Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #681111 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-04-15 06:22 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-04-18 15:55 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 101 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 06:22 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 15:07 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-15 17:31 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 04:34 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-16 12:43 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 13:20 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 22:37 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-17 05:16 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 12:47 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes grahamcooper7@gmail.com - 2018-04-16 20:05 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 21:50 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-17 05:22 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 06:16 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 06:29 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 14:54 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 10:18 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 17:52 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 11:36 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 18:51 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-17 19:07 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 13:11 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-17 20:34 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 20:55 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 14:18 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 21:43 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 15:03 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 22:34 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-17 22:41 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 15:56 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 23:20 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 17:31 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-17 18:07 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 01:14 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-17 23:29 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 23:38 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-18 17:23 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 10:55 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-18 20:15 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 13:51 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 00:21 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 17:37 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-19 02:14 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 22:31 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 12:17 -0500
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 14:07 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-19 14:45 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 14:59 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-19 15:06 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 03:11 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 20:31 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-19 20:39 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 05:35 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 06:11 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-20 07:35 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-20 15:28 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 21:26 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 14:55 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 04:20 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 06:03 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-21 14:17 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 18:17 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-21 18:47 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-21 14:05 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 12:26 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-18 21:25 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 15:02 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-19 01:37 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 18:44 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-19 02:23 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 22:38 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-20 01:16 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 19:34 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-20 02:43 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 19:56 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 03:35 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 15:13 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 15:24 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 15:45 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-19 02:10 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-19 01:46 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 19:04 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-19 02:29 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 12:00 -0500
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 23:41 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-18 17:26 +0000
Gravity is the "memory" of where the stuff was. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-17 15:20 -0700
Re: Gravity is the "memory" of where the stuff was. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-17 20:05 -0400
No "Bible" is the final word. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-04-17 17:31 -0700
Re: No "Bible" is the final word. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-18 10:57 -0400
Re: Binary Black Holes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-17 19:01 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 21:41 -0500
Re: Binary Black Holes Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 14:54 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-17 18:51 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes grahamcooper7@gmail.com - 2018-04-17 15:19 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-16 22:02 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes sam.wormley@gmail.com - 2018-04-17 18:31 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-17 19:29 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 21:54 -0500
Re: Binary Black Holes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 23:48 -0700
Re: Binary Black Holes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-18 17:28 +0000
Re: Binary Black Holes mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-04-18 15:55 -0700
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-15 06:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Binary Black Holes |
| Message-ID | <094e34f4-c78c-45a9-b20e-8963cff09e01@googlegroups.com> |
Combine with the high energy particles shot out in jets when dead stars get shredded and EJECTED from the central black hole. To form new stars. There. That's the whole cycle. Odd
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-15 15:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pavpr4$1pl7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #681111 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Combine with the high energy particles shot out in jets when dead stars > get shredded and EJECTED from the central black hole. > To form new stars. > There. That's the whole cycle. In your imagination. Counter to evidence. No quantitative predictions in your blurb. Not science, John. > > Odd > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-15 17:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pb029h$spk$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #681111 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Combine with the high energy particles shot out in jets when dead stars >get shredded and EJECTED from the central black hole. >To form new stars. >There. That's the whole cycle. And your evidence of that is...? Oh that's right. You just pull stuff out of your butt and post it, based on your misunderstanding of dumbed-down science explanations you have glossed over. No science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-16 04:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8dcf4bc4-fa8b-429d-9812-138bfe8fb6a5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681142 |
