Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #677648 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-03-21 16:32 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-03-29 18:09 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 106 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-21 16:32 -0700
When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 09:22 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-23 14:40 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 06:26 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 17:47 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 13:47 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 14:24 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-03-25 03:33 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 06:18 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 07:00 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 08:14 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-03-25 09:56 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 10:10 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 19:32 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-25 17:52 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 11:41 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-26 00:48 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 07:31 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 10:51 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-26 18:41 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 12:53 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 13:09 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-26 20:45 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 14:58 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-27 11:57 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 11:25 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 06:46 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 18:04 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 11:12 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-27 18:56 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 19:26 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-27 12:35 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 12:41 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 22:49 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 16:35 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 01:58 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 05:31 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-28 12:50 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 06:14 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 16:07 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-03-28 06:15 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 16:07 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 10:44 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 18:01 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 11:33 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 11:53 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 12:07 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 21:42 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 06:50 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 14:43 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 14:51 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 09:39 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-29 17:10 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 17:21 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 16:19 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 16:29 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 18:00 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 14:11 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 12:34 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-03-31 19:43 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 13:05 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 23:37 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-30 16:54 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 17:07 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-30 20:16 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-31 02:38 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 07:18 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-31 17:58 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 21:54 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 15:14 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-31 15:42 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 00:40 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 18:05 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-31 21:23 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 16:31 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-29 17:03 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 09:58 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 21:42 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-03-29 23:51 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 09:56 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 21:42 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-27 21:03 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 10:48 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-03-28 19:17 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 16:13 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 09:48 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-26 20:42 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-03-26 21:33 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-03-25 11:41 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 19:32 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 19:32 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-03-25 21:03 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 22:32 +0000
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-03-24 22:11 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-03-23 23:24 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-03-23 23:26 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 17:02 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-25 17:13 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 19:13 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-03-27 21:21 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-03-27 22:06 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-03-27 23:46 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-03-25 18:25 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 13:15 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-03-29 14:21 -0700
Re: When light is stored in the atom it particpates in atomic weight/heaviness benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-29 18:09 -0400
