Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #607200 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-29 20:56 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-12-05 12:09 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 87 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 20:56 -0800
attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 21:33 -0800
Re: attosecond science moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-30 15:45 +0000
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 08:09 -0800
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 09:53 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 12:13 -0600
Re: attosecond science edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-30 15:50 -0800
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 18:59 -0800
Re: attosecond science edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-30 21:10 -0800
Re: attosecond science moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-01 12:47 +0000
Re: attosecond science edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-01 07:15 -0800
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 07:24 -0800
Re: attosecond science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 07:58 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 10:57 -0600
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 09:10 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 11:54 -0600
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 10:08 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 12:40 -0600
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 10:47 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 13:28 -0600
Re: attosecond science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 11:40 -0800
Re: attosecond science edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-01 11:28 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 13:32 -0600
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 12:55 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 15:26 -0600
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 13:36 -0800
Re: attosecond science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 13:42 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 15:48 -0600
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 14:19 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 16:22 -0600
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 15:23 -0800
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 15:47 -0800
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 06:34 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 09:43 -0600
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 08:43 -0600
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 06:53 -0800
Re: attosecond science moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-02 15:15 +0000
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 09:44 -0600
Re: attosecond science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 08:12 -0800
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 08:56 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 11:31 -0600
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 12:09 -0600
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 10:36 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 12:42 -0600
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 12:55 -0600
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 16:56 -0600
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 15:40 -0800
Re: attosecond science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 05:35 -0800
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 10:19 -0800
Re: attosecond science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 13:35 -0800
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 18:24 -0800
Re: attosecond science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 18:41 -0800
Re: attosecond science benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-03 22:30 -0500
Re: attosecond science moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-04 05:36 +0000
Re: attosecond science noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 17:50 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 08:08 -0600
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 08:09 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 10:24 -0600
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 09:21 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 11:40 -0600
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 10:01 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 12:10 -0600
Re: attosecond science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 11:17 -0800
Re: attosecond science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 12:00 -0800
Re: attosecond science edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-02 12:27 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 14:54 -0600
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 13:12 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 16:49 -0600
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 08:40 -0600
Re: attosecond science edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-01 14:16 -0800
Re: attosecond science edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-01 11:25 -0800
Re: attosecond science john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 11:29 -0800
Re: attosecond science Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 13:34 -0600
Re: attosecond science edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-01 14:13 -0800
Re: attosecond science moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-01 17:08 +0000
Re: attosecond science edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-01 11:19 -0800
Re: attosecond science Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 08:31 -0800
b0s0n is what ... b0s0ns d00 noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 12:15 -0800
just cahnge the variables, such that b0s0ny is what ... b0s0ns d00 noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 14:02 -0800
Re: attosecond science moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-30 18:07 +0000
Re: attosecond science noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 12:06 -0800
attosecond science HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 11:05 -0800
Re: attosecond science "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 09:31 -0800
Re: attosecond science "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 10:02 -0800
Re: attosecond science "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-05 12:02 -0800
Re: attosecond science "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 09:55 -0800
Re: attosecond science "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-05 12:09 -0800
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-02 11:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1sb4i$11jl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #607544 |
