Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #647234 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-25 17:28 -0500 |
| Last post | 2017-08-30 19:00 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 218 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 17:28 -0500
What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 16:04 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 01:53 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-25 19:17 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <nobody@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-26 01:50 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-26 09:07 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 10:43 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-26 11:26 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 10:24 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 14:28 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 18:06 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 01:25 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 22:52 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 12:27 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 08:23 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 09:00 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-27 18:08 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 16:53 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-27 22:24 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-27 22:37 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-27 22:54 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 06:32 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 09:02 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 07:51 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-28 10:05 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 08:19 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 10:26 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 16:43 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 10:23 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 10:29 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 08:50 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 11:08 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 09:17 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 11:41 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 09:56 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 12:02 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-28 18:05 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 11:14 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 13:31 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-28 20:44 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-28 12:08 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 13:30 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-28 16:15 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 16:32 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-28 19:33 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 13:26 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 18:44 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 02:42 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 18:32 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-28 21:59 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 06:26 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-29 08:46 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-29 16:40 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-29 16:35 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-29 15:53 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 17:34 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 16:46 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:03 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 09:27 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 13:37 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 12:40 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 15:03 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 15:10 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 13:19 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 15:38 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 15:43 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 15:50 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 14:59 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-31 17:06 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-28 11:47 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 07:46 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 10:19 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 16:16 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:03 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-31 17:04 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 19:37 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 18:18 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 22:52 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 21:38 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 02:42 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 23:31 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 13:33 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 10:08 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 12:11 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 10:23 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 11:19 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 14:23 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 14:00 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 15:00 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 22:14 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 22:14 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 15:39 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 22:47 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 16:06 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 00:07 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 16:17 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 00:07 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 17:17 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 00:28 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 17:34 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 00:50 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 18:01 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 01:18 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 18:30 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 18:51 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-09-02 19:05 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 19:17 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 02:19 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 01:33 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 13:08 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-04 07:02 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 13:20 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 02:16 +0000