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-28 06:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5e76ee3c-0c6d-460e-9220-5150b39b8042@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #678678 |
On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 3:50:14 PM UTC+3, Michael Moroney wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: > > >From the 'distributed' electron? > >Which is spread out. > >Why do they talk about this, then: > > >'if experimentally probed at very short distances, the intrinsic structure > >of the photon is recognized as a flux of quark and gluon components, quasi- > >free according to asymptotic freedom in QCD and described by the photon > >structure function.' ? > >(From the link provided by penile) > > Do you understand Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? (wait, no need to > answer that!) When you are talking about energies of that level, yes you > can pinpoint an electron's location to a high degree, but the energy and > momentum are WAY above that of the typical photon emitted by an electron > transitioning shells, so that as an answer to "where did the photon come > from" is meaningless? > > And on the other hand, do you know how large (wavelength) a typical photon > emitted by an electron transitioning shells is? No? I didn't think so. > That makes the answer to your question like trying to pinpoint the location > of the USS Nimitz to a particular cubic centimeter. ======================= if you cant locate it now does not mean no need to know it at least guess from where and why === Y.P =======================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-28 16:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p9gej4$16ru$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #678671 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > "john <johnse...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Odd >> "is EMITTE" >> >> Ah! >> BOOM! It just pops out from wherever. > > From the electron. > Are you expecting Santa’s Little Photon Workshop with a street address and > GPS coordinates? > " > From the 'distributed' electron? > Which is spread out. Yes. So where’s the problem? > Why do they talk about this, then: > > 'if experimentally probed at very short distances, the intrinsic > structure of the photon is recognized as a flux of quark and gluon > components, quasi-free according to asymptotic freedom in QCD and > described by the photon structure function.' ? This statement has absolutely nothing to do with where the photon is produced in the atom. Perhaps you could try to restate what you quoted above in the plain language you adore. This will illustrate how much difficulty you have in reading even semi-technical statements. > (From the link provided by penile) > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-28 10:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b3890067-737a-4d3e-9fb4-4dc40ebfbfdd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #678715 |
Odd " produced in the atom. Perhaps you could try to restate what you quoted above in the plain language you adore. This will illustrate how much difficulty you have in reading even semi-technical statements. " No statement of yours seems particularly clear, I give you that. Your get more and more abusive the more your feet are held to the fire. The atom is physical. It is not 'math'. Things have locations. Where and how does a photon come about, with reference to these things? You have made it clear that, since you have no model there is nothing to reference it to except charge. So your answer is: either at the nucleus or with the electron (which is 'distributed', somehow- cool trick for a fundamental particle). Is that your answer? My answer is that accretion disks are like baby photons, and Quasars within AGNs are like full-grown photons still within the atom, and Quasars not within AGNs travel at .1c with respect to the galactic background, and have jets that precess as fast as every 12 years. So- photons are created by the protons as a result of the protons absorbing energy from the environment. They occur and grow at the nucleus, and their presence affects the electron arms, pulling them in. When they are released, the electron arms are released.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-28 18:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p9gl8v$1j3q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #678758 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > " > produced in the atom. > > Perhaps you could try to restate what you quoted above in the plain > language you adore. This will illustrate how much difficulty you have in > reading even semi-technical statements. > > " > No statement of yours seems particularly clear, I give you that. > Your get more and more abusive the more your feet are held to the fire. > The atom is physical. It is not 'math'. Yes > Things have locations. Some do and some don’t. What is the latitude and longitude of Alberta, John? What are the x, y, z coordinates if the cloud overhead? Tell me how you would answer that question or explain why it’s not sensible to try to answer that question. > Where and how does a photon come about, with reference to these things? Already answered. > You have made it clear that, since you have no model Bullshit. What’s true is that you do not acknowledge what a physical model is, and you think that it’s unacceptable that what physics has doesn’t meet YOUR expectation that a model is a picture. Well, fuck that. > there is nothing to reference it to except charge. > So your answer is: either at the nucleus or with the electron (which is > 'distributed', somehow- cool trick for a fundamental particle). > > Is that your answer? That’s the answer I gave. And it agrees magnificently with quantitative data? > > My answer is that accretion disks are like baby photons, Who CARES what your answer is, besides you? More importantly, what evidence can you bring to the table that would convince others that your answer is better? Remember, scientists care about agreement with data. So, what’s your case for your answer? > and Quasars within AGNs are like full-grown photons still within the > atom, and Quasars not within AGNs travel at .1c with respect to the > galactic background, and have jets that precess as fast as every 12 years. > > So- photons are created by the protons as a result of the protons > absorbing energy from the environment. They occur and grow at the > nucleus, and their presence affects the electron arms, pulling them in. > When they are released, the electron arms are released. > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-28 11:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bca5f4d3-69e6-442d-b6e1-8c80ec4cb732@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #678768 |