On 12/2/2016 10:56 AM, john wrote: > HVAC > "Relativistic jets are not released from black holes. They are formed by highly energetic magnetic vortices in the area near the accretion disk. " > > Whatever. You have no proof of that. > > Odd, if jets are "radiation", then > so is the solar "wind", Yes, it is. Exactly. > which is also > ions being carried by a magfield. > The difference is the range- anything > coming from the vicinity of the > BH will only push locally, while radiation > similar to neutrinos travels far. > You seem to be studiously avoiding the discussion about hydrogen. Allow me to reiterate. In a hydrogen atom: - you have posited things radiated from the electron that impact the proton with a push. - you have posited things radiated from the proton that impact the electron with a push. - you have declared that the energy transmitted in these opposite directions are equal Now, here are the questions you need to answer with your model: 1. With the proton and the electron both being PUSHED by the things passed between them, what keeps hydrogen atoms TOGETHER? 2. Since you claim that these passed things account for gravity and inertia, how is it that these equal amounts back and forth result in the proton having 2000 times more inertia and gravity than the electron? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-02 12:09 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1sdc6$15m0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #607547 |
On 12/2/2016 11:31 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > You seem to be studiously avoiding the discussion about hydrogen. Allow > me to reiterate. In a hydrogen atom: > - you have posited things radiated from the electron that impact the > proton with a push. > - you have posited things radiated from the proton that impact the > electron with a push. > - you have declared that the energy transmitted in these opposite > directions are equal > > Now, here are the questions you need to answer with your model: > 1. With the proton and the electron both being PUSHED by the things > passed between them, what keeps hydrogen atoms TOGETHER? > 2. Since you claim that these passed things account for gravity and > inertia, how is it that these equal amounts back and forth result in the > proton having 2000 times more inertia and gravity than the electron? And by the way, John, I don't care if your answers to these questions come in the form of words, or in the form of mathematical equations and tables of calculated numbers, or in the form of references to external publications. Usually, physical explanations involve all three, so feel free to do whatever you need. But what would be the point of offering an explanation of atoms if you can't actually EXPLAIN anything? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-02 10:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dbb1818d-917c-4822-9060-0a2c98314145@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607551 |
Odd "But what would be the point of offering an explanation of atoms if you can't actually EXPLAIN anything? " Exactly! Like HOW Gravity and Inertia works (absorption of electron fractal radiation), WHY BHs shred stars (fractal Space spinning too fast for our atoms to hold together), HOW atoms are structured (as flat turning/precessing discs). That last one holds clues to making matter invisible and manipulation of matter by magfields to cut or create crystals. Yes- explanations of how things work is sorely missing in QM. I feel your pain
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-02 12:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1sf9t$18vg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #607554 |
On 12/2/2016 12:36 PM, john wrote: > Odd > > "But what would be the point of offering an explanation of atoms if you > can't actually EXPLAIN anything? " > > Exactly! > Like HOW Gravity and Inertia works Those explanations are available to you! It's like you saying you want Italian food, and I say, dude, there are lots of Italian restaurants, and you say, but I don't want to go to the trouble to actually go OUT to eat Italian food, I want it brought to me. So I suggest that you could learn to cook Italian food yourself, and you instead make a peanut butter sandwich and call it Italian food, because that's what you know how to do. > (absorption of electron fractal radiation), > WHY BHs shred stars > (fractal Space spinning too fast for > our atoms to hold together), > HOW atoms are structured How atoms are structured is already answered and available to you. The fact that you don't want to take the trouble to learn what the explanations actually are is not really good grounds for you to invent something lightweight you like better and costs you no effort. > (as flat turning/precessing discs). > > That last one holds clues to making > matter invisible and manipulation of > matter by magfields to cut or create > crystals. > > Yes- explanations of how things > work is sorely missing in QM. That's NOT TRUE. But you haven't learned what QM actually says, have you? > I feel your pain > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-02 12:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1sg2g$1a4v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #607554 |
On 12/2/2016 12:36 PM, john wrote: > Odd > > "But what would be the point of offering an explanation of atoms if you > can't actually EXPLAIN anything? " > > Exactly! > Like HOW Gravity and Inertia works > (absorption of electron fractal radiation), Good! Then answer my two questions about your push radiation. Go ahead. I've been waiting. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-02 16:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1su69$26v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #607559 |
On 12/2/2016 12:55 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 12/2/2016 12:36 PM, john wrote: >> Odd >> >> "But what would be the point of offering an explanation of atoms if you >> can't actually EXPLAIN anything? " >> >> Exactly! >> Like HOW Gravity and Inertia works >> (absorption of electron fractal radiation), > > > Good! Then answer my two questions about your push radiation. Go ahead. > I've been waiting. > > I notice for all your rants about what you personally believe or don't believe, and for all your noise about other people who don't agree with you being retards, you STILL have not been able to answer some very simple questions about what you do believe. (See above.) Isn't it interesting, John, that it doesn't bother you at all that you can't make your beliefs make sense? It must be that your ideas don't HAVE to make sense to you for you to believe in them. Right? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-02 15:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5c0454bd-be8c-4637-90c6-fc75a597c759@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607608 |
Odd "> Now, here are the questions you need to answer with your model: > 1. With the proton and the electron both being PUSHED by the things > passed between them, what keeps hydrogen atoms TOGETHER? > 2. Since you claim that these passed things account for gravity and > inertia, how is it that these equal amounts back and forth result in the > proton having 2000 times more inertia and gravity than the electron? The proton is pushed on by ALL the electrons around it, including its own. Its axis of spin, like a galactic BH, is at right angles to the disc. The two jets push against each other when the material is delivered back. This might drive the precession, but certainly is not a direct counter to all the energy coming in from all sides. The proton is far denser than the electron for the same reason a BH is far denser than stars- they are the next fractal material down turning at speeds far greater than that material can handle
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-03 05:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <336f4b50-abd4-4180-910f-ed69e81722d2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607618 |