If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 05:21 -0700
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 13:08 +0000
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 06:27 -0700
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 13:35 +0000
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 06:50 -0700
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 07:16 -0700
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-03 20:29 +0000
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 14:00 -0700
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-03 22:54 +0000
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 19:37 -0700
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-04 06:05 +0000
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 15:10 -0500
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 15:10 -0500
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 15:08 -0500
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2017-09-03 12:47 +0000
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-09-05 06:51 -0500
Re: I'm the best c coder here. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-09-05 11:07 -0700
Re: Michael Glasser is THE UNDISPUTED KING of low SignalToNoise ratios. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-09-05 11:43 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 02:16 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-04 06:50 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 05:01 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-04 16:19 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 11:16 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 12:41 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-05 00:00 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 08:21 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 15:12 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 13:33 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 13:48 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-09-04 14:59 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 07:03 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 08:04 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-05 17:18 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 16:29 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 16:58 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 00:42 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 18:36 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 18:51 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 01:53 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 19:17 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 08:23 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 06:46 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 07:04 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 09:08 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 07:32 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 09:07 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-05 15:39 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 09:48 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-05 17:25 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 16:10 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 19:25 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 05:55 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 08:46 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 07:09 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 12:44 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 01:51 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 00:42 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-05 00:16 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 21:35 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 02:48 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-02 18:26 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 22:47 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-09-01 19:46 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 23:42 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 22:53 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-09-02 00:57 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view "Dingus Dirtbag McGee" <scopeflenser@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 18:58 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 19:04 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 17:43 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-27 11:41 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 16:23 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 17:35 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 17:31 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-26 17:01 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 18:53 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-27 10:20 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 16:21 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view fr314159@gmail.com - 2017-09-01 10:15 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-08-26 12:00 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-26 16:19 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 14:25 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-26 15:57 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-26 17:08 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-26 18:00 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-26 19:15 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 10:25 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view fr314159@gmail.com - 2017-08-28 06:43 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 11:45 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-28 21:11 +0200
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-28 12:22 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 12:36 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 15:59 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-28 21:49 +0200