MM I have an actual model. It suggests that old stars die and new stars are born in a CYCLE. I am trying to square new observations with that idea. The binary BHs observations, coupled with binary star observations, suggest they seed new stars, to me. What does your model say? Why do you think no other ideas may have validity? Is there something stuck up YOUR ass? A huge stick?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-16 12:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pb25qd$ua9$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #681226 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >I have an actual model. Well, you pretend that you do. >It suggests that Science is not about suggestions. > old stars die and new stars are born in a CYCLE. There does appear to be evidence of 3 generations of stars. > I am >trying to square new observations with that idea. And getting it quite wrong. >The binary BHs observations, coupled with binary star observations, >suggest they seed new stars, to me. Science doesn't care what your misinterpretations "suggest" to you. >What does your model say? Not "my" model. You can read up on current astronomy all over the web. >Why do you think no other ideas may have validity? Never said that. But I can tell you this: Any valid new theory MUST match the results of all experiments already performed. If it doesn't, it's ALREADY wrong! Remember Feynman: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." -Richard P. Feynman In addition, to be a valid theory, it must make falsifiable prediction, to tell the difference between the new theory and old ones. >Is there something stuck up YOUR ass? A huge stick? That seems to be true for you, you come back here again and again asking us to accept your ridiculous theories even after we shoot them down again and again. Why? OCD?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-16 13:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <69b84e75-af5f-45c7-9467-242f2c1eedd8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681235 |
MM "That seems to be true for you, you come back here again and again asking us to accept your ridiculous theories even after we shoot them down again " As someone who hasn't got idea 1 of his own, Michael, I can see that others having them upsets you. But I'll keep posting how observations relate to my ideas, thank very much, whether you accept them or not. The ideas you and Odd accept- electrons that both move and don't move, particles with properties but no physical presence, gravity that sucks like your Science sucks- I'd rather you DON'T accept my stuff. Please.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-16 22:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pb38k4$1fd8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #681307 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > MM > "That seems to be true for you, you come back here again and again asking > us to accept your ridiculous theories even after we shoot them down again " > > As someone who hasn't got idea 1 of his own, Michael, I can see that > others having them upsets you. > > But I'll keep posting how observations relate to my ideas, thank very > much, whether you accept them or not. The ideas you and Odd accept- > electrons that both move and don't move Have kinetic energy, but no trajectory. That’s not the same as what you said. What you said is bound by certain assumptions you make, like movement REQUIRES a trajectory, which is not true. > particles with properties but no physical presence, Since they have properties they have physical presence. What you said is bound by certain assumptions you make, like physical presence REQUIRES volume, which is not true. > gravity that sucks You seem to have a deep problem with this for unknown reasons, but somehow attraction between objects of unlike-sign charge doesn’t bother you at all, and you can’t explain that either. > like your Science sucks- I'd rather you DON'T accept my stuff. Please. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-17 05:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pb3vut$ads$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #681307 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >"That seems to be true for you, you come back here again and again asking >us to accept your ridiculous theories even after we shoot them down again " >As someone who hasn't got idea 1 of his own, Michael, I can see that others > having them upsets you. Completely wrong! I come here to watch the kooks get kooky. I wait to see what kind of stoopid ideas all you kooks come up with next! Meanwhile, I know better than to post "ideas" that are just laughable, unlike so many others here... >But I'll keep posting how observations relate to my ideas, thank very much, >whether you accept them or not. The ideas you and Odd accept- electrons >that both move and don't move, particles with properties but no physical >presence, gravity that sucks like your Science sucks- I'd rather you >DON'T accept my stuff. Please. Man, are you ever confused!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-16 12:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pb261g$1j5s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #681226 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > MM > I have an actual model. > It suggests that old stars die and new stars are born in a CYCLE. I am > trying to square new observations with that idea. > The binary BHs observations, coupled with binary star observations, > suggest they seed new stars, to me. > What does your model say? > Why do you think no other ideas may have validity? > Is there something stuck up YOUR ass? A huge stick? > Untestable ideas (as in quantitative comparison between calculated prediction and measurement) are automatically without scientific validity. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | grahamcooper7@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-16 20:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2ca3a637-78c3-4fa6-ab02-d33b86316e30@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681111 |
On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 11:22:37 PM UTC+10, john wrote: > Combine with the high energy particles shot out in jets when dead stars get shredded and EJECTED from the central black hole. > To form new stars. > There. That's the whole cycle. > > Odd Small black holes dont eject anything. Read Hertzbrand Russell Diagram for life cycle of STARS
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-16 21:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9316aa22-e7af-413b-bc9a-dd096b9b3637@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681344 |