Odd " Who CARES what your answer is, besides you? More importantly, what evidence can you bring to the table that would convince others that your answer is " Just your non-answers would be enough. The reason why you can't connect any dots is because your dots don't make a picture. That's why MM didn't click that galaxy halos are double-layered, and I did. Because with a precessing disc it would make perfect sense that successive edges would generate different flows. (He hates precessing thingies- some kind of strange reaction maybe to childhood somehow?)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-28 11:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <efbbde71-a69f-47a9-a699-2100e25b22f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #678775 |
Odd, MM, Pnal If you had a picture, you could look at data and connect the dots. You reject a physical picture. That's like being wilfully blind. You'll never recognize 'dots' like double layered halo, asymmetrical GRCs, billion-year disc periods and be able to see any significance. Data is lost on you. It's all Greek to you. Taught to be anti-logical, I guess.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-28 12:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f016507d-5e37-43ce-b84c-00865fb5180a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #678783 |
OddpnalMM You guys have no model. You'll never know which data is significant. You're f**ked. Have a nice day ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-28 21:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p9h28b$9t8$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #678788 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > OddpnalMM > You guys have no model. That is a lie. There is a model. You deny it, just because you can’t understand it. Your stance is, “it doesn’t exist unless it’s what I want”. Bullshit. > You'll never know which data is significant. > You're f**ked. > > Have a nice day ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-29 06:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1af73232-37f0-44c7-8ccb-1e4d7038fe6a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #678813 |
Odd " That is a lie. There is a model. You deny it, just because you can’t understand it. Your stance is, “it doesn’t exist unless it’s" Draw it. Make an analogy, like your water buoys- you devoted several paragraphs to that. Describe your model. You won't, because it's embarrassing
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-29 14:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p9iu1s$18q4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #678888 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > " > > That is a lie. There is a model. You deny it, just because you can’t > understand it. Your stance is, “it doesn’t exist unless it’s" > > Draw it. No. A physical model need not be a drawable thing or something that is explained in plain language. That’s the point. You can’t make physical models be something ready for your consumption. It’s not what they are. Stop complaining that they aren’t models unless they’re in the form you like. > Make an analogy, like your water buoys- you devoted several paragraphs to that. > Describe your model. > You won't, because it's embarrassing > You’re baiting, trying to get people to spoon feed you. Try learning the jargon. Try learning the language of mathematics. Learn how to hold a fork and knife and how to feed yourself rather than claiming it’s not food unless someone cuts it up for you and puts the food in your mouth. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-29 14:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p9iugr$19pj$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #678897 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >> Odd >> " >> >> That is a lie. There is a model. You deny it, just because you can’t >> understand it. Your stance is, “it doesn’t exist unless it’s" >> >> Draw it. > > No. A physical model need not be a drawable thing or something that is > explained in plain language. > > That’s the point. You can’t make physical models be something ready for > your consumption. It’s not what they are. Stop complaining that they aren’t > models unless they’re in the form you like. > >> Make an analogy, like your water buoys- you devoted several paragraphs to that. >> Describe your model. >> You won't, because it's embarrassing >> > > You’re baiting, trying to get people to spoon feed you. Try learning the > jargon. Try learning the language of mathematics. Learn how to hold a fork > and knife and how to feed yourself rather than claiming it’s not food > unless someone cuts it up for you and puts the food in your mouth. > > > By the way, you’re welcome for the buoy analogy. Now LEARN from it and stop insisting that stars are permanent residents in the galactic arm you see them in today. Stop insisting that a magnetic field is proof that the arms are segregated permanent structures. Stop insisting that galaxies rotate like solid disks. When someone illustrates to you that common sense examples can prove your arguments don’t hold water, then DON’T CLING TO THEM ANYWAY. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-29 09:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bcd61108-a3b7-4d98-b8eb-6a327a42ace9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #678901 |
Odd " When someone illustrates to you that common sense examples can prove your arguments don’t hold water, then DON’T CLING TO THEM ANYWAY. " Now who is baiting? We both know that you are the one with his sky falling. The only question is whether attophysics will find the precessing electrons first, or telescopes will find the precessing galaxies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-29 17:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p9j6mj$aun$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #678918 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd >" >When someone illustrates to you that common sense examples can prove your >arguments don't hold water, then DON'T CLING TO THEM ANYWAY. " >Now who is baiting? >We both know that you are the one with his sky falling. Umm, how? >The only question is whether attophysics will find the precessing electrons > first, or telescopes will find the precessing galaxies. You're hoping for something, but somehow think what you hope for is somehow already a fact. Why? There is no reason for anyone to actually look for retarded precessing electrons or galaxies, since that explains nothing and there are a ton of physics law violations. It makes about as much sense as going to an apple orchard and looking for apples falling sideways or something.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-29 17:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p9j7a3$1rhf$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #678918 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > " > > When someone illustrates to you that common sense examples can prove your > arguments don’t hold water, then DON’T CLING TO THEM ANYWAY. " > > Now who is baiting? > We both know that you are the one with his sky falling. I don’t think so. > > The only question is whether attophysics will find the precessing > electrons first, or telescopes will find the precessing galaxies. Lol. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-29 16:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3adc9d84-b19b-4334-9f82-c82bfcde175a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #678897 |