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-28 23:43 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-29 16:01 +0200
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 07:59 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-29 10:42 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-30 09:37 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-30 10:06 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-30 21:45 +0200
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-09-02 12:46 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-03 22:32 +0200
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Sadovnik Socratus <44socrat@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 02:46 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 06:59 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-30 19:00 +0000
Page 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →
| From | Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 12:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo1inf$gp0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647564 |
On 8/28/2017 10:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/28/17 9:51 AM, john wrote: >> Odd >> " >> Fields aren't "given off". A field by definition extends everywhere for >> all time. A field is not something that radiates out into a place where >> there was no field before. It's already there and has already been >> there " >> >> Well SHIT. >> What are we building microwave towers for? >> Tell the boys we don't have to- fields already there!! >> > > I think if you'll look more carefully, John, you'll probably see that > the description of microwave towers may talk about radiation of SIGNALS, > not of fields. Microwave tower - its radiation of an EM wave. do a cross section of your EM and you have two dynamic fields one E andone M. > And quite possibly, the idea of those signals being > fields and so fields are what have been radiated, is an idea that you > made up completely in your own head. a field is typically a vector field, an array of points (2D or 3D) w vectors at each point. a field, vector field is a mathematical construct. Microwave towers emit EM waves, not 'fields".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 13:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo1ngp$o3j$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647582 |
On 8/28/17 12:08 PM, Serg io wrote: > On 8/28/2017 10:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/28/17 9:51 AM, john wrote: >>> Odd >>> " >>> Fields aren't "given off". A field by definition extends everywhere for >>> all time. A field is not something that radiates out into a place where >>> there was no field before. It's already there and has already been >>> there " >>> >>> Well SHIT. >>> What are we building microwave towers for? >>> Tell the boys we don't have to- fields already there!! >>> >> >> I think if you'll look more carefully, John, you'll probably see that >> the description of microwave towers may talk about radiation of >> SIGNALS, not of fields. > > Microwave tower - its radiation of an EM wave. do a cross section of > your EM and you have two dynamic fields one E andone M. > > >> And quite possibly, the idea of those signals being fields and so >> fields are what have been radiated, is an idea that you made up >> completely in your own head. > > a field is typically a vector field, an array of points (2D or 3D) w > vectors at each point. > > a field, vector field is a mathematical construct. Microwave towers > emit EM waves, not 'fields". > The field extends everywhere, all the time. The waves are disturbances in that field. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 16:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo2156$19cq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647593 |
On 8/28/2017 1:30 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/28/17 12:08 PM, Serg io wrote: >> On 8/28/2017 10:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 8/28/17 9:51 AM, john wrote: >>>> Odd >>>> " >>>> Fields aren't "given off". A field by definition extends everywhere for >>>> all time. A field is not something that radiates out into a place where >>>> there was no field before. It's already there and has already been >>>> there " >>>> >>>> Well SHIT. >>>> What are we building microwave towers for? >>>> Tell the boys we don't have to- fields already there!! >>>> >>> I think if you'll look more carefully, John, you'll probably see that >>> the description of microwave towers may talk about radiation of >>> SIGNALS, not of fields. >> >> Microwave tower - its radiation of an EM wave. do a cross section of >> your EM and you have two dynamic fields one E andone M. >> >> >>> And quite possibly, the idea of those signals being fields and so >>> fields are what have been radiated, is an idea that you made up >>> completely in your own head. >> >> a field is typically a vector field, an array of points (2D or 3D) w >> vectors at each point. >> >> a field, vector field is a mathematical construct. Microwave towers >> emit EM waves, not 'fields". >> > > The field extends everywhere, all the time. The waves are disturbances > in that field. > take a flashlight, turn it on, is the light, an EM wave emitted, only a disturbance in some sort of field ? sounds familiar... and field equations are used on surfaces to solve problems, they exist within the boundry cut upon the surface, no need for the field else where.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 16:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo2258$1ajk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647647 |
