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

Groups > sci.physics > #624786 > unrolled thread

Breakthroughs

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Breakthroughs john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 18:28 -0700
    Re: Breakthroughs Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-03-23 20:56 -0500
    Re: Breakthroughs poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 18:57 -0700
      Re: Breakthroughs john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 19:35 -0700
        Re: Breakthroughs pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 19:49 -0700
          Re: Breakthroughs john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 20:14 -0700
          Re: Breakthroughs moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-24 14:52 +0000
            Re: Breakthroughs noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 10:19 -0700
        Re: Breakthroughs poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 22:32 -0700
    Re: Breakthroughs benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 02:14 -0400
      Re: Breakthroughs HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 04:59 -0700
        Re: Breakthroughs benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 14:18 -0400
          Re: Breakthroughs HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 11:41 -0700
            Re: Breakthroughs benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-03-25 17:07 -0400
    Re: Breakthroughs Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 07:40 -0500
      Re: Breakthroughs HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 05:46 -0700
        Re: Breakthroughs moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-24 14:53 +0000
          Re: Breakthroughs poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-03-24 08:15 -0700
      Re: Breakthroughs john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 07:03 -0700
        Re: Breakthroughs HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 07:15 -0700
        Re: Breakthroughs Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 09:24 -0500
          Re: Breakthroughs Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 09:29 -0500
          Re: Breakthroughs benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-03-24 18:03 -0400
            Re: Breakthroughs john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 07:11 -0700
              Re: Breakthroughs Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-03-25 11:26 -0500
                Re: Breakthroughs john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 10:11 -0700
              Re: Breakthroughs Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 14:06 -0500
                Re: Breakthroughs john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 12:52 -0700
                  Re: Breakthroughs HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 13:09 -0700
                    Re: Breakthroughs benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-03-25 17:15 -0400
                      Re: Breakthroughs john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 14:20 -0700
                        Re: Breakthroughs john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 14:28 -0700
                          Re: Breakthroughs moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-25 23:12 +0000
                            Re: Breakthroughs benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-03-25 19:54 -0400
                              Re: Breakthroughs HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 17:11 -0700
                                Re: Breakthroughs benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-03-25 20:16 -0400
                                  Re: Breakthroughs jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-03-26 01:15 +0000
                                  Re: Breakthroughs HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 03:03 -0700
                                    Re: Breakthroughs benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 00:51 -0400
                                  Re: Breakthroughs HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 03:03 -0700
                                    Re: Breakthroughs benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 00:50 -0400
                            Re: Breakthroughs poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-03-25 22:49 -0700
                            Re: Breakthroughs john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 07:37 -0700
                              Re: Breakthroughs moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-26 23:52 +0000
                                Re: Breakthroughs john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 17:31 -0700
                                  Re: Breakthroughs HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 17:40 -0700
                                    Re: Breakthroughs benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 00:38 -0400
                                  Re: Breakthroughs Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-03-26 19:40 -0500
                                    Re: Breakthroughs john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 18:32 -0700
                                      Re: Breakthroughs Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-03-26 20:54 -0500
                                        Re: Breakthroughs john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 19:18 -0700
                                      Re: Breakthroughs poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-03-26 23:03 -0700
                                      Re: Breakthroughs poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-03-26 23:07 -0700
                                  Re: Breakthroughs moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-27 04:56 +0000
                                    Re: Breakthroughs benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 01:10 -0400
                                    Re: Breakthroughs poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-03-26 23:16 -0700
                              Re: Breakthroughs poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-03-26 23:00 -0700
                              Re: Breakthroughs Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 07:52 -0500
                                Re: Breakthroughs john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 05:59 -0700
                                  Re: Breakthroughs Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 08:03 -0500
                                    Re: Breakthroughs poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-03-28 05:26 -0700
                                  Re: Breakthroughs moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-27 13:19 +0000
                                    Re: Breakthroughs john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 07:48 -0700
                                      Re: Breakthroughs HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 08:02 -0700
                                        Re: Breakthroughs benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-03-27 17:06 -0400
                                          Re: Breakthroughs HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 17:32 -0700
                                            Re: Breakthroughs benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-03-27 21:14 -0400
                                              Re: Breakthroughs HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 05:09 -0700
                                                Re: Breakthroughs john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 05:19 -0700
                                                  Re: Breakthroughs moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-28 13:26 +0000
                                                    Re: Breakthroughs john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 07:21 -0700
                                                      Re: Breakthroughs Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 11:08 -0500
                                                      Re: Breakthroughs Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-03-28 11:40 -0500
                                                      Re: Breakthroughs moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-28 20:23 +0000
                                                  Re: Breakthroughs HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 07:43 -0700
                                                    Re: Breakthroughs benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-03-28 16:06 -0400
                                                    Re: Breakthroughs moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-28 20:28 +0000
                                                  Re: Breakthroughs benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-03-28 15:55 -0400
                                                Re: Breakthroughs benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-03-28 15:54 -0400
                                      Re: Breakthroughs Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 10:09 -0500
                                        Re: Breakthroughs john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 09:42 -0700
                                          Re: Breakthroughs Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 11:52 -0500
                                          Re: Breakthroughs Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 11:54 -0500
                                          Re: Breakthroughs Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 12:09 -0500
                                            Re: Breakthroughs poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-03-28 05:37 -0700
                                          Re: Breakthroughs moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-27 17:41 +0000
                                            Re: Breakthroughs noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 14:38 -0700
                                        Re: Breakthroughs poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-03-28 05:31 -0700
                                    Re: Breakthroughs poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-03-28 05:29 -0700
                                  Re: Breakthroughs noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 08:25 -0700
                          Re: Breakthroughs Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 07:50 -0500
                            Re: Breakthroughs benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-03-27 17:04 -0400
                            Re: Breakthroughs poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-03-28 05:23 -0700
                        Re: Breakthroughs Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 07:48 -0500
                  Re: Breakthroughs Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 16:18 -0500
                  Re: Breakthroughs moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-25 23:06 +0000
                    Re: Breakthroughs benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-03-25 19:48 -0400
                      Re: Breakthroughs noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 20:17 -0700
        Re: Breakthroughs moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-03-24 14:59 +0000
          Re: Breakthroughs Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 10:03 -0500
            Re: Breakthroughs poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-03-24 08:18 -0700
        Re: Breakthroughs poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-03-24 08:13 -0700
          Re: Breakthroughs Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-03-24 14:29 -0500
            Re: Breakthroughs poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-03-25 22:40 -0700
    Re: Breakthroughs The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-03-24 11:05 -0800
      Re: Breakthroughs john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 12:10 -0700
    Re: Breakthroughs gmbr3359@gmail.com - 2017-03-25 23:18 -0700
      Re: Breakthroughs poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-03-26 03:36 -0700
        Re: Breakthroughs noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 09:27 -0700

