Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #687059 > unrolled thread

Particle Physics

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Particle Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-05-25 10:16 -0700
    Re: Particle Physics Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-25 15:54 -0400
      Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 19:52 -0700
        Re: Particle Physics poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-05-28 01:11 -0700
        Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 18:15 +0000
          Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 12:58 -0700
            Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 21:42 +0000
              Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 14:54 -0700
                Re: Particle Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-28 23:45 +0000
                Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 23:59 +0000
                  Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 05:44 -0700
                    Re: Particle Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-29 12:55 +0000
                      Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 06:07 -0700
                        Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 13:15 +0000
                          Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 06:51 -0700
                            Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 15:07 +0000
                              Re: Particle Physics poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-05-29 08:26 -0700
                                Re: Particle Physics poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-05-29 08:32 -0700
                                  Re: Particle Physics poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-05-29 08:38 -0700
                                    Re: Particle Physics poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-05-29 08:41 -0700
                              Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 08:34 -0700
                                Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 16:05 +0000
                        Re: Particle Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-29 16:48 +0000
                          Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 10:52 -0700
                            Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 18:09 +0000
                              Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 11:14 -0700
                                Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 18:33 +0000
                                  Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 11:54 -0700
                                    Re: Particle Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-29 19:07 +0000
                                      Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 12:34 -0700
                                        Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 19:53 +0000
                                          Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 13:33 -0700
                                            Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 21:11 +0000
                                              Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 15:42 -0700
                                                Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 23:03 +0000
                                                  Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 16:28 -0700
                                                    Re: Particle Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-30 04:48 +0000
                                                      Re: Particle Physics poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-05-29 22:39 -0700
                                                      Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 06:39 -0700
                                                        Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 14:42 +0000
                                                          Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 07:57 -0700
                                                            Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 15:39 +0000
                                                        Re: Particle Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-31 17:13 +0000
                                                          Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 03:15 -0700
                                                            Re: Particle Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-01 11:43 +0000
                                                              Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 05:47 -0700
                                                                Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 13:00 +0000
                                                                  Re: Particle Physics poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-06-01 23:54 -0700
                                            Re: Particle Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-30 04:37 +0000
                                              Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 06:58 -0700
                                    Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 19:47 +0000
                                      Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 13:28 -0700
                                        Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 21:11 +0000
                                        Re: Particle Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-30 04:30 +0000
                                Re: Particle Physics poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-05-29 16:34 -0700
                              Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 18:32 +0000
                                Re: Particle Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-29 18:57 +0000
                                For most, SciFi is preferable. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-05-29 15:17 -0700
                            Re: Particle Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-29 18:12 +0000
                    Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 13:15 +0000
          Re: Particle Physics poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-05-28 21:13 -0700
        Re: Particle Physics mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-05-28 15:11 -0700
    Re: Particle Physics Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 14:55 -0700
      Re: Particle Physics poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-05-28 21:18 -0700
    Re: Particle Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-05-31 10:03 -0700
    Re: Particle Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-04 14:50 -0700
    Re: Particle Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-04 15:45 -0700

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#687654

Odd
“physicists disagree. They do not owe that to laypeople. Can you explain why 
you think they should? ”
Because, quite frankly, if you can’t describe your model, you don’t have one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687660

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “physicists disagree. They do not owe that to laypeople. Can you explain why 
> you think they should? ”
> Because, quite frankly, if you can’t describe your model, you don’t have one.
> 

They can. Using their concepts, their lingo, and mathematics. You do not
follow their description because you have no skills or knowledge of any of
those. 

Is it your claim that if they can’t describe their model in a way that is
accessible and understandable to YOU PERSONALLY, then they don’t have one?

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687666

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>MM
>"These things
>happen on a scale MUCH smaller than a wavelength of light! "
>So how have you constructed a picture?

No need, but again, if you need something to color, just locate a Feynman
diagram of nucleon-nucleon interaction.


> (Just a figure of speech- I know you don't have a physical model).

The model is QCD.

>You have these pieces, like mesons (more electrons that have unusual spin),

Mesons and electrons are very different.

> and you say you can piece them into a 
>picture/model/somekindoffuckingunderstanding of the atom, but you can 
>never show it?
>SHOW me where the mesons are in the atom- describe it/ whatever.

For the third time, find a Feynman diagram of nucleon-nucleon interaction.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687679

MM
“
For the third time, find a Feynman diagram of nucleon-nucleon interaction. 
”
Scribble and hand waving

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687681

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> MM
> “
> For the third time, find a Feynman diagram of nucleon-nucleon interaction. 
> ”
> Scribble and hand waving
> 

It is TO YOU because you’ve not read up on what a Feynman diagram
represents. 