On 8/28/17 4:15 PM, Serg io wrote: > On 8/28/2017 1:30 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/28/17 12:08 PM, Serg io wrote: >>> On 8/28/2017 10:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 8/28/17 9:51 AM, john wrote: >>>>> Odd >>>>> " >>>>> Fields aren't "given off". A field by definition extends everywhere >>>>> for >>>>> all time. A field is not something that radiates out into a place >>>>> where >>>>> there was no field before. It's already there and has already been >>>>> there " >>>>> >>>>> Well SHIT. >>>>> What are we building microwave towers for? >>>>> Tell the boys we don't have to- fields already there!! >>>>> > >>>> I think if you'll look more carefully, John, you'll probably see >>>> that the description of microwave towers may talk about radiation of >>>> SIGNALS, not of fields. >>> >>> Microwave tower - its radiation of an EM wave. do a cross section >>> of your EM and you have two dynamic fields one E andone M. >>> >>> >>>> And quite possibly, the idea of those signals being fields and so >>>> fields are what have been radiated, is an idea that you made up >>>> completely in your own head. >>> >>> a field is typically a vector field, an array of points (2D or 3D) w >>> vectors at each point. >>> >>> a field, vector field is a mathematical construct. Microwave towers >>> emit EM waves, not 'fields". >>> >> >> The field extends everywhere, all the time. The waves are disturbances >> in that field. >> > > take a flashlight, turn it on, is the light, an EM wave emitted, only a > disturbance in some sort of field ? The EM wave *IS* the emitted disturbance in the electromagnetic field. > > sounds familiar... > > > and field equations are used on surfaces to solve problems, they exist > within the boundry cut upon the surface, no need for the field else where. Boundary conditions are for fixing a value of a function (or a derivative of the function) at a particular place, and it does not necessarily imply that there is no field past that boundary, nor that it is uninteresting. > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 19:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo2cor$1ovs$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647656 |
On 8/28/2017 4:32 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/28/17 4:15 PM, Serg io wrote: >> On 8/28/2017 1:30 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 8/28/17 12:08 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>> On 8/28/2017 10:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> On 8/28/17 9:51 AM, john wrote: >>>>>> Odd >>>>>> " >>>>>> Fields aren't "given off". A field by definition extends >>>>>> everywhere for >>>>>> all time. A field is not something that radiates out into a place >>>>>> where >>>>>> there was no field before. It's already there and has already been >>>>>> there " >>>>>> >>>>>> Well SHIT. >>>>>> What are we building microwave towers for? >>>>>> Tell the boys we don't have to- fields already there!! >>>>>> >> >>>>> I think if you'll look more carefully, John, you'll probably see >>>>> that the description of microwave towers may talk about radiation >>>>> of SIGNALS, not of fields. >>>> >>>> Microwave tower - its radiation of an EM wave. do a cross section >>>> of your EM and you have two dynamic fields one E andone M. >>>> >>>> >>>>> And quite possibly, the idea of those signals being fields and so >>>>> fields are what have been radiated, is an idea that you made up >>>>> completely in your own head. >>>> >>>> a field is typically a vector field, an array of points (2D or 3D) w >>>> vectors at each point. >>>> >>>> a field, vector field is a mathematical construct. Microwave >>>> towers emit EM waves, not 'fields". >>>> >>> >>> The field extends everywhere, all the time. The waves are >>> disturbances in that field. >>> >> >> take a flashlight, turn it on, is the light, an EM wave emitted, only >> a disturbance in some sort of field ? > > The EM wave *IS* the emitted disturbance in the electromagnetic field. what is "disturbance" ? How is that defined disturbance mathematically? (see **) you are including null values in your field(s), when you do that you are extending the mathematical construct of field to where ever you want. I can define a field called Road, where ever there is a value, there is a road, and even if there is no road, that is 0 or null value, so the field of roads extends to infinity in all directions when I include null values in the field. The electromagnetic field exists where there is light, and is null out side the beam. It is composed of E and M fields and the fields must satisfy Maxwell's equations to travel. ** - "disturbance" must satisfy Maxwell's equations to travel. http://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/maxwells-eq.htm > >> >> sounds familiar... >> >> >> and field equations are used on surfaces to solve problems, they exist >> within the boundry cut upon the surface, no need for the field else >> where. > > Boundary conditions are for fixing a value of a function (or a > derivative of the function) at a particular place, and it does not > necessarily imply that there is no field past that boundary, nor that it > is uninteresting. well, it is used to compute loop integrals, line integrals, and many of those are not dependent upon the position or shape of line or cut or path, Greens Theorem, .... and a few others I forgot, stokes theorem very powerful math.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 13:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo9kcj$s12$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647679 |
On 8/28/17 7:33 PM, Serg io wrote: > On 8/28/2017 4:32 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/28/17 4:15 PM, Serg io wrote: >>> On 8/28/2017 1:30 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 8/28/17 12:08 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>> On 8/28/2017 10:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 8/28/17 9:51 AM, john wrote: >>>>>>> Odd >>>>>>> " >>>>>>> Fields aren't "given off". A field by definition extends >>>>>>> everywhere for >>>>>>> all time. A field is not something that radiates out into a place >>>>>>> where >>>>>>> there was no field before. It's already there and has already >>>>>>> been there " >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well SHIT. >>>>>>> What are we building microwave towers for? >>>>>>> Tell the boys we don't have to- fields already there!! >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> I think if you'll look more carefully, John, you'll probably see >>>>>> that the description of microwave towers may talk about radiation >>>>>> of SIGNALS, not of fields. >>>>> >>>>> Microwave tower - its radiation of an EM wave. do a cross section >>>>> of your EM and you have two dynamic fields one E andone M. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> And quite possibly, the idea of those signals being fields and so >>>>>> fields are what have been radiated, is an idea that you made up >>>>>> completely in your own head. >>>>> >>>>> a field is typically a vector field, an array of points (2D or 3D) >>>>> w vectors at each point. >>>>> >>>>> a field, vector field is a mathematical construct. Microwave >>>>> towers emit EM waves, not 'fields". >>>>> >>>> >>>> The field extends everywhere, all the time. The waves are >>>> disturbances in that field. >>>> >>> >>> take a flashlight, turn it on, is the light, an EM wave emitted, only >>> a disturbance in some sort of field ? >> >> The EM wave *IS* the emitted disturbance in the electromagnetic field. > > what is "disturbance" ? How is that defined disturbance mathematically? > (see **) Usually as any deviation from an equilibrium state. That is, if the field F(x,y,z,t) has surrounding values F0, then F(x,y,z,t)=F0+dF. > > you are including null values in your field(s), when you do that you are > extending the mathematical construct of field to where ever you want. Well, first of all, it's rare that the null values extend for large patches over space. Second, this isn't a mathematical construct. > I > can define a field called Road, where ever there is a value, there is a > road, and even if there is no road, that is 0 or null value, so the > field of roads extends to infinity in all directions when I include null > values in the field. In a sense, except that a road BY DEFINITION has a boundary. A field BY DEFINITION extends over all space and time. > > The electromagnetic field exists where there is light, No, that is not true. The electromagnetic field exists everywhere. Light exists where there is a propagating ripple in that field. Don't confuse light with an electromagnetic field. They are not the same. Light is a WAVE in the electromagnetic field. The wave does not have to extend over all space, but the field does, BY DEFINITION. > and is null out > side the beam. It is composed of E and M fields and the fields must > satisfy Maxwell's equations to travel. > > ** - "disturbance" must satisfy Maxwell's equations to travel. > > http://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/maxwells-eq.htm > > > >> >>> >>> sounds familiar... >>> >>> >>> and field equations are used on surfaces to solve problems, they >>> exist within the boundry cut upon the surface, no need for the field >>> else where. >> >> Boundary conditions are for fixing a value of a function (or a >> derivative of the function) at a particular place, and it does not >> necessarily imply that there is no field past that boundary, nor that >> it is uninteresting. > > well, it is used to compute loop integrals, line integrals, and many of > those are not dependent upon the position or shape of line or cut or > path, Greens Theorem, .... and a few others I forgot, stokes theorem > very powerful math. > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-01 18:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o5sjqct6a4a0mdk60mtcah2vqgg4e90t6r@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #648038 |
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:26:27 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > ... The wave does not have to extend over all space, but the field > does, BY DEFINITION. Sort of. For the strong nuclear force, the value of the field is zero throughout most of the universe. -- Goat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-02 02:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ood5qs$1sqn$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #648225 |
Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:26:27 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> ... The wave does not have to extend over all space, but the field >> does, BY DEFINITION. > > Sort of. For the strong nuclear force, the value of the field is zero > throughout most of the universe. > No, not zero, but dang small. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 18:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a499e9$0$13159$c3e8da3$cc4fe22d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647647 |
On 8/28/2017 5:15 PM, Serg io wrote: > On 8/28/2017 1:30 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/28/17 12:08 PM, Serg io wrote: >>> On 8/28/2017 10:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 8/28/17 9:51 AM, john wrote: >>>>> Odd >>>>> " >>>>> Fields aren't "given off". A field by definition extends everywhere >>>>> for >>>>> all time. A field is not something that radiates out into a place >>>>> where >>>>> there was no field before. It's already there and has already been >>>>> there " >>>>> >>>>> Well SHIT. >>>>> What are we building microwave towers for? >>>>> Tell the boys we don't have to- fields already there!! >>>>> > >>>> I think if you'll look more carefully, John, you'll probably see >>>> that the description of microwave towers may talk about radiation of >>>> SIGNALS, not of fields. >>> >>> Microwave tower - its radiation of an EM wave. do a cross section >>> of your EM and you have two dynamic fields one E andone M. >>> >>> >>>> And quite possibly, the idea of those signals being fields and so >>>> fields are what have been radiated, is an idea that you made up >>>> completely in your own head. >>> >>> a field is typically a vector field, an array of points (2D or 3D) w >>> vectors at each point. >>> >>> a field, vector field is a mathematical construct. Microwave towers >>> emit EM waves, not 'fields". >>> >> >> The field extends everywhere, all the time. The waves are disturbances >> in that field. >> > > take a flashlight, turn it on, is the light, an EM wave emitted, only a > disturbance in some sort of field ? > > sounds familiar... > > > and field equations are used on surfaces to solve problems, they exist > within the boundry cut upon the surface, no need for the field else where. > > Sergio please allow me to introduce you to "OddThink". You see outside the medium there there are no waves, but waves need no medium to exist. Thus, the field exists everywhere to infinity because the waves also exist there. Of course their values are all zero, but does NOT mean that they don't exist. Got it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 21:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo2lbe$3dk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647662 |