On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 7:43:14 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > > Odd > > " > > > > That is a lie. There is a model. You deny it, just because you can’t > > understand it. Okay, you have a model. Big whoop. Now stop pissing and moaning and explain why you think it is the best model known or even the best model possible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-29 16:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5f605216-83fa-426a-b22b-a76384d9b7e1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #679078 |
James "On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 7:43:14 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > john <johnse...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Odd > > " > > > > That is a lie. There is a model. You deny it, just because you can’t > > understand it. Okay, you have a model. Big whoop. Now stop pissing and moaning and explain why you think it is the best model known or even the best model possible. " He couldn't even start.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-29 18:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <41173c14-c2d6-4db1-b25a-5199ef7ecbfd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #679080 |
On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 4:29:47 PM UTC-7, john wrote: > James > "On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 7:43:14 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > john <johnse...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Odd > > > " > > > > > > That is a lie. There is a model. You deny it, just because you can’t > > > understand it. > > Okay, you have a model. Big whoop. Now stop pissing and moaning and explain why you think it is the best model known or even the best model possible. > " > > He couldn't even start. What we have here is a bunch of dopes that are easily convinced by anything that seems to fit the evidence. That is why these idiots never have arguments.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-30 14:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p9lgin$1mjs$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #679080 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > James > "On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 7:43:14 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> john <johnse...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Odd >>> " >>> >>> That is a lie. There is a model. You deny it, just because you can’t >>> understand it. > > Okay, you have a model. Big whoop. Now stop pissing and moaning and > explain why you think it is the best model known or even the best model possible. > " > > He couldn't even start. > I’m glad YOU are going to stop pissing and moaning there’s no model. It’s the best model yet known for the reasons given many times. It makes quantitative predictions that match experiment better than any other known competitors. That’s it. That’s the sole criterion in science. Any other aspiring model will have to compete on that basis. Now as to whether it’s the best model possible, nobody claims that, nor is that known. But any other model to be considered has to compete as described above. Yours by the way doesn’t even attempt that. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-30 12:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7be52215-14c7-4832-b535-dd32a7199611@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #679120 |
On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 7:11:41 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > > James > > "On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 7:43:14 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> john <johnse...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Odd > >>> " > >>> > >>> That is a lie. There is a model. You deny it, just because you can’t > >>> understand it. > > > > Okay, you have a model. Big whoop. Now stop pissing and moaning and > > explain why you think it is the best model known or even the best model possible. > > " > > > > He couldn't even start. > > > > I’m glad YOU are going to stop pissing and moaning there’s no model. It’s > the best model yet known for the reasons given many times. It makes > quantitative predictions that match experiment better than any other known > competitors. That’s it. That’s the sole criterion in science. Any other > aspiring model will have to compete on that basis. > > Now as to whether it’s the best model possible, nobody claims that, nor is > that known. But any other model to be considered has to compete as > described above. Yours by the way doesn’t even attempt that. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables In other words, the only thing you and your fellow trolls have to add to the discussion is what any idiot with access to the internet can add--no additional value. You fucking braindead simpletons need to come to grips with the fact that google searches are not reproducible evidence of anything but your ignorance of scientific methods.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-03-31 19:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c7c9f011-7316-4670-b895-b94cbfba844b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #679176 |
On Friday, M roducible evidence of anything but your ignorance of scientific methods. ====================== i absolutely agree about the professional parrot Bodkin (Draper ) indeed there is need of such parrots that keep at least the existing situation that is better than nothing BUt (a big but ) the existing situation is far from the 'last word in physics ' parrots like bodkin are making business and living from the existing situation (ie no much different in principle than 5oo years ago clergy yet that is far from complete the existing situation is far from complete therefore not bringing better life as it could and should be !! the situation now is that the real advance in technology is done -not by 'theoretical' science but by EXPERIMENTAL ''TRIAL AND ERROR SCIENCE' and that is not what we should expect from good 'theoretical science !!! that is badly stuck in the mudd '' situation iow much worse than 'could be ' ==== YIA Y.Porat ==========================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web