, I know that. > - we'll play for your > $1500 cue. I'll use one off the rack. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 18:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <58362be3$0$34559$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #606142 |
On 11/23/2016 12:11 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/23/2016 11:07 AM, john wrote: >> Odd >> "I'll remind you John that logic does NOT mean obeying rules you happen >> to think are true, like "In order for something to have properties, it >> must have structure." That's not logic. That's a hunch that happens to >> be wrong. " >> And you know about Logic from >> the core Logic classes one must take >> to do Physics? >> > > John, my majors in college were philosophy and mathematics. Yes, I took > classes in logic. > > What you think logic is, is not logic. > > Logic to you means following your intuition. Logic to you means choosing > to believe certain things (without justification needed) and then just > declaring anything that is counter to those statements to be illogical. > That's not what logic is. > WHOA! No wonder Odd is off in fantasy land! All he knows is fantasy! Hey Odd put cosmology in there too. It's the PERFECT bullshit science for you. No truth, no facts, no information all speculation, supported by fantasy math. You da man.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 18:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o14mrd$cdl$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #606139 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd >"I'll remind you John that logic does NOT mean obeying rules you happen >to think are true, like "In order for something to have properties, it >must have structure." That's not logic. That's a hunch that happens to >be wrong. " >And you know about Logic from >the core Logic classes one must take >to do Physics? I took logic. Odd follows logic. You don't. You assume your beliefs are true and logical when they are just beliefs. Must be a kook thing to not understand logic. If you criticize Archie Plutonium's illogical thought processes, he'll attack you as not being logical! If jumping to conclusions were a sport, he'd be an Olympic gold medal champion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 18:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <58362b09$0$34559$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #606125 |
On 11/23/2016 11:05 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/23/2016 9:39 AM, john wrote: >> Odd >> "Sorry, bad logic there, Ben. " >> >> Odd you wouldn't know logic >> if it bit you in the face >> > > I'll remind you John that logic does NOT mean obeying rules you happen > to think are true, like "In order for something to have properties, it > must have structure." That's not logic. That's a hunch that happens to > be wrong. > Right Odd, "nothing has structure". You really can't think, can you. You are just one of the sheep swallowing any insanity "they" tell you to believe. Cripes. At least HVAC makes up his OWN insanity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 09:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1cann$1loq$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #606278 |
On 11/23/2016 5:49 PM, benj wrote: > On 11/23/2016 11:05 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/23/2016 9:39 AM, john wrote: >>> Odd >>> "Sorry, bad logic there, Ben. " >>> >>> Odd you wouldn't know logic >>> if it bit you in the face >>> >> >> I'll remind you John that logic does NOT mean obeying rules you happen >> to think are true, like "In order for something to have properties, it >> must have structure." That's not logic. That's a hunch that happens to >> be wrong. >> > Right Odd, "nothing has structure". I didn't say that. Some things have structure, some things don't. I've already told you there is no evidence of anything in the universe you could call "nothing". Your claim that "everything has structure" is a statement you can't even justify to yourself, let alone to anyone else. But you still believe it, and any statement that runs counter to your claim you call "illogical". Is it possible, John, that you're simply wrong? Can you even CONCEIVE of such a thing? > You really can't think, can you. You > are just one of the sheep swallowing any insanity "they" tell you to > believe. Cripes. At least HVAC makes up his OWN insanity. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 20:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <583a324d$0$10245$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #606528 |
On 11/26/2016 10:46 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/23/2016 5:49 PM, benj wrote: >> On 11/23/2016 11:05 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 11/23/2016 9:39 AM, john wrote: >>>> Odd >>>> "Sorry, bad logic there, Ben. " >>>> >>>> Odd you wouldn't know logic >>>> if it bit you in the face >>>> >>> >>> I'll remind you John that logic does NOT mean obeying rules you happen >>> to think are true, like "In order for something to have properties, it >>> must have structure." That's not logic. That's a hunch that happens to >>> be wrong. >>> >> Right Odd, "nothing has structure". > > I didn't say that. Some things have structure, some things don't. I've > already told you there is no evidence of anything in the universe you > could call "nothing". Did I just see the goal posts move? Yes I did. Hows the debate team doing this year Odd? Where did you ever get the idea that science is advanced by rhetorical debate. GO read my book. > Your claim that "everything has structure" is a statement you can't even > justify to yourself, let alone to anyone else. But you still believe it, > and any statement that runs counter to your claim you call "illogical". > Is it possible, John, that you're simply wrong? Can you even CONCEIVE of > such a thing? Here, Odd Debate this. Is "nothing" something? Since only nothing has no structure, then obviously except for "nothing" everything else has structure. So now we need to debate if nothing is something. OK? >> You really can't think, can you. You >> are just one of the sheep swallowing any insanity "they" tell you to >> believe. Cripes. At least HVAC makes up his OWN insanity. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 07:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1hbrf$1bh8$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #606606 |
On 11/26/2016 7:09 PM, benj wrote: > > Here, Odd Debate this. Is "nothing" something? Since only nothing has no >structure, Wrong. > then obviously except for "nothing" everything else has > structure. So now we need to debate if nothing is something. OK? > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 17:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <583cab9a$0$11964$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #606807 |
On 11/28/2016 8:35 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/26/2016 7:09 PM, benj wrote: > >> >> Here, Odd Debate this. Is "nothing" something? Since only nothing has no >> structure, > > Wrong. Your reply makes no sense in English or any other language. You understand that, right? Try answering the question instead of just shouting "wrong" or "kook". That seems to be the standard for "science" in this group. >> then obviously except for "nothing" everything else has >> structure. So now we need to debate if nothing is something. OK? >> > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web