On 8/28/2017 5:32 PM, benj wrote: > On 8/28/2017 5:15 PM, Serg io wrote: >> On 8/28/2017 1:30 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 8/28/17 12:08 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>> On 8/28/2017 10:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> On 8/28/17 9:51 AM, john wrote: >>>>>> Odd >>>>>> " >>>>>> Fields aren't "given off". A field by definition extends >>>>>> everywhere for >>>>>> all time. A field is not something that radiates out into a place >>>>>> where >>>>>> there was no field before. It's already there and has already been >>>>>> there " >>>>>> >>>>>> Well SHIT. >>>>>> What are we building microwave towers for? >>>>>> Tell the boys we don't have to- fields already there!! >>>>>> >> >>>>> I think if you'll look more carefully, John, you'll probably see >>>>> that the description of microwave towers may talk about radiation >>>>> of SIGNALS, not of fields. >>>> >>>> Microwave tower - its radiation of an EM wave. do a cross section >>>> of your EM and you have two dynamic fields one E andone M. >>>> >>>> >>>>> And quite possibly, the idea of those signals being fields and so >>>>> fields are what have been radiated, is an idea that you made up >>>>> completely in your own head. >>>> >>>> a field is typically a vector field, an array of points (2D or 3D) w >>>> vectors at each point. >>>> >>>> a field, vector field is a mathematical construct. Microwave >>>> towers emit EM waves, not 'fields". >>>> >>> >>> The field extends everywhere, all the time. The waves are >>> disturbances in that field. >>> >> >> take a flashlight, turn it on, is the light, an EM wave emitted, only >> a disturbance in some sort of field ? >> >> sounds familiar... >> >> >> and field equations are used on surfaces to solve problems, they exist >> within the boundry cut upon the surface, no need for the field else >> where. >> >> > Sergio please allow me to introduce you to "OddThink". > > You see outside the medium there there are no waves, but waves need no > medium to exist. Thus, the field exists everywhere to infinity because > the waves also exist there. Of course their values are all zero, but > does NOT mean that they don't exist. Got it? thank you! I finally figgured that out, and invented my new "Field of Roads", where ever there is a road, put a 1, if not put a 0, and extend that "Field Of Roads" [FOR] in all directions, to infinity. So we have an infinite 3D "Field Of Roads" where ever there is a disturbance, there is a road. Look at the money we can save, simply by causing a disturbance in [FOR] instead of hiring pesky contractors. (you can expand the type of road with different numbers, 1 dirt, 2 asphault, 3 cement, 4 shell, 5 rock unscreened, 6 #10 rock screened, etc...) Next invention, "Field of Kippers" [FOK], doing a marking survey now. Just don't know how to cause a disturbance in the FOK yet, but disturbances have to be there, as there are lots of kippers around. [not around here so much, except dead ones packed 2 layer in tomato sauce in the tin cans at the grocery store on the shelf, you know the ones with dust on top of them marked $1.00 https://www.walmart.com/search/?cat_id=0&page=1&query=kippers&typeahead=kippers#searchProductResult ] Kippers only cause a disturbance in FOK. I am renaming "Flashlight" to "EM Optical Band Disturberrator Device" [EMOBDD]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 06:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <76f09b6e-bf70-4b4a-9ae0-d4db4bfd2625@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647695 |
Sir Geo "...you can expand the type of road with different numbers, 1 dirt, 2 asphault, 3 cement, 4 shell, 5 rock unscreened, 6 #10 rock screened, etc...) ... Exactly!! Use Odd's quantum ripples!!! Just make the ripple right there either rocky, or cement-y!! Wow!! And I was dissing the mullahs' djinns! :( Odd! Your theory is getting so third-world!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 08:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo3r8s$1sr9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647736 |
On 8/29/2017 8:26 AM, john wrote: > Sir Geo > "...you > can expand the type of road with different numbers, 1 dirt, 2 asphault, > 3 cement, 4 shell, 5 rock unscreened, 6 #10 rock screened, etc...) ... > > Exactly!! > Use Odd's quantum ripples!!! > Just make the ripple right there either rocky, or cement-y!! > Wow!! > And I was dissing the mullahs' djinns! :( > > Odd! Your theory is getting so third-world!!! > Another theory, I'm not sure about, is that Minecraft actually specifies the entire universe, it is only when we enter/build things on Minecraft one can see that part of it on the screen, and the everyday objects in life are very detailed Minecraft things someone else already built. Is the Universe already digitized ? Is Microsoft, owners of Minecraft making illegal $$ by renting out parts of the Universe ? Does each point in the universe have an IP ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 16:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a5d156$0$54205$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647737 |
On 8/29/2017 9:46 AM, Serg io wrote: > On 8/29/2017 8:26 AM, john wrote: >> Sir Geo >> "...you >> can expand the type of road with different numbers, 1 dirt, 2 asphault, >> 3 cement, 4 shell, 5 rock unscreened, 6 #10 rock screened, etc...) ... >> >> Exactly!! >> Use Odd's quantum ripples!!! >> Just make the ripple right there either rocky, or cement-y!! >> Wow!! >> And I was dissing the mullahs' djinns! :( >> >> Odd! Your theory is getting so third-world!!! >> > > > Another theory, I'm not sure about, is that Minecraft actually specifies > the entire universe, it is only when we enter/build things on Minecraft > one can see that part of it on the screen, and the everyday objects in > life are very detailed Minecraft things someone else already built. > > Is the Universe already digitized ? > > Is Microsoft, owners of Minecraft making illegal $$ by renting out parts > of the Universe ? Does each point in the universe have an IP ? > > Right idea, Sergio, but Universe does not have "points" because they are fantasy and don't exist. However each, um, location does have an IP. For more information ask one of our Third Worlders about "akashic records".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 16:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a5d01f$0$13165$c3e8da3$cc4fe22d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647695 |