But you (nor anybody) aren’t entitled to a description that meets you where
you are. Why do you think you are so entitled? Seriously, I’d like you to
try to answer that question. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687684

Odd
“Why do you think you are so entitled? Seriously, I’d like you to ”
Everybody is entitled to a proper understanding of atoms. You don’t have one, but claim that you do and it’s counterintuitive and it can only be understood by qualified people and we should just trust you? You’re blowing smoke, dude.
Put up or shut up- you’ll never do either

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687686

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “Why do you think you are so entitled? Seriously, I’d like you to ”
> Everybody is entitled to a proper understanding of atoms. 

Not where they are. The right to understand atoms comes with a cost:
learning the basics, learning the lingo, learning the math. The books and
courses are available but everyone has to pony up their own courage and
commitment of effort. The terrified and the lazy will not spend that cost
and they are NOT entitled to an understanding of atoms. Sorry to break the
news to you. 

> You don’t have one, but claim that you do and it’s counterintuitive and
> it can only be understood by qualified people and we should just trust you? 

No, you should spend the cost to learn it for yourself. Too scared? Too
lazy? That’s on you. Find as many excuses as you want. There’s no such
thing as “qualified” people. There are people who have learned the basics,
learned the lingo, learned the math; and there are people who haven’t. 

IT’S NOT HARD. Don’t be a baby about it. 

> You’re blowing smoke, dude.
> Put up or shut up- you’ll never do either
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687688

Odd
“thing as “qualified” people. There are people who have learned the basics, 
learned the lingo, learned the math; and there are people who haven’t. ”
Lingo for blowing smoke.
You haven’t got clue one.
QM is PROBABILITY MATH.
Have you taken probability? I’m sure you have when learning your ‘woodworking’. You can make it argue whichever side of an argument you want.

If. You. Can’t. Explain. It. Simply. You. Don’t. Understand. It.

You can’t. And you don’t.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687690

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>If. You. Can't. Explain. It. Simply. You. Don't. Understand. It.

Wrong. As I just wrote, being simple to understand was NOT promised
to us by nature.  Why do you believe it has to be easy to understand?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687692

MM
“promised 
to us by nature.  Why do you believe it has to be easy to understand? ”
It IS easy to understand: Matter and its radiations reoccur at regular intervals up and down the size scale. The Universe is Fractal, based on Atom/galaxy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687695

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> MM
> “promised 
> to us by nature.  Why do you believe it has to be easy to understand? ”
> It IS easy to understand: Matter and its radiations reoccur at regular
> intervals up and down the size scale. The Universe is Fractal, based on Atom/galaxy.
> 

No John, this is your feeble attempt to try to MAKE it easy. That’s what
Seto did. He couldn’t understand physics or math so he invented something
that he could understand. And he honestly felt that by doing that, it had
to be right. And the whole business about science REQUIRING quantitative
calculations and comparison with measurement data he deemed unfair. 

You are chasing the same idiotic fantasy. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687714

Odd
“to be right. And the whole business about science REQUIRING quantitative 
calculations and comparison with measurement data he deemed unfair. 
”
You’re the idiot for sticking with DM, volumeless whatevers, handwaving just-because-it’s-there Gravity,
and the rest of your hogwash.
You can’t even put all your misshapen eggs into anything resembling a basket, so you DENY that atoms are physical structures.
You’re a fool, Odd.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687723

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “to be right. And the whole business about science REQUIRING quantitative 
> calculations and comparison with measurement data he deemed unfair. 
> ”
> You’re the idiot for sticking with DM, volumeless whatevers, handwaving
> just-because-it’s-there Gravity,
> and the rest of your hogwash.
> You can’t even put all your misshapen eggs into anything resembling a
> basket, so you DENY that atoms are physical structures.
> You’re a fool, Odd.
> 

Foam all you want, John. The concepts make sense to me even if they don’t
to you, and they match data to high precision. That’s the success measure
in science. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687738

Odd
“
Foam all you want, John. The concepts make sense to me even if they don’t 
to you, and they match data to high precision. That’s the success measure “

Oh yes, as soon as they add as much DM fudge, or virtual particle fudge, or ‘normalize’ fudge, they can get it REAL precise.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687740

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “
> Foam all you want, John. The concepts make sense to me even if they don’t 
> to you, and they match data to high precision. That’s the success measure “
> 
> Oh yes, as soon as they add as much DM fudge, or virtual particle fudge,
> or ‘normalize’ fudge, they can get it REAL precise.
> 

Just like neutrinos make energy and momentum conservation REAL precise. And
voila, there they are. After a few decades of hunting. So this approach is
not nuts. It finds real things. Whether you think that ever proposing or
looking for neutrinos was stupid is both not compelling and irrelevant.
They are real, and the path to suggest them, to search for them, and to
find them was good science. 

