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 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-18 17:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <76fa0e65-01e4-47e2-87c3-dde70078b899@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681615 |
Odd “Which is how you know they can’t be emitted by electrons, which are also fermions. Violates conservation of angular momentum. Idea is dead before gate opens. “ Can they be emitted by stars? Do you not understand the Fractal idea where electrons are composed of next level down stars? Nothing goes in when someone talks to you, does it? After years and years, you still can’t grasp the idea. BUS!!! Just kidding, Odd. Really- you are SO dense!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-19 02:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pb8u2o$hhp$6@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #681616 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd >"Which is how you know they can't be emitted by electrons, which are also >fermions. Violates conservation of angular momentum. Idea is dead before >gate opens. " >Can they be emitted by stars? Doesn't matter. You/he were talking about being emitted by electrons, so violation of conservation of angular momentum means it's DOA. >After years and years, you still can't grasp the idea. I think he grasps it just fine. He also realizes how wrong it is, which YOU can't grasp. >BUS!!! >Just kidding, Odd. Good thing. I would hate for anything bad to happen to you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-18 22:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7ae32765-e53c-4bbe-b865-e9fa759185a4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681633 |
MM “ >Can they be emitted by stars? Doesn't matter. You/he were talking about being emitted by electrons, so violation of conservation of angular momentum means it's ” Michael/ It’s the Galaxy Model for the Atom. Electrons are equated to galactic arms. It’s a Fractal. So-yes- it does matter. What electrons do with their components is THE SAME as what galactic arms do with THEIRS- the arms of stars. They BOTH radiate a photon/neutrinos flux. Sheesh!!! Years and years later and YOU STILL DONT GET IT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-19 12:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pbaivn$16mp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #681616 |
On 4/18/18 7:37 PM, john wrote: > Odd > “Which is how you know they can’t be emitted by electrons, which are also > fermions. Violates conservation of angular momentum. Idea is dead before > gate opens. “ > Can they be emitted by stars? > Do you not understand the Fractal idea where electrons are composed of next level down stars? > Nothing goes in when someone talks to you, does it? > After years and years, you still can’t grasp the idea. > BUS!!! > Just kidding, Odd. > Really- you are SO dense! > Stars are not fermions. Electrons are fermions. They are called fermions because they are observed to behave like fermions. Fermions are also observed to not radiate other fermions. You can't just decide that electrons should be able to radiate fermions because your idea is that they are stars and not fermions. Known laws of physics are based on observations, John. Your approach to dealing with laws of physics is to try to bypass them by dismissing the observations that led to them. This is not a smart thing to do. What you are saying is, "I want electrons to radiate neutrinos, so to make them able to do that, then I will declare that they are not in fact fermions but are in fact stars, which can radiate neutrinos." The problem with this is obvious. You did the same thing with electrons in atoms, "I want electrons to have firm trajectories in atoms, and to avoid the problem of electrons radiating energy away in any curved trajectory, I will declare that electrons suddenly decide to stop obeying the laws of physics that require them to radiate detectable EM radiation and they start radiating 'smaller-scale' EM radiation that is not detectable instead. This way they can do what I want and don't conflict with observations." The problem again is that the laws that require them to radiate detectable radiation come from observations, so your hypothesis is in conflict with observations. You are FABRICATING an imaginary world that behaves the way you want it to imagine, rejecting all the known observations and laws of physics that come from those observations. It is a flight of fantasy that has nothing to do with science -- the latter being firmly rooted in observations. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-19 14:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <017251ef-70a3-46b1-9159-7931f2367e90@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681661 |
Odd “What you are saying is, "I want electrons to radiate neutrinos, so to make them able to do that, then I will declare that they are not in fact fermions but are in fact stars, which can radiate neutrinos." The problem with th” The problem seems to be that you can’t grasp Fractals
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-19 14:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <31992729-d93f-4ee3-9427-e0d4c4ae8e91@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681670 |
On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 2:07:57 PM UTC-7, john wrote: > Odd > “What you are saying is, "I want electrons to radiate neutrinos, so to > make them able to do that, then I will declare that they are not in fact > fermions but are in fact stars, which can radiate neutrinos." The > problem with th” > The problem seems to be that you can’t grasp Fractals No, the problem is that you, John, don't know any physics at all, and that's been the answer all along. It makes no sense for anyone to answer you with actual physics because you will reject such evidence because you have no chance of understanding or remembering it. The only logical response to your goofy ramblings is to simply tell you that you don't know physics and should crack a book or 2 and commence reading before opening your steaming pie-hole. John, you don't know physics and should crack a book or 2 before opening your steaming pie-hole.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-19 14:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d3feab63-fb36-4150-a016-b48c1dcdf83b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681678 |
Pnal “John, you don't know physics and should crack a book or 2 before opening your steaming pie-hole.” Know YOUR physics? DM? DE? Virtual this and pretend that? Schizophrenic electrons that both move and don’t move but don’t radiate OR require energy? But somehow come steaming out when perturbed AT CERTAIN INTERVALS at 10% of c? You KNOW that last observation could sink your foundering bucket, don’t you? Suck gravity that acts “just by being there”? You guys are SO fucked up. Bohr, Thompson and Rutherford are rolling in their graves. Wake up
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-19 15:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d29d1b2b-5ade-4806-90c3-8369a4ba21f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681680 |