On 8/28/2017 10:59 PM, Serg io wrote: > On 8/28/2017 5:32 PM, benj wrote: >> On 8/28/2017 5:15 PM, Serg io wrote: >>> On 8/28/2017 1:30 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 8/28/17 12:08 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>> On 8/28/2017 10:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 8/28/17 9:51 AM, john wrote: >>>>>>> Odd >>>>>>> " >>>>>>> Fields aren't "given off". A field by definition extends >>>>>>> everywhere for >>>>>>> all time. A field is not something that radiates out into a place >>>>>>> where >>>>>>> there was no field before. It's already there and has already >>>>>>> been there " >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well SHIT. >>>>>>> What are we building microwave towers for? >>>>>>> Tell the boys we don't have to- fields already there!! >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> I think if you'll look more carefully, John, you'll probably see >>>>>> that the description of microwave towers may talk about radiation >>>>>> of SIGNALS, not of fields. >>>>> >>>>> Microwave tower - its radiation of an EM wave. do a cross section >>>>> of your EM and you have two dynamic fields one E andone M. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> And quite possibly, the idea of those signals being fields and so >>>>>> fields are what have been radiated, is an idea that you made up >>>>>> completely in your own head. >>>>> >>>>> a field is typically a vector field, an array of points (2D or 3D) >>>>> w vectors at each point. >>>>> >>>>> a field, vector field is a mathematical construct. Microwave >>>>> towers emit EM waves, not 'fields". >>>>> >>>> >>>> The field extends everywhere, all the time. The waves are >>>> disturbances in that field. >>>> >>> >>> take a flashlight, turn it on, is the light, an EM wave emitted, only >>> a disturbance in some sort of field ? >>> >>> sounds familiar... >>> >>> >>> and field equations are used on surfaces to solve problems, they >>> exist within the boundry cut upon the surface, no need for the field >>> else where. >>> >>> >> Sergio please allow me to introduce you to "OddThink". >> >> You see outside the medium there there are no waves, but waves need no >> medium to exist. Thus, the field exists everywhere to infinity because >> the waves also exist there. Of course their values are all zero, but >> does NOT mean that they don't exist. Got it? > > thank you! I finally figgured that out, and invented my new "Field of > Roads", where ever there is a road, put a 1, if not put a 0, and extend > that "Field Of Roads" [FOR] in all directions, to infinity. > > So we have an infinite 3D "Field Of Roads" where ever there is a > disturbance, there is a road. Look at the money we can save, simply by > causing a disturbance in [FOR] instead of hiring pesky contractors. (you > can expand the type of road with different numbers, 1 dirt, 2 asphault, > 3 cement, 4 shell, 5 rock unscreened, 6 #10 rock screened, etc...) > > Next invention, "Field of Kippers" [FOK], doing a marking survey now. > Just don't know how to cause a disturbance in the FOK yet, but > disturbances have to be there, as there are lots of kippers around. [not > around here so much, except dead ones packed 2 layer in tomato sauce in > the tin cans at the grocery store on the shelf, you know the ones with > dust on top of them marked $1.00 > https://www.walmart.com/search/?cat_id=0&page=1&query=kippers&typeahead=kippers#searchProductResult > ] Kippers only cause a disturbance in FOK. > > > I am renaming "Flashlight" to "EM Optical Band Disturberrator Device" > [EMOBDD] > > > I smell Nobel! Maybe two!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 15:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo4k8v$17t1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647775 |
On 8/29/2017 3:35 PM, benj wrote: > On 8/28/2017 10:59 PM, Serg io wrote: >> On 8/28/2017 5:32 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 8/28/2017 5:15 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>> On 8/28/2017 1:30 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> On 8/28/17 12:08 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>>> On 8/28/2017 10:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/28/17 9:51 AM, john wrote: >>>>>>>> Odd >>>>>>>> " >>>>>>>> Fields aren't "given off". A field by definition extends >>>>>>>> everywhere for >>>>>>>> all time. A field is not something that radiates out into a >>>>>>>> place where >>>>>>>> there was no field before. It's already there and has already >>>>>>>> been there " >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well SHIT. >>>>>>>> What are we building microwave towers for? >>>>>>>> Tell the boys we don't have to- fields already there!! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think if you'll look more carefully, John, you'll probably see >>>>>>> that the description of microwave towers may talk about radiation >>>>>>> of SIGNALS, not of fields. >>>>>> >>>>>> Microwave tower - its radiation of an EM wave. do a cross >>>>>> section of your EM and you have two dynamic fields one E andone M. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> And quite possibly, the idea of those signals being fields and so >>>>>>> fields are what have been radiated, is an idea that you made up >>>>>>> completely in your own head. >>>>>> >>>>>> a field is typically a vector field, an array of points (2D or 3D) >>>>>> w vectors at each point. >>>>>> >>>>>> a field, vector field is a mathematical construct. Microwave >>>>>> towers emit EM waves, not 'fields". >>>>>> >>>>> The field extends everywhere, all the time. The waves are >>>>> disturbances in that field. >>>>> >>>> >>>> take a flashlight, turn it on, is the light, an EM wave emitted, >>>> only a disturbance in some sort of field ? >>>> >>>> sounds familiar... >>>> >>>> >>>> and field equations are used on surfaces to solve problems, they >>>> exist within the boundry cut upon the surface, no need for the field >>>> else where. >>>> >>>> >>> Sergio please allow me to introduce you to "OddThink". >>> >>> You see outside the medium there there are no waves, but waves need >>> no medium to exist. Thus, the field exists everywhere to infinity >>> because the waves also exist there. Of course their values are all >>> zero, but does NOT mean that they don't exist. Got it? >> >> thank you! I finally figgured that out, and invented my new "Field >> of Roads", where ever there is a road, put a 1, if not put a 0, and >> extend that "Field Of Roads" [FOR] in all directions, to infinity. >> So we have an infinite 3D "Field Of Roads" where ever there is a >> disturbance, there is a road. Look at the money we can save, simply by >> causing a disturbance in [FOR] instead of hiring pesky contractors. >> (you can expand the type of road with different numbers, 1 dirt, 2 >> asphault, 3 cement, 4 shell, 5 rock unscreened, 6 #10 rock screened, >> etc...) >> >> Next invention, "Field of Kippers" [FOK], doing a marking survey now. >> Just don't know how to cause a disturbance in the FOK yet, but >> disturbances have to be there, as there are lots of kippers around. >> [not around here so much, except dead ones packed 2 layer in tomato >> sauce in the tin cans at the grocery store on the shelf, you know the >> ones with dust on top of them marked $1.00 >> https://www.walmart.com/search/?cat_id=0&page=1&query=kippers&typeahead=kippers#searchProductResult >> ] Kippers only cause a disturbance in FOK. >> >> >> I am renaming "Flashlight" to "EM Optical Band Disturberrator Device" >> [EMOBDD] >> >> >> > I smell Nobel! Maybe two! I will get a "Fields" Metal ! [nobody is buying the Field OF Kippers [FOK] thing, they say (well one Jewish dude in NYC at a Deli on the corner) said they already have GPS to track the Kippers, but NOBODY in their RIGHT MIND wants to track a flipping Kipper using fields, he was very loud on the phone about it. meh, what does he know anyway...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 17:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a48c8b$0$54149$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647593 |