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

#625350

Odd
"On 3/27/2017 9:48 AM, john wrote: 
> Odd and MM 
> I really don't get what 
> makes you think that whatever happens with 
> glass rods etc 
> is all one mechanism? 

OK, so what you are saying is that when a charged glass rod makes a 
charged ping pong ball approach, this is due to one mechanism: 
subphotons emitted from the glass rod circling around to hit the ping 
pong ball from the backside to push it inward. "

No. I never said that. Subphotons cause gravity.

"But when the charged ping pong ball is replaced with a charged glass 
ball, now the subphotons emitted from the glass rod NO LONGER circle 
around to hit the glass ball from the backside, and instead they go in 
straight lines to hit the glass ball from the frontside, to make the 
glass ball recede from the rod? "

No. Subphotons go as straight as photons.

"Is this what you're saying, John? 
What the hell makes the subphotons do THAT? "

There are ALL the radiations we know of at
the next level down. How do they all work?
When do all they come into play? If I can't
totally describe that for you, then that proves
they don't exist?

> 
> A flag flaps like it does because of many 
> factors. 
> 
> One thing I've noticed about you two 
> is a dog-like concentration on every 
> subject that excludes everything else. 

"You have made the statement that ALL attractive forces are illogical. "

So? Describe how an attractive force works.
I have said that some pushes curve. HOW
DO YOUR ATTRACTIVE FORCES WORK????

