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 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 09:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2bb7270d-0905-4377-9ebd-31c10064f6de@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #648774 |
MM " John, you keep whining about logic but you are unable (or unwilling) to show Odd, or me, *any* logic that would lead one to conclude what you believe. You simply believe, with no reason or logic to support what you believe. " And I'll say to you what I said to Odd- QM is 'counterintuitive ' and you have BRAGGED about how it ISN'T logical. So. NOW you REQUIRE logic?? Go back to QM and find some- let me know how that goes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 17:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oommn3$do4$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #648777 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >" >John, you keep whining about logic but you are unable (or unwilling) to >show Odd, or me, *any* logic that would lead one to conclude what you >believe. You simply believe, with no reason or logic to support what you >believe. " >And I'll say to you what I said to Odd- QM is 'counterintuitive ' and you >have BRAGGED about how it ISN'T logical. So. NOW you REQUIRE logic?? Go >back to QM and find some- let me know how that goes Do you even know the difference between logic and intuitition? Intuitition is what may seem right, in a common sense fashion. Logic is pure rules and math, and does not involve intuitition. QM is counterintuitive but quite logical. Perhaps I used the term 'illogical' when I meant counterintuitive. If so, apologies. Now show me logic (not intuitition) why you believe what you believe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 16:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oon3sf$143$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #648777 |
On 9/5/17 11:48 AM, john wrote: > MM > " > John, you keep whining about logic but you are unable (or unwilling) to > show Odd, or me, *any* logic that would lead one to conclude what you > believe. You simply believe, with no reason or logic to support what you > believe. " > > And I'll say to you what I said to Odd- QM is 'counterintuitive ' Yes. > and you have BRAGGED about how it ISN'T logical. NO! Quantum mechanics is very logical. It's counterintuitive, but it's VERY logical. Do you know what logic is? You have logic and intuition conflated in your head, and you've always conflated them. They are not the same. > So. NOW you REQUIRE logic?? Go back to QM and find some- let me know how that goes > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 19:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3f703321-effb-471f-a2d4-16b783923d02@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #648810 |
On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 2:10:44 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/5/17 11:48 AM, john wrote: > > MM > > " > > John, you keep whining about logic but you are unable (or unwilling) to > > show Odd, or me, *any* logic that would lead one to conclude what you > > believe. You simply believe, with no reason or logic to support what you > > believe. " > > > > And I'll say to you what I said to Odd- QM is 'counterintuitive ' > > Yes. > > > and you have BRAGGED about how it ISN'T logical. > > NO! Quantum mechanics is very logical. It's counterintuitive, but it's > VERY logical. Explain hows the notion that space/time is a fabric that can bend is logical.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 05:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <af6cdc52-d3cc-4fc0-ae4e-c39581686fd7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #648862 |
JM to Odd " Explain hows the notion that space/time is a fabric that can bend is logical. " Also- how are particles with no volume logical? Also- how do charges accelerate 'randomly' within an atom without producing magnetic fields i.e. Radiating? How is that logical?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 08:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ooou7o$vh4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #648890 |
On 9/6/17 7:55 AM, john wrote: > JM to Odd Who is JM? McGinn? If so, I don't see his stuff anymore. > " > Explain hows the notion that space/time is a fabric that can bend is logical. " So here's how I respond to that. If you think it is ILLOGICAL for spacetime to bend, then there must be some principle about spacetime that such a statement conflicts with. What is that principle, and why do you believe it is true? > Also- how are particles with no volume logical? What principle does that violate? And why do you believe that principle is true? > Also- how do charges accelerate 'randomly' within an atom without producing magnetic fields i.e. Radiating? How is that logical? They DO produce magnetic fields. That is NOT the same thing as radiating. I have said this over and over and over again, and you keep repeating the same goddamn ignorant question over and over and over again. Is your skull impenetrable? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 07:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <81290fa5-7938-4904-b01c-138c6b42931f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #648899 |