On 8/28/2017 2:30 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/28/17 12:08 PM, Serg io wrote: >> On 8/28/2017 10:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 8/28/17 9:51 AM, john wrote: >>>> Odd >>>> " >>>> Fields aren't "given off". A field by definition extends everywhere for >>>> all time. A field is not something that radiates out into a place where >>>> there was no field before. It's already there and has already been >>>> there " >>>> >>>> Well SHIT. >>>> What are we building microwave towers for? >>>> Tell the boys we don't have to- fields already there!! >>>> >>> >>> I think if you'll look more carefully, John, you'll probably see that >>> the description of microwave towers may talk about radiation of >>> SIGNALS, not of fields. >> >> Microwave tower - its radiation of an EM wave. do a cross section of >> your EM and you have two dynamic fields one E andone M. >> >> >>> And quite possibly, the idea of those signals being fields and so >>> fields are what have been radiated, is an idea that you made up >>> completely in your own head. >> >> a field is typically a vector field, an array of points (2D or 3D) w >> vectors at each point. >> >> a field, vector field is a mathematical construct. Microwave towers >> emit EM waves, not 'fields". >> > > The field extends everywhere, all the time. The waves are disturbances > in that field. > Moronic ignorant statement. Odd, have you been attending Banjo's lectures on genius science? Fields are your fantasies that describe the action of disturbances in some medium. Idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 16:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a4814d$0$18130$c3e8da3$a9097924@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647564 |
On 8/28/2017 11:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/28/17 9:51 AM, john wrote: >> Odd >> " >> Fields aren't "given off". A field by definition extends everywhere for >> all time. A field is not something that radiates out into a place where >> there was no field before. It's already there and has already been >> there " >> >> Well SHIT. >> What are we building microwave towers for? >> Tell the boys we don't have to- fields already there!! >> > > I think if you'll look more carefully, John, you'll probably see that > the description of microwave towers may talk about radiation of SIGNALS, > not of fields. And quite possibly, the idea of those signals being > fields and so fields are what have been radiated, is an idea that you > made up completely in your own head. > > In the absence of information, people tend to make shit up. > In the absence of intelligence and thinking Odd tends to drift off into his fantasies. Odd, a FIELD is a mathematical model of actions in the real world. In the case of Microwave towers, these fields are FORCE FIELDS describing the SIGNALS that have been radiated. I know this makes no sense to your woodworking brain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 16:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oo9c19$dtg$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647639 |
benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 8/28/2017 11:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/28/17 9:51 AM, john wrote: >>> Odd >>> " >>> Fields aren't "given off". A field by definition extends everywhere for >>> all time. A field is not something that radiates out into a place where >>> there was no field before. It's already there and has already been >>> there " >>> >>> Well SHIT. >>> What are we building microwave towers for? >>> Tell the boys we don't have to- fields already there!! >>> >> >> I think if you'll look more carefully, John, you'll probably see that >> the description of microwave towers may talk about radiation of SIGNALS, >> not of fields. And quite possibly, the idea of those signals being >> fields and so fields are what have been radiated, is an idea that you >> made up completely in your own head. >> >> In the absence of information, people tend to make shit up. >> > In the absence of intelligence and thinking Odd tends to drift off into > his fantasies. > > Odd, a FIELD is a mathematical model of actions in the real world. No, Ben, it isn't. You trying to make it so by fiat is pointless. > In > the case of Microwave towers, these fields are FORCE FIELDS describing > the SIGNALS that have been radiated. I know this makes no sense to your > woodworking brain. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 09:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9a356cab-d1d2-4fbe-86f8-fa217207de22@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #648014 |
Odd "(benj) > > Odd, a FIELD is a mathematical model of actions in the real world. No, Ben, it isn't. You trying to make it so by fiat is pointless. _____ Yes, it is. A field is not an entity, it is the effect of actions by entities. The reason QMers are trying to FUDGE Science into oblivion is because their model has not a sniff as to what those actions ARE, because it has not a sniff about UNDERLYING STRUCTURE and processes that make entities, and they know it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 13:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo9l0s$srs$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #648019 |
On 8/31/17 11:27 AM, john wrote: > Odd > "(benj) >> >> Odd, a FIELD is a mathematical model of actions in the real world. > > No, Ben, it isn't. You trying to make it so by fiat is pointless. > _____ > Yes, it is. No, John, it's not. Try reading a little. > A field is not an entity, it is the effect of actions by entities. No, John, fields are real, and you don't have a single reason to say they are not. > The reason QMers are trying to FUDGE Science into oblivion is because their model has not a sniff as to what those actions ARE, because it has not a sniff about UNDERLYING STRUCTURE and processes that make entities, and they know it. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web