Graham "- hide quoted text - On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 11:22:37 PM UTC+10, john wrote: > Combine with the high energy particles shot out in jets when dead stars get shredded and EJECTED from the central black hole. > To form new stars. > There. That's the whole cycle. > > Odd Small black holes dont eject anything. Read Hertzbrand Russell Diagram for life cycle of STARS " No. Old stars orbit faster as they get closer to the central black hole, until they shred and jet immediately form at right angles to the disc. These jets are observed to play a part in new star formation. This new observation of binary black Holes makes me think that they also play a part in new star formation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-17 05:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pb40bd$ads$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #681351 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> flung the following into the group: >Read Hertzbrand Russell Diagram for life cycle of STARS " >No. That's your problem, John. You won't read anything. >Old stars orbit faster as they get closer to the central black hole, until >they shred and jet immediately form at right angles to the disc. These jets >are observed to play a part in new star formation. This new observation of >binary black Holes makes me think that they also play a part in new star >formation. John, don't you know it's extremely rude to scoop crap from your butt and fling it into this group like that? Stop it!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-17 06:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5039d479-d9ed-4cc7-93d6-1d11cb75c43b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681356 |
MM " John, don't you know it's extremely rude to scoop crap from your butt and fling it into this group like that? Stop it! " You don't like thinking, do you Michael?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-17 06:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0bc76119-54d7-4d52-86bd-882b79445731@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681367 |
MM "MM " John, don't you know it's extremely rude to scoop crap from your butt and fling it into this group like that? Stop it! " You don't like thinking, do you Michael? " Remember when you threw shit at me every day the whole six months I was figuring out how Benzene could be constructed, using the 1:2 pathway? http://users.accesscomm.ca/sefton/BenzeneE.GIF Notice how SYMMETRICAL it is? Every carbon-carbon interaction is the same sequence: Yellow left up Green right down Red left up No transfer Yellow right up Green left down Red right up No transfer Repeat Turned out incredibly good, Michael. You were urging me to QUIT GIVE UP QUIT GIVE UP the whole time. But I didn't, Michael. You know why? Because who would listen to you? And why would they? Nobody. No reason to. All you do is throw shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-17 14:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pb51rn$7fu$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #681369 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > MM > "MM > " > John, don't you know it's extremely rude to scoop crap from your butt and > fling it into this group like that? Stop it! " > > You don't like thinking, do you Michael? " > > Remember when you threw shit at me every day the whole six months I was > figuring out how Benzene could be constructed, using the 1:2 pathway? > http://users.accesscomm.ca/sefton/BenzeneE.GIF > Notice how SYMMETRICAL it is? > Every carbon-carbon interaction is the same sequence: > Yellow left up Green right down Red left up No transfer Yellow right up > Green left down Red right up No transfer > Repeat > Turned out incredibly good, Michael. You were urging me to QUIT GIVE UP > QUIT GIVE UP the whole time. > > But I didn't, Michael. You know why? Because who would listen to you? And why would they? > Nobody. No reason to. All you do is throw shit. > Also recall your attempt at methane, which was decidedly asymmetrical, to the point where your model would predict UV radiation that isn’t there. You want to be left to doing something you consider “pretty”. That’s fine. Do it in an art forum. It’s just not physics. Doing art about atoms or molecules does not make it physics. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-17 10:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f4e8cc54-1276-44d6-915a-90e9bd4ab992@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681377 |
Odd "Also recall your attempt at methane, which was decidedly asymmetrical, to the point where your model would predict UV radiation that isn’t there. " Prove it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-17 17:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pb5c8a$q2r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #681394 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > "Also recall your attempt at methane, which was decidedly asymmetrical, to > the point where your model would predict UV radiation that isn’t there. " > Prove it. > Already did, John. Your model for methane has an alternating charge asymmetry as they go around their trajectories, which you insist they must have. This is called an oscillating charge dipole. You told me the rate that the electrons would make one cycle. An oscillating charge dipole at that rate produces UV light necessarily. That UV light from methane is not seen. You are quick to remember things that you do that seem “pretty” and you quickly forget the things that don’t work, which means in science that they don’t match data. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-17 11:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3b8c1d58-5d78-4d2c-81e0-b22dd9bbf6e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681400 |
Odd "Your model for methane has an alternating charge asymmetry as they go around their trajectories, which you insist they must have. This is called an oscillating charge dipole. You told me the rate that the electrons would " Is that why you insist that electrons don't move?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-17 18:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pb5fnb$10b5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #681405 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > "Your model for methane has an alternating charge asymmetry as they go > around their trajectories, which you insist they must have. This is called > an oscillating charge dipole. You told me the rate that the electrons would " > > Is that why you insist that electrons don't move? > I insist that they don’t have trajectories. They also have kinetic energy. I think you’re the one stick on saying that combination is impossible. But back to the point: Your animations do not represent reality because they don’t agree with data. Period, end of story. It doesn’t matter whether they are pretty, whether they have symmetry, whether they show features you like such as repeating pathways, whether they are products of original and creative thinking, or whether they can be described in few words in plain language. If they don’t agree with data, they are WRONG. All the things YOU personally care about in your models, all the things you look for — none of them matters in science. The one thing that DOES matter in science — quantitative agreement with data — you don’t care about. I have no idea why you think anything you’re doing has a rat’s ass to do with science. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-17 19:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pb5glh$2q2$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #681405 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd >"Your model for methane has an alternating charge asymmetry as they go >around their trajectories, which you insist they must have. This is called >an oscillating charge dipole. You told me the rate that the electrons would " >Is that why you insist that electrons don't move? If they continuously accelerate, like a Bohr orbit where it goes round and round like a planet around the sun, or even worse, following that twisty 3d path in one of your retarded precessing spinny things, it will radiate, therefore lose energy, and therefore crash into the nucleus. You and I are still here, so obviously that doesn't happen, so both possibilities are refuted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web