Odd "On 9/6/17 7:55 AM, john wrote: > JM to Odd Who is JM? McGinn? If so, I don't see his stuff anymore. " Yes. Why does his "stuff" burn your eyes? " > " > Explain hows the notion that space/time is a fabric that can bend is logical. " So here's how I respond to that. If you think it is ILLOGICAL for spacetime to bend, then there must be some principle about spacetime that such a statement conflicts with. What is that principle, and why do you believe it is true? " Spacetime is a made up mish mash of nonsense. Why can you not see that? Are you a zombie? " > Also- how are particles with no volume logical? What principle does that violate? And why do you believe that principle is true? " It's the difference between something and nothing. Do you believe that nothing is something? I think you do, but for the life of me I don't know why. Are you a zombie? " > Also- how do charges accelerate 'randomly' within an atom without producing magnetic fields i.e. Radiating? How is that logical? They DO produce magnetic fields. That is NOT the same thing as radiating." Oh, do the magnetic fields affect each other? But they still move randomly? Do you correlate any of your beliefs? Or just believe? Are you a zombie? " I have said this over and over and over again, and you keep repeating the same goddamn ignorant question over and over and over again. Is your skull impenetrable? " My skull does not accept nonsense. Apparently yours does. Are you a zombie?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 12:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oopc6f$1uu8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #648903 |
On 9/6/17 9:09 AM, john wrote: > Odd > "On 9/6/17 7:55 AM, john wrote: >> JM to Odd > > Who is JM? McGinn? If so, I don't see his stuff anymore. > " > > Yes. Why does his "stuff" burn your eyes? Does snow on a TV set with bad rabbit ears burn your eyes? Is it worth looking at? > > " >> " >> Explain hows the notion that space/time is a fabric that can bend is logical. " > > So here's how I respond to that. > If you think it is ILLOGICAL for spacetime to bend, then there must be > some principle about spacetime that such a statement conflicts with. > What is that principle, and why do you believe it is true? " > > Spacetime is a made up mish mash of nonsense. Surely you have a reason for believing that. Oh, maybe not. Maybe you're just heckling from the 3rd base stands for the hell of it. > Why can you not see that? Are you a zombie? > > " >> Also- how are particles with no volume logical? > > What principle does that violate? And why do you believe that principle > is true? " > > It's the difference between something and nothing. No, John, volume doesn't mark the difference between something and nothing. What makes you think it does? > Do you believe that nothing is something? I think you do, but for the life of me I don't know why. Are you a zombie? > > " >> Also- how do charges accelerate 'randomly' within an atom without producing magnetic fields i.e. Radiating? How is that logical? > > They DO produce magnetic fields. That is NOT the same thing as > radiating." > Oh, do the magnetic fields affect each other? Yes! They affect the energy states. > But they still move randomly? Yes, since the trajectory of one electron isn't well-defined, then it can't very well determine the trajectory of another electron, can it? > Do you correlate any of your beliefs? Or just believe? Are you a zombie? > > " > I have said this over and over and over again, and you keep > repeating the same goddamn ignorant question over and over and over > again. Is your skull impenetrable? " > > My skull does not accept nonsense. Apparently yours does. Are you a zombie? John, all your skull does it label things "nonsense" without any rational basis, and you just buy that label without thinking. This is what faith-believers do. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 01:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ookvvc$bqq$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #648702 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > If you can't describe it simply, and then more and more complex, I don't > care how you shuck and jive, you got the wrong answer. I know this is what you want, John, because it's what you know from children's museums. But it has nothing to do with science. And whining more about it in this vein does nothing except reflect on you. > Know what "can't picture it" means? > > Anyway, I'm sure you've read tons on Nils Bohr- remember him describing > in his dream what he saw that lead him to the idea of electrons circling > the nucleus which gives the right numbers for the first H energy > transition or so but not further? Remember what he said that he saw? > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 00:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ookrtb$77c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #648645 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > "Surely you're aware that the MOND approach has some difficulties with > other data. To a scientist that's a problem. To you, not so much. " > Don't you guys just assume 'invisible stuff'? > Nope, they consider alternative gravity theories too. Like MOND. None of them have worked. Quantitatively. That's what counts. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 00:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ookqcu$na7$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #648619 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >"- show quoted text - >Of course we have a model. We've had a good model for hundreds of years. >F=GMm/r^2. >Kepler's Laws. >Newton's Laws of motion. >Since then we have the GR model, but in non-extreme environments, the >Newtonian model usually works well enough. >You don't even know what a science model even is. " >Then why do you need DM? >Then why do you need DE? Invisible heavy stuff, John. If I tell you that some boxes contain nothing but styrofoam peanuts, and you pick up one and find it is very heavy, you know that there is something there that's very heavy. Did you see it? No, it's hidden inside the box. Invisible heavy stuff. Dark matter is the same thing. >You have NO IDEA what those things ARE or how they work, if they exist, >or how they even RELATE, except that none of your numbers add up without >them. Scientists just figure out how much mass is needed (that they can't see) and its distribution. Just like you can weigh that box and a styrofoam box and compare them to see how much mass is in the heavy box. >I call FUDGE. >I call EPICYCLES. That sounds like your so-called model, alright. >I call IDIOTS IN CHARGE (with agendas). At least you are not in charge. >TO SAVE YOUR LIFE, if you were asked to draw the atom, you would draw >the Bohr model- which is KNOWN to be wrong. Actually, no, I'd ask for more details, and if none I'd show a shaded spherical distribution with a nucleus in the center. >Ur a zombie, Mickey >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-04 21:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <u03sqcha8q16qi7as2eikm2t0p04hh9vsu@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #648619 |