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

#625354

On 3/27/2017 11:42 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "On 3/27/2017 9:48 AM, john wrote:
>> Odd and MM
>> I really don't get what
>> makes you think that whatever happens with
>> glass rods etc
>> is all one mechanism?
>
> OK, so what you are saying is that when a charged glass rod makes a
> charged ping pong ball approach, this is due to one mechanism:
> subphotons emitted from the glass rod circling around to hit the ping
> pong ball from the backside to push it inward. "
>
> No. I never said that. Subphotons cause gravity.

Ah, ok, sorry, my bad. So what again is the thing that curls around and 
hits the backside of the charged ping pong ball?

>
> "But when the charged ping pong ball is replaced with a charged glass
> ball, now the subphotons emitted from the glass rod NO LONGER circle
> around to hit the glass ball from the backside, and instead they go in
> straight lines to hit the glass ball from the frontside, to make the
> glass ball recede from the rod? "
>
> No. Subphotons go as straight as photons.

So what happened to the things that were emitted from the glass rod and 
curled around to hit the backside of charged things nearby?

>
> "Is this what you're saying, John?
> What the hell makes the subphotons do THAT? "
>
> There are ALL the radiations we know of at
> the next level down. How do they all work?
> When do all they come into play? If I can't
> totally describe that for you, then that proves
> they don't exist?

John, I'm looking for a coherent hypothesis from you that is consistent 
with what you consider to be logical.

>
>>
>> A flag flaps like it does because of many
>> factors.
>>
>> One thing I've noticed about you two
>> is a dog-like concentration on every
>> subject that excludes everything else.
>
> "You have made the statement that ALL attractive forces are illogical. "
>
> So? Describe how an attractive force works.
> I have said that some pushes curve. HOW
> DO YOUR ATTRACTIVE FORCES WORK????
>

Here are your options at this point:
- You can deny that this observed phenomenon ever happens.
- You can say that you cannot think of any explanation that could fit 
what you consider logical, and so it is a miracle.
- You can reconsider what you think is logical and what is not logical.
- You can come up with the explanation.

Are you saying that you consider it an unexplainable miracle that the 
charged ping pong ball moves toward the rod, regardless whether there is 
paper inserted in between or not? Keep in mind that replacing the ping 
pong ball with a charged glass ball results in the glass ball moving away.

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

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

#625355

On 3/27/2017 11:42 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "On 3/27/2017 9:48 AM, john wrote:
>> Odd and MM
>> I really don't get what
>> makes you think that whatever happens with
>> glass rods etc
>> is all one mechanism?
>
> OK, so what you are saying is that when a charged glass rod makes a
> charged ping pong ball approach, this is due to one mechanism:
> subphotons emitted from the glass rod circling around to hit the ping
> pong ball from the backside to push it inward. "
>
> No. I never said that. Subphotons cause gravity.
>
> "But when the charged ping pong ball is replaced with a charged glass
> ball, now the subphotons emitted from the glass rod NO LONGER circle
> around to hit the glass ball from the backside, and instead they go in
> straight lines to hit the glass ball from the frontside, to make the
> glass ball recede from the rod? "
>
> No. Subphotons go as straight as photons.

Where were these subphotons when the charged ping pong ball was brought 
in proximity to the glass rod? Why didn't they push the ping pong ball away?

>
> "Is this what you're saying, John?
> What the hell makes the subphotons do THAT? "
>
> There are ALL the radiations we know of at
> the next level down. How do they all work?
> When do all they come into play? If I can't
> totally describe that for you, then that proves
> they don't exist?
>
>>
>> A flag flaps like it does because of many
>> factors.
>>
>> One thing I've noticed about you two
>> is a dog-like concentration on every
>> subject that excludes everything else.
>
> "You have made the statement that ALL attractive forces are illogical. "
>
> So? Describe how an attractive force works.
> I have said that some pushes curve. HOW
> DO YOUR ATTRACTIVE FORCES WORK????
>


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

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

#625356

On 3/27/2017 11:42 AM, john wrote:
> So? Describe how an attractive force works.
> I have said that some pushes curve. HOW
> DO YOUR ATTRACTIVE FORCES WORK????

You haven't explained what happens to your curving pushes when you 
simply change the thing being pushed. Nor have you explained how a piece 
of paper inserted in between doesn't even impact how much the push is.

I sense your frustration. To you, unless something fits into a small 
catalog of explanations you have, it is something you think is 
ILLOGICAL. You believe that only pushes can happen because one material 
body pushing against another is the only thing that can ever happen. And 
so if you run into something that resists explanation that way, it 
suddenly becomes .... oooooohhh ..... magic.