Bottom line, John, is that for some decades now you’ve been complaining to
physicists, “I want to understand atoms, I can’t understand your
description of them, and IT’S YOUR FAULT! So screw you, I have my OWN
description, and I like it better, and yours SUCKS!” It’s the rant of a
5-year-old feeling left out. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687741

Odd
“5-year-old feeling l”
Pfft. 
You don’t HAVE a model.
You bean count.
It’s called scientific stagnation

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687770

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Odd
>"5-year-old feeling l"
>Pfft.

No, that is an accurate description, it seems. The "grownups" are all
playing with the Standard Model and you try to butt in "Look! Retarded 
precessing spinny things! And Fractals, too!" and get upset when the
grownups pat you on the head and say "That's nice, Johnny" and continue
doing actual science.

>You don't HAVE a model.

You should talk. You haven't come up with any science model yet, not even
after you've been asked for one for YEARS. All you have are some dumb
animated gifs.

Speaking of 5 year olds, did you EVER find one who could explain 
"invisible heavy stuff" to you?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687776

On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 7:48:37 AM UTC+3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >Odd
> >"5-year-old feeling l"
> >Pfft.
> 
> No, that is an accurate description, it seems. The "grownups" are all
> playing with the Standard Model and you try to butt in "Look! Retarded 
> precessing spinny things! And Fractals, too!" and get upset when the
> grownups pat you on the head and say "That's nice, Johnny" and continue
> doing actual science.
> 
> >You don't HAVE a model.
> 
> You should talk. You haven't come up with any science model yet, not even
> after you've been asked for one for YEARS. All you have are some dumb
> animated gifs.
> 
> Speaking of 5 year olds, did you EVER find one who could explain 
> "invisible heavy stuff" to you?

======================
thank you that you Saied  ''heavy stuff (:-)
and you didn't know what it is
and may be to the end of your parroting  life
you will not understand it !!

the mass (yes indeed the only mass!!!)
of the real single photon
is about (sit still on your chair )
is about
exp-90 kilogram !!
got it 
no one will ever be even just able - to detect it !!!
I found it based on E photon - h f 
by Max  Planck 

I called it 
the y circlon 
and later developed the y circlon mechanism based on it !


it is indeed  invisible heavy stuff
==
TIA
Y.Porat
=================== 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687801

MM
“>You don't HAVE a model. 

You should talk. You haven't come up with any science model yet, not even 
after you've been asked for one for YEARS. All you have ar”
All I have is the Universal Fractal, where galaxies are made out of self-similar structures called atoms and atoms are made out of self-similar structures called...what should we call them Michael?
I also have the pattern for all Matter: the 1:2 rotation:
 http://users.accesscomm.ca/sefton/2electronorbital.GIF 
I also have the pattern for all photons: 
 http://users.accescpmm.ca/sefton/PHOTON.GIF
 which is a 1:1 rotation
I also found the math underlying the 1:2 pattern if you want to see it?

But that-all isn’t a model to you, is it? Obscure probability math and a bunch (1000s) of bubble chamber somethings are what you like. And you can’t even draw a picture of how you think they fit together, because in QM, everybody’s is everywhere all the time and nobody can know anything until they look. Right Michael?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687805

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> MM
>> You don't HAVE a model. 
> 
> You should talk. You haven't come up with any science model yet, not even 
> after you've been asked for one for YEARS. All you have ar”
> All I have is the Universal Fractal, where galaxies are made out of
> self-similar structures called atoms and atoms are made out of
> self-similar structures called...what should we call them Michael?
> I also have the pattern for all Matter: the 1:2 rotation:
>  http://users.accesscomm.ca/sefton/2electronorbital.GIF 
> I also have the pattern for all photons: 
>  http://users.accescpmm.ca/sefton/PHOTON.GIF
>  which is a 1:1 rotation
> I also found the math underlying the 1:2 pattern if you want to see it?
> 
> But that-all isn’t a model to you, is it? Obscure probability math and a
> bunch (1000s) of bubble chamber somethings are what you like. And you
> can’t even draw a picture of how you think they fit together, because in
> QM, everybody’s is everywhere all the time and nobody can know anything
> until they look. Right Michael?
> 

John, let’s reiterate that “You don’t HAVE a model” is a repeated lie, one
that has been called out many times and one that you yourself have
recanted.   

What is true is that physical models exhibit what physicists value and not
what you value. The key difference is that you do not understand much of
the language that is used in physical models — at all — and this is somehow
their problem and not yours. 

I’ll repeat: physics models do not have to be clear and transparent to the
uneducated. That is true for ANY specialized field. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web