On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 2:59:23 PM UTC-7, john wrote: > Pnal > “John, you don't know physics and should crack a book or 2 before opening your steaming pie-hole.” > > Know YOUR physics? > DM? > DE? > Virtual this and pretend that? > Schizophrenic electrons that both move and don’t move but don’t radiate OR require energy? But somehow come steaming out when perturbed AT CERTAIN INTERVALS at 10% of c? > You KNOW that last observation could sink your foundering bucket, don’t you? > Suck gravity that acts “just by being there”? > You guys are SO fucked up. > Bohr, Thompson and Rutherford are rolling in their graves. > Wake up John, you don't know physics and should crack a book or 2 before opening your steaming pie-hole
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 03:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pbblp6$pl8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #681670 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “What you are saying is, "I want electrons to radiate neutrinos, so to > make them able to do that, then I will declare that they are not in fact > fermions but are in fact stars, which can radiate neutrinos." The > problem with th” > The problem seems to be that you can’t grasp Fractals > Fractals don’t get to break laws of physics -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-19 20:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <36c5b61a-f053-4e40-ae6d-428658e35235@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681720 |
Odd “Fractals don’t get to break laws of physics “ But QM can change them for stuff we can’t see? Electrons are Fractal Matter. Fusing Matter gives off neutrinos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-19 20:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <73e08373-b196-4d4f-86f1-6cce88ca5647@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681728 |
On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 8:31:53 PM UTC-7, john wrote: > Odd > “Fractals don’t get to break laws of physics > “ > But QM can change them for stuff we can’t see? > Electrons are Fractal Matter. > Fusing Matter gives off neutrinos. Just making it up as you go along... again... offering zero evidence... John, you don't know physics and should crack a book or 2 before opening your steaming pie-hole
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 05:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58292668-69c9-4872-a0ee-8d77df1ba283@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681732 |
Pnal “Just making it up as you go along... again... offering zero evidence” If a model were a vehicle, I’d be coming back from scenic rides and talking about the sights, while you sit there in your box with holes cut out saying “I don’t see that!”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 06:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e2fc5cca-0217-415e-a0cc-34afe9a873b6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681748 |
Should read *cardboard* box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 07:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cd1d2d7e-edf2-407e-a291-03ee07fb9015@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681748 |
On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 5:35:15 AM UTC-7, john wrote: > Pnal > “Just making it up as you go along... again... offering zero evidence” > If a model were a vehicle, I’d be coming back from scenic rides and talking about the sights, while you sit there in your box with holes cut out saying “I don’t see that!” John, that is an extremely poor analogy! Any recent scenic rides for you have been while you were wearing a blindfold. Even through the holes in my cardboard box, I can see far more than you. John, you don't know physics and should crack a book or 2 before opening your steaming pie-hole
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 15:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pbd0v0$7uo$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #681756 |
pnalsing@gmail.com writes: >John, that is an extremely poor analogy! Any recent scenic rides for you >have been while you were wearing a blindfold. Even through the holes in >my cardboard box, I can see far more than you. You may be in a cardboard box with holes, but John is in his easy chair in a haze-filled living room, toking on a bong with the best offerings of "Little Pharma", and making "vroom vroom" sounds. After he comes down from his high, he'll talk about the sights he saw, such as 6 legged dinosaurs and giant spiders and walking trees with glowing blue leaves. And he wonders why nobody believes him. >John, you don't know physics and should crack a book or 2 before opening >your steaming pie-hole John, you don't know physics and should crack a book or 2 before opening your steaming pie-hole
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 21:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pbdluj$3gq$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #681728 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “Fractals don’t get to break laws of physics > “ > But QM can change them No. > for stuff we can’t see? No. > Electrons are Fractal Matter. > Fusing Matter gives off neutrinos. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 14:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ee769ea8-c4f6-47d7-aa83-1bbf35782e98@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681797 |
Odd “No” Yes, Odd. QM and GR are not compatible
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-21 04:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pbee63$13ti$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #681803 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “No” > Yes, Odd. QM and GR are not compatible > This doesn’t mean QM breaks any laws of physics or introduces anything invisible. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-21 06:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6248b68b-b64e-42eb-8a2c-d1f6168c2c90@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681836 |
Odd “This doesn’t mean QM breaks any laws of physics or introduces anything invisible. “ Or provides any insight. Or makes any broad predictions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-21 14:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pbfh6h$3k5$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #681851 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd >"This doesn't mean QM breaks any laws of physics or introduces anything >invisible. >" >Or provides any insight. >Or makes any broad predictions. Wrong. QM and GR make perfectly valid predictions WITHIN THEIR DOMAINS. All science theories have a domain of some sort where they are valid. Newtonian mechanics, for example, is perfectly valid for non-relativistic speed. We can send spacecraft to the outer planets by first sending them to Venus to get a gravitational boost with little fuel, that's how well we know gravity and how well Newtonian mechanics work at non-relativistic speeds. But we cannot use Newtoniam mechanics to design an accelerator at CERN. Yes, it is a goal of science to come up with a single new theory that reduces to both QM and GR in their respective domains, just like how SR reduces to Newtonian mechanics in its domain. And science is not there yet. Just wait... :-)
[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