This is how a magician plies his trade. He makes something happen, and 
mentally you the audience member have a catalog of ways that thing could 
have possibly happened. And then the magician rules systematically rules 
out all the possible things in your catalog until you have no catalog 
items left, and you say, "Well, it has to be magic then!" Of course, 
it's not magic, it's quite ordinary, but it doesn't belong to the narrow 
catalog of explanations you keep in your head.

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

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

#625525

On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 8:09:56 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 3/27/2017 11:42 AM, john wrote:
> > So? Describe how an attractive force works.
> > I have said that some pushes curve. HOW
> > DO YOUR ATTRACTIVE FORCES WORK????
> 
> You haven't explained what happens to your curving pushes when you 
> simply change the thing being pushed. Nor have you explained how a piece 
> of paper inserted in between doesn't even impact how much the push is.
> 
> I sense your frustration. To you, unless something fits into a small 
> catalog of explanations you have, it is something you think is 
> ILLOGICAL. You believe that only pushes can happen because one material 
> body pushing against another is the only thing that can ever happen. And 
> so if you run into something that resists explanation that way, it 
> suddenly becomes .... oooooohhh ..... magic.
> 
> This is how a magician plies his trade. He makes something happen, and 
> mentally you the audience member have a catalog of ways that thing could 
> have possibly happened. And then the magician rules systematically rules 
> out all the possible things in your catalog until you have no catalog 
> items left, and you say, "Well, it has to be magic then!" Of course, 
> it's not magic, it's quite ordinary, but it doesn't belong to the narrow 
> catalog of explanations you keep in your head.
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

========================
momentum collision of masses  can bring 
only push    separation !!!
==================
Y.Porat
========================

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

#625364

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Odd

>"You have made the statement that ALL attractive forces are illogical. "

>So? Describe how an attractive force works.

The Electric Field.
F=k*q1*q2/r^2.

k is Coulomb's constant and q1 and q2 have opposite signs for attraction.
r is the distance between the charges.

Now tell us, with all your fractal universe and precessing spinny thing ideas,
why is the charged ping pong ball attracted to the charged glass rod?  
Why is the charged glass ball repelled?  Why doesn't placing a piece of cardboard
between the charged objects, or behind them, change anything?

Remember, any answer you give must be consistent with the real world.
(but you won't answer, you'll just try to evade some more)

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

#625418

photonshield?

> (but you won't answer, you'll just try to evade some more)

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

#625524

On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 6:09:40 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 3/27/2017 9:48 AM, john wrote:
> > Odd and MM
> > I really don't get what
> > makes you think that whatever happens with
> > glass rods etc
> > is all one mechanism?
> 
> OK, so what you are saying is that when a charged glass rod makes a 
> charged ping pong ball approach, this is due to one mechanism: 
> subphotons emitted from the glass rod circling around to hit the ping 
> pong ball from the backside to push it inward.
> But when the charged ping pong ball is replaced with a charged glass 
> ball, now the subphotons emitted from the glass rod NO LONGER circle 
> around to hit the glass ball from the backside, and instead they go in 
> straight lines to hit the glass ball from the frontside, to make the 
> glass ball recede from the rod?
> 
> Is this what you're saying, John?
> What the hell makes the subphotons do THAT?
> 
> >
> > A flag flaps like it does because of many
> > factors.
> >
> > One thing I've noticed about you two
> > is a dog-like concentration on every
> > subject that excludes everything else.
> 
> You have made the statement that ALL attractive forces are illogical.
> 
> > You focus in way too tight, and lose all
> > the peripheral immediately.
> > Are glass rods effects Gravity? Are they
> > magnetism? Are they charge?
> > Wtf are you arguing, Odd?
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
======================
JHON IS ABSOLUTLY RIGHT !!!
Y.Porat
================================