On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 11:16:05 -0700 (PDT), john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >... I call EPICYCLES.... Hey now, what's wrong with epicycles? If you got epicycles, you can make orbits that look kind of like closed Hilburt curves. (The underlying math is similar to the Fourier transform.) I saw a video of one recently, adding more epicycles each revolution, ending with nice closed curves with lots of straight lines and right angles. Square orbits. Man, it's great. I *like* epicycles. They just make lousy physics. Oh, and using the discarded notion of Ptolemaic epicycles as an example of bad physics is *my* shtick. Think up your own damn' insults and stop stealing mine. Your Poetic License doesn't say you can do that. -- Goat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 02:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <24b12935-788a-40e2-9a8a-a0f2ab10ed3c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #648713 |
Goat "Oh, and using the discarded notion of Ptolemaic epicycles as an example of bad physics is *my* shtick. Think up your own damn' insults and stop " :/ sorry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-02 18:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59ab3023$0$7842$b1db1813$713c3f2f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #648316 |
On 9/2/2017 9:33 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >> On 9/1/2017 10:42 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>> On 9/1/2017 6:52 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>> On 9/1/2017 3:37 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/31/2017 12:03 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/2017 8:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/26/2017 9:25 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Sun. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shut up, John. I *just* corrected that lie. " >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's look at the IMF, Odd. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does it go away if the sun goes away? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is the object and which the 'field'? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Matter move through the field? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Matter move through the sun? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you starting to see the difference? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The sun is a high temperature bundle of fields. That is what matter is made >>>>>>>>>>>>> of. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Listen to this babbling kookdom! Odd is as bad as Banjo. Odd thinks the >>>>>>>>>>>> sun is made of mathematical fantasy. I mean he REALLY seems to believe >>>>>>>>>>>> that reality for him is all in his mind! Lucky he's an amateur and not >>>>>>>>>>>> setting policy in government. Let's hope Trump doesn't read his posts. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure there are differences between high temperature bundles of fields and >>>>>>>>>>>>> low temperature bundles of fields? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, Odd, There is a difference between "high fantasy" and "low >>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy"! You are nuts. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you remove all the field quanta that make up the sun, then of course the >>>>>>>>>>>>> field quanta that radiate from them will go away. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Field quanta" = babbling senile nonsense. Hey Odd, you trying to >>>>>>>>>>>> compete with Bert and Archie for the worst case of Alzheimer's prize? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I wonder how you determine what is nonsense and what is not. Agreement with >>>>>>>>>>> experiment or gut feel? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Agreement with the meanings assigned to words both in traditional >>>>>>>>>> physics and dictionaries. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well no wonder you're locked in the past! Wow! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Typical Boinker. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Usual Kook method: Make up a bunch of jargon that nobody knows the >>>>>>>> meaning of so you can spout it and pretend to understand it and then >>>>>>>> everyone will be impressed and think you are smart. Odd doesn't even >>>>>>>> make up his own jargon, he lets others do it for him. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's not hard to learn jargon. Just takes reading. Oh, that's right, you >>>>>>> said everyone gets confused reading books on modern physics. Except maybe >>>>>>> physicists and at least a woodworker. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Ah, so the secret of learning science is simply memorizing jargon! Know >>>>>> the jargon and then that proves you are smart. I think we all understand >>>>>> your "science" now, Odd. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Do you know the difference between learning and memorizing, Ben? >>>>> And you know that attempting learning without reading is just idle spinning >>>>> of wheels? >>>>> >>>> Learning is different from memorizing Odd. Learning is when the REALLY >>>> REALLY BELIEVE what you are told no matter how insane or ridiculous it >>>> is. It is obvious that you are well beyond basic memorization. >>>> >>> >>> Ok so one would conclude that you think both learning and memorization are >>> bad, and that credulity and gut feel are what should be used instead. >> >> You are confused as usual. Memorization is what books and databases are >> for. You think "learning" is just "knowing things". It's not. The end >> result of learning is understanding things. Do we need to argue if >> learning is a noun or a verb here? > > I agree that learning is about understanding. Yet just above you said > learning was about believing things no matter how ridiculous. Stir the pot > some more. > > >> >> Credulity is YOUR idea of science. You read books and they turn it into >> dogma with no understanding and proper evidence. I know you hate >> dictionaries and books with proper evidence but go look up the >> definition of credulity and that is YOU. >> >> And Gut feel, intuition and inspiration are the ONLY thing that has a >> chance at finding ultimate truth in science. > > Well, Ben, that's just bullshit, sorry to say. No surprise you think so given you think you are smarter than Einstein who agrees with that statement. Did they give you the "smarter and Einstein statuette yet? >> It has been PROVEN that >> mathematics can't do it. And there is no way a computer can do the >> scientific method. And that leaves? Right. The very things you reject >> and deny! Odd you are bound for nowhere and are determined to get there. >> >> You are pretty well lost. Obviously you can't answer that one because you have no idea where you are. Of course you COULD read my book on the subject and have some LEARNING. but you really only read things approved by your church, right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-02 22:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oofcde$1cmu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #648383 |
benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 9/2/2017 9:33 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>> On 9/1/2017 10:42 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>> On 9/1/2017 6:52 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On 9/1/2017 3:37 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/31/2017 12:03 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/2017 8:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/26/2017 9:25 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Sun. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shut up, John. I *just* corrected that lie. " >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's look at the IMF, Odd. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does it go away if the sun goes away? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is the object and which the 'field'? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Matter move through the field? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can Matter move through the sun? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you starting to see the difference? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sun is a high temperature bundle of fields. That is what matter is made >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Listen to this babbling kookdom! Odd is as bad as Banjo. Odd thinks the >>>>>>>>>>>>> sun is made of mathematical fantasy. I mean he REALLY seems to believe >>>>>>>>>>>>> that reality for him is all in his mind! Lucky he's an amateur and not >>>>>>>>>>>>> setting policy in government. Let's hope Trump doesn't read his posts. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure there are differences between high temperature bundles of fields and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> low temperature bundles of fields? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, Odd, There is a difference between "high fantasy" and "low >>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy"! You are nuts. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you remove all the field quanta that make up the sun, then of course the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> field quanta that radiate from them will go away. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Field quanta" = babbling senile nonsense. Hey Odd, you trying to >>>>>>>>>>>>> compete with Bert and Archie for the worst case of Alzheimer's prize? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I wonder how you determine what is nonsense and what is not. Agreement with >>>>>>>>>>>> experiment or gut feel? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Agreement with the meanings assigned to words both in traditional >>>>>>>>>>> physics and dictionaries. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Well no wonder you're locked in the past! Wow! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Typical Boinker. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Usual Kook method: Make up a bunch of jargon that nobody knows the >>>>>>>>> meaning of so you can spout it and pretend to understand it and then >>>>>>>>> everyone will be impressed and think you are smart. Odd doesn't even >>>>>>>>> make up his own jargon, he lets others do it for him. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's not hard to learn jargon. Just takes reading. Oh, that's right, you >>>>>>>> said everyone gets confused reading books on modern physics. Except maybe >>>>>>>> physicists and at least a woodworker. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ah, so the secret of learning science is simply memorizing jargon! Know >>>>>>> the jargon and then that proves you are smart. I think we all understand >>>>>>> your "science" now, Odd. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you know the difference between learning and memorizing, Ben? >>>>>> And you know that attempting learning without reading is just idle spinning >>>>>> of wheels? >>>>>> >>>>> Learning is different from memorizing Odd. Learning is when the REALLY >>>>> REALLY BELIEVE what you are told no matter how insane or ridiculous it >>>>> is. It is obvious that you are well beyond basic memorization. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ok so one would conclude that you think both learning and memorization are >>>> bad, and that credulity and gut feel are what should be used instead. >>> >>> You are confused as usual. Memorization is what books and databases are >>> for. You think "learning" is just "knowing things". It's not. The end >>> result of learning is understanding things. Do we need to argue if >>> learning is a noun or a verb here? >> >> I agree that learning is about understanding. Yet just above you said >> learning was about believing things no matter how ridiculous. Stir the pot >> some more. >> >> >>> >>> Credulity is YOUR idea of science. You read books and they turn it into >>> dogma with no understanding and proper evidence. I know you hate >>> dictionaries and books with proper evidence but go look up the >>> definition of credulity and that is YOU. >>> >>> And Gut feel, intuition and inspiration are the ONLY thing that has a >>> chance at finding ultimate truth in science. >> >> Well, Ben, that's just bullshit, sorry to say. > > No surprise you think so given you think you are smarter than Einstein > who agrees with that statement. Did they give you the "smarter and > Einstein statuette yet? Not smarter than Einstein, but a lot of physicists take some of Einsteins pithy remarks with a grain of salt. Einstein was not infallible. Noting where he ended up being wrong is not a claim of being smarter than him. Grow up. > >>> It has been PROVEN that >>> mathematics can't do it. And there is no way a computer can do the >>> scientific method. And that leaves? Right. The very things you reject >>> and deny! Odd you are bound for nowhere and are determined to get there. >>> >>> You are pretty well lost. > > Obviously you can't answer that one because you have no idea where you > are. Of course you COULD read my book on the subject and have some > LEARNING. but you really only read things approved by your church, right? I choose what I read not what I'm dared to read by a self-promoting crank hungry for a buck. > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-01 19:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <428f69a0-96cd-401a-b418-b94c42503f90@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #648243 |
On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 6:38:46 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: > ... Learning is when the REALLY REALLY BELIEVE what you are told no matter how insane or ridiculous it is... This is an absurd definition, even for you, Benj. Your definition is more closely aligned with faith or religion, take your pick.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-01 23:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59aa289c$0$46076$b1db1813$7c6b8ee7@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #648255 |
On 9/1/2017 10:46 PM, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 6:38:46 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: > >> ... Learning is when the REALLY REALLY BELIEVE what you are told no matter how insane or ridiculous it is... > > This is an absurd definition, even for you, Benj. > > Your definition is more closely aligned with faith or religion, take your pick. > Wow pnals, you are smarter than we thought! You have EXACTLY got the point! Ever listen to Odd give his sermons on the Religion of physics? Ever see him stop to consider if it actually made any sense? Point proven.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 22:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a23435$0$22779$c3e8da3$33881b6a@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647383 |
On 8/26/2017 9:06 PM, john wrote: > Odd > "Sun. > > Shut up, John. I *just* corrected that lie. " > > Let's look at the IMF, Odd. > Does it go away if the sun goes away? > Which is the object and which the 'field'? > Can Matter move through the field? > Can Matter move through the sun? > > Are you starting to see the difference? > John if Odd can imagine it, then it can happen. It's really as simple as that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-02 00:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <710f7f31-87fc-42b7-b4bd-9913382d3a05@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647340 |
On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 10:28:13 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/26/17 12:24 PM, john wrote: > > Pfft. > > Bean counting. > > Call it whatever disparaging thing you want. Mathematically precise > models and numeric reconciliation with data is what science is all > about. You don't like it? You call that bean counting? Then you don't > like science, period, end of story. What you like instead is not science. > > > Chickenshit bean counters want to pretend they know what's happening. > > Odd will tell you the Interplanetary Magnetic Field creates the Sun. > > Shut up, John. I *just* corrected that lie. > > > > > Fields are created and maintained by energy input and organization. They are EFFECTS on OTHER MATTER by the radiation of energy. > > Energy is not a thing. It is not a stuff. It is a property. ============================= blockhead imbecile crock energy is not a thing ????!! just stick it to your parroting mug ======================================== energy is MASS IN MOTION ! full stop 2 ================================================= MASS IS THE 'MOTHER OF ALL FORCES !! INCLUDING GRAVITY !!! ============================================= if you talk about ripples schmipples means you understand nothing and spreading your 'nothing' as **top physics while you are far away from understanding even the basics of ***reality* smearing formula on paper IS NOT RERALITY !! Y.Porat ========================================= > You might as well be talking about fields being the effect of the > radiation of blue. > > > > > All a Science that turns a blind eye to atomic organization and actually DENIES it, will get, is ....well, nothing of value. They can measure occurrences, and predict that the next such occurrence will be similar. Non predictive. ===================== not enough !!! = Y.Porat ===========================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dingus Dirtbag McGee" <scopeflenser@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-02 18:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <oofnn6$1rnh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #648310 |
Why did you post this? Did your brain fell out?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web