John The proton is pushed on by ALL the electrons around it, including its own. Its axis of spin, like a galactic BH, is at right angles to the disc. The two jets push against each other when the material is delivered back. This might drive the precession, but certainly is not a direct counter to all the energy coming in from all sides. The proton is far denser than the electron for the same reason a BH is far denser than stars- they are the next fractal material down turning at speeds far greater than that material can handle --------------- BJ and John will soon be publishing a paper on this titled: The Standard Kook Model
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-03 10:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3be29cec-9bd6-4b1d-a2a9-a652f7264eee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607668 |
Gotta write a book: "The Galaxy Model for the Atom" http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneE.GIF
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-03 13:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e165b430-7a72-46bc-8246-be769b1b982c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607675 |
john Gotta write a book: "The Galaxy Model for the Atom" ---------- Or maybe just do a few more bong rips
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-03 18:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8bd60436-bc80-4017-987e-9510fadc64d5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607689 |
HVAC "". " Crick was on acid when he figured out the double helix
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-03 18:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5d8e5800-1bf7-4424-9871-ee5cd4c328bd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607714 |
john HVAC "". " Crick was on acid when he figured out the double helix ---------- Urban myth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-03 22:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <58438dbd$0$43103$b1db1813$19ace300@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #607718 |
On 12/3/2016 9:41 PM, HVAC wrote: > john > HVAC > "". " > > Crick was on acid when he > figured out the double helix > ---------- > > Urban myth > Was Peyote.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-04 05:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o20a1q$bf4$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #607675 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Gotta write a book: >"The Galaxy Model for the Atom" >http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneE.GIF A kookbook, naturally.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 17:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b798998e-a188-4c0c-af4a-c18b1dbc43d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607675 |
y'know that a.p uses a synonym for that kind of model, but no-one could ever tolerate his typing (or qualiterate science-lyte > http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneE.GIF
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 08:08 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o23sce$1vvh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #607618 |
On 12/2/2016 5:40 PM, john wrote: > Odd > "> Now, here are the questions you need to answer with your model: >> 1. With the proton and the electron both being PUSHED by the things >> passed between them, what keeps hydrogen atoms TOGETHER? >> 2. Since you claim that these passed things account for gravity and >> inertia, how is it that these equal amounts back and forth result in the >> proton having 2000 times more inertia and gravity than the electron? > > The proton is pushed on > by ALL the electrons around it, > including its own. > Its axis of spin, like a galactic BH, > is at right angles to the disc. > The two jets push against each > other when the material is > delivered back. This might drive > the precession, but certainly is not > a direct counter to all the > energy coming in from all sides. John, you may realize (maybe not) that you have not explained AT ALL what holds a hydrogen atom together. That was the question. > > The proton is far denser than the > electron for the same reason a BH > is far denser than stars- they > are the next fractal material down > turning at speeds far greater than > that material can handle > First of all, we're not talking about density, we're talking about mass. Something with smaller mass can have higher density. A BB is more dense than a baseball. Secondly, though, your "explanation" for why a BH is massive has nothing whatsoever to do with why it really is more massive. Do you know why BH's are massive? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 08:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b0cb28e0-a1a9-48b9-9a85-66e902dfa508@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607865 |
Odd " John, you may realize (maybe not) that you have not explained AT ALL what holds a hydrogen atom together. That was the question. " Hmm You want an explanation for charge? Electrical attraction holds it together, and magnetic repulsion holds the electron away from the proton. They balance
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 10:24 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o244at$i30$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #607878 |
On 12/5/2016 10:09 AM, john wrote: > Odd > " > John, you may realize (maybe not) that you have not explained AT ALL > what holds a hydrogen atom together. That was the question. " > > Hmm > You want an explanation for charge? > Electrical attraction holds it together, Uh, John, aren't you known for saying pull forces are STUPID? > and magnetic repulsion holds the > electron away from the proton. > They balance > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 09:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6044f18d-3d67-41be-977b-e2f4b7b23d1e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #607880 |
Odd "Uh, John, aren't you known for saying pull forces are STUPID? " Yes. Your best shot was swarming gravitons. I laughed. Consider the jets. Charged particles at .9c going nearly straight at the jets centre , but following increasingly curved trajectories any amount away from centre. Now think of a boomerang. No, there's no "pull", but that's not to say there's no sphere of influence of an attractive nature. The boomerang image is very close to your swarming gravitons image.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 11:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o248r2$r77$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #607886 |
On 12/5/2016 11:21 AM, john wrote: > Odd > "Uh, John, aren't you known for saying pull forces are STUPID? " > Yes. > Your best shot was swarming gravitons. > I laughed. So what was this comment about electrostatic ATTRACTION? > > Consider the jets. Charged particles > at .9c going nearly straight at the > jets centre , but following increasingly > curved trajectories any amount away > from centre. > > Now think of a boomerang. > > No, there's no "pull", but that's not > to say there's no sphere of influence > of an attractive nature. The boomerang > image is very close to your > swarming gravitons image. > And so why are you proposing something very similar to what you laughed at? John, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that you don't really have a coherent idea in your head about what you think, and that you are here strictly for company. In that, it doesn't really matter what you say, and it's perfectly ok for you to say one thing and then the opposite the next day, or to laugh at an idea and then propose the same idea the next day. When all you're trying to do is stave off loneliness, then if you contradict yourself or make no sense, it's still keeps the conversation. What you're not accounting for is that people will come to the conclusion that you're nuts and not worth the time discussing anything with. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web