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

#625522

On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 4:19:59 PM UTC+3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >Odd
> >"
> >Cosmic rays don't travel straight because they are electrically charged 
> >and they're present in the magnetic field of the earth. The neutral 
> >components of cosmic rays DO travel in straight lines. "
> 
> >So what? If one component within your "vacuum "
> >can find purchase to curve, your argument is shot.
> 
> >"The super-fine emr or neutrinos you propose do not have electric charge. "
> 
> >Oh, now a pronouncement on what these subphotons
> >that you don't believe in can and cannot have?
> 
> So if they DO have charge, then there's yet another law of physics 
> (conservation of charge) your magical subphotons violate, and therefore
> yet another reason to reject the whole idea of those retarded subphotons
> completely.
======================
no sub photons
much much   smaller 
the Y Circlons 
======
Y.P

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

#625336

I don't know of any limit on the wavelength of light,
what you prefer to label photonics, but
radio waves are quite long ... say, in their period,
it's just a direct relatio between lenght & period, of course,
inverse to frequency, 1/length.  please,
don't reify the math, more than is neccesary
for a given application -- hey!

> Oh, now a pronouncement on what these subphotons
> that you don't believe in can and cannot have?

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

#625320

On 3/25/2017 4:28 PM, john wrote:
> I had a wonderful science book
> back in Grade 4
> that gave plans to build a
> boomerang.
> Gary M. was still looking the direction I threw
> it when it hit him in the back of the head.
> They took away my boomerang like they
> took away my marble board.
> Not all pushes go in straight lines, Odd.
>

So the ping pong ball moves toward the glass rod because little 
boomeranging particles emitted by the glass rod hit the back side of the 
ping pong ball and push it toward the glass rod, you say.

But if you keep the glass rod there and then swap the ping pong ball 
with a charged glass ball, then the glass ball moves AWAY from the glass 
rod. So what the hell happened to the boomeranging particles emitted 
from the glass rod that's still there???

Remember that science, you say, is the business of explaining observations.

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

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

#625405

On 3/27/2017 8:50 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 3/25/2017 4:28 PM, john wrote:
>> I had a wonderful science book
>> back in Grade 4
>> that gave plans to build a
>> boomerang.
>> Gary M. was still looking the direction I threw
>> it when it hit him in the back of the head.
>> They took away my boomerang like they
>> took away my marble board.
>> Not all pushes go in straight lines, Odd.
>>
>
> So the ping pong ball moves toward the glass rod because little
> boomeranging particles emitted by the glass rod hit the back side of the
> ping pong ball and push it toward the glass rod, you say.
>
> But if you keep the glass rod there and then swap the ping pong ball
> with a charged glass ball, then the glass ball moves AWAY from the glass
> rod. So what the hell happened to the boomeranging particles emitted
> from the glass rod that's still there???
>
> Remember that science, you say, is the business of explaining observations.
>
John, Odd still thinks he's captain of his debating team. This is called 
a "straw man". He sets up some bogus theory (boomerangs) and then says 
it's YOUR theory and tears it apart. Odd thinks progress in science is 
all made by political debate and rhetorical warfare.

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

#625520

On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 3:50:37 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 3/25/2017 4:28 PM, john wrote:
> > I had a wonderful science book
> > back in Grade 4
> > that gave plans to build a
> > boomerang.
> > Gary M. was still looking the direction I threw
> > it when it hit him in the back of the head.
> > They took away my boomerang like they
> > took away my marble board.
> > Not all pushes go in straight lines, Odd.
> >
> 
> So the ping pong ball moves toward the glass rod because little 
> boomeranging particles emitted by the glass rod hit the back side of the 
> ping pong ball and push it toward the glass rod, you say.
> 
> But if you keep the glass rod there and then swap the ping pong ball 
> with a charged glass ball, then the glass ball moves AWAY from the glass 
> rod. So what the hell happened to the boomeranging particles emitted 
> from the glass rod that's still there???
> 
> Remember that science, you say, is the business of explaining observations.
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
====================
Bodkin  (P D)can think only about he see quickly

zero creative imagination

in short 
an incurable  born parrot !!!
Y.Porat
==================
 

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

#625319

On 3/25/2017 4:20 PM, john wrote:
> What is it that pulls?
> Little ropes?
> Maybe the atomic equivalent of Cosmic rays
> travel around in circles? Hey Y?
>

Is this your idea, then, John? Is this your explanation?

So then two follow-ups:
1. Why does the piece of paper inserted not lessen how much the ping 
pong ball moves toward the glass rod? And why does this not change with 
the size of the paper?
2. If the ping pong ball is being pushed from behind by little boomerang 
particles, then why does replacing the ping pong ball with a charged 
glass ball suddenly flip the motion from being toward the glass rod to 
being away from the glass rod?

Remember, science you say is to have an explanation for observations.

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

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

#625054

On 3/25/2017 2:52 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "
> John, where's your explanation for what happens with the glass rod and
> the ping pong ball, especially when the piece of paper is inserted?
> Where are your little ropes"
>
> You're the one with the theory
> that says Gravity pulls.

I'm not talking about gravity. I'm talking about the observation that 
any school child can do, including you, that a charged glass rod placed 
in proximity to a charged ping pong ball will result in the ping pong 
ball moving toward the glass rod, even if there is a piece of paper 
stuck in between.

You say science is the business of coming up with a logical explanation 
for observed phenomena. OK, there's an observed phenomenon. What's your 
explanation that meets your standard for logical?

You have several choices at this point:
- You can deny that this observation is possible.
- You can say that you cannot think of any explanation that could be 
logical, and so it is a miracle.
- You can reconsider what you think is logical and what is not logical.
- You can come up with the explanation.

> If you deny little ropes, what is it
> that pulls?

I'm asking YOU. What's logical to YOU?

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

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

#625089

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Odd
>"
>John, where's your explanation for what happens with the glass rod and 
>the ping pong ball, especially when the piece of paper is inserted? 
>Where are your little ropes"

>You're the one with the theory
>that says Gravity pulls.
>If you deny little ropes, what is it
>that pulls?

Why are you so evasive, John?  Odd was asking you about electric charges,
not gravity. And he was asking YOU why that (opposite charges attracting)
happens.  Why don't you answer him? Instead you respond to his question
with another question worded almost as if it was an absurd idea that
things attract, not an ordinary observation.

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

#625098

On 3/25/2017 7:06 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Odd
>> "
>> John, where's your explanation for what happens with the glass rod and
>> the ping pong ball, especially when the piece of paper is inserted?
>> Where are your little ropes"
>
>> You're the one with the theory
>> that says Gravity pulls.
>> If you deny little ropes, what is it
>> that pulls?
>
> Why are you so evasive, John?  Odd was asking you about electric charges,
> not gravity. And he was asking YOU why that (opposite charges attracting)
> happens.  Why don't you answer him? Instead you respond to his question
> with another question worded almost as if it was an absurd idea that
> things attract, not an ordinary observation.
>
Why are you so fooled by Odd's debate team tactics? Science is not a 
political debate (global warming to the contrary not withstanding)

John's point is that in nature, there is no tension in forces. All 
apparent "tension" like say the "strings" that "pull" dirt into a vacuum 
cleaner are all just apparent and not real forces. Just as centrifugal 
force is not a "real" force. Odd's debate team tactic of asking john to 
explain the unknown is just that: a meaningless debating ploy.

Truth is that if the actual mechanisms of charge forces is not known 
then Odd's implication that that apparent charge "attractions" somehow 
proves that tension forces exist in nature is just bluster and nonsense. 
Unless Odd can EXPLAIN the mechanism, of charge attraction and SHOW that 
it is due to some kind of tension, then his argument is nothing but 
bullshit.

In other words Odd is still an idiot who tries to cover it up with a 
bunch of debating tricks. Then the question that remains would be are 
you dumb enough to be taken in by Odd's tricks?

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

#625271

tension & compression are always-and-omly coincident,
viz tensegrity;
the simplest tensegrity is of three struts & nine tendons -- voila

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

#624843

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Otherwise, sorry, pull interactions are impossible.

So explain the charged glass rod and the charged ping pong ball.
This is a demonstration anyone can do.
I was demonstrating this type of thing to my kid two days ago, with
balloons and a cat.

Did you even understand the Feynman quote?

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

#624844

On 3/24/2017 9:59 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Otherwise, sorry, pull interactions are impossible.
>
> So explain the charged glass rod and the charged ping pong ball.
> This is a demonstration anyone can do.

Because such an event cannot be explained in any way that makes logical 
sense, it is a miracle.

That, or what is considered logical sense is not really 
righ...nopenopenopenopenopenotdoingthat.

> I was demonstrating this type of thing to my kid two days ago, with
> balloons and a cat.
>
> Did you even understand the Feynman quote?
>


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

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

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web