Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #694446 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-07-18 06:49 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-07-23 22:30 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 114 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 06:49 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 14:12 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 07:20 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 14:22 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 07:30 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 07:54 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 12:19 -0400
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 16:37 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 09:56 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 17:05 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 18:27 -0400
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 22:57 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 19:27 -0400
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 01:33 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 18:54 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 12:54 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 10:47 -0400
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 15:23 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-18 22:32 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 11:01 -0400
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 09:52 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-07-20 10:25 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-20 12:05 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 14:14 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-20 18:30 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 12:58 -0400
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 10:08 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 17:14 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 18:37 -0400
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 17:08 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 10:17 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 17:26 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 10:33 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 10:37 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 10:44 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 10:48 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 18:43 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 18:42 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 19:14 -0400
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 01:33 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 11:23 -0400
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 15:34 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-18 18:14 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 11:16 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 11:19 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 11:39 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-18 18:44 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 11:55 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-18 19:16 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 18:42 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 11:06 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 11:11 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 18:43 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 19:15 -0400
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 01:33 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 11:25 -0400
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 15:39 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 14:37 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 22:12 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-19 16:53 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-20 05:35 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 18:31 -0400
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 22:57 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 19:37 -0400
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-18 12:16 -0400
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-18 15:21 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-18 10:58 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-18 21:09 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-20 00:16 -0500
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-19 22:59 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 05:50 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 07:22 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 07:58 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 15:21 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 08:31 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 16:54 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-20 15:56 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 09:59 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 17:53 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 13:50 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-21 14:45 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 11:23 -0400
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 15:45 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 12:32 -0400
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 19:30 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 18:19 -0400
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 15:32 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 22:40 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 22:05 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-22 05:11 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 22:46 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-21 22:56 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 05:35 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 21:43 -0400
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 09:23 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-21 12:48 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 12:41 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-22 19:58 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 00:23 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 11:55 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-23 20:39 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-23 17:25 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 13:25 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 14:47 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-07-21 20:16 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-21 20:25 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 15:21 +0000
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-07-21 13:15 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-07-21 18:12 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-23 15:08 -0500
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 17:47 -0400
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 16:42 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 16:40 -0700
Re: Space is not empty- just invisible benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-23 22:30 -0400
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-19 11:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <piqadm$12n0$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #694559 |
On 7/18/2018 9:33 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/18/2018 2:42 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> That last is Odd’s great vision. >>>> Translation: everything IS. >>> >>> Fields are. Interactions happen. Recall in the previous post the pint made >>> about physics centering in the interactions between fields. So no, it is >>> not true that “everything IS”. >> >> Sorry Odd, you ignorant moron, but fields DO NOT exist! They are >> mathematical expressions and hence pure fantasy. > > Bzzzt. Wrong. Catch up. Bzzzt. Idiot. Math is a fantasy description, not the thing itself dummy. >> To say that "fields" >> are doing things is equivalent to saying "nothing" is doing things. > > No, not equivalent. Don’t mix what u say with what you say. That’s how lies > get born. Yes, equivalent. To deny facts is how propaganda gets born. >> Which is a statement you make over and over but deny you ever said such >> a thing. >> >>>> Also, the above means complete pre-determination of everything. >>>> Nice. >>>> Just when I thought I had free will. :( >>> >>> That may well be an illusion. >> >> And the way you know this is? >> Oh that's right, you read Rolf's book! >> >> >> > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-19 15:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <piqb2v$14gs$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #694628 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/18/2018 9:33 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 7/18/2018 2:42 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> That last is Odd’s great vision. >>>>> Translation: everything IS. >>>> >>>> Fields are. Interactions happen. Recall in the previous post the pint made >>>> about physics centering in the interactions between fields. So no, it is >>>> not true that “everything IS”. >>> >>> Sorry Odd, you ignorant moron, but fields DO NOT exist! They are >>> mathematical expressions and hence pure fantasy. >> >> Bzzzt. Wrong. Catch up. > > Bzzzt. Idiot. Math is a fantasy description, not the thing itself dummy. Bzzt. Physics models are representations of real things. The physical model of fields represent real fields. Fields are considered by physicists to be not only real but in fact a fundamental element of reality. Your attempt to dismiss them is irrelevant and ineffectual. > >>> To say that "fields" >>> are doing things is equivalent to saying "nothing" is doing things. >> >> No, not equivalent. Don’t mix what u say with what you say. That’s how lies >> get born. > > Yes, equivalent. To deny facts is how propaganda gets born. Sorry, man, you are out of touch. > >>> Which is a statement you make over and over but deny you ever said such >>> a thing. >>> >>>>> Also, the above means complete pre-determination of everything. >>>>> Nice. >>>>> Just when I thought I had free will. :( >>>> >>>> That may well be an illusion. >>> >>> And the way you know this is? >>> Oh that's right, you read Rolf's book! >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-18 18:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pio02c$sqn$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #694481 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >(I've glossed over a key idea that a field is nothing more than a map of >the value(s) of a property(ies) OF spacetime itself. Different fields >correspond to different sets of properties of spacetime, and all the >fields overlay each other. The little quantized ripples in the fields >can be distinct from each other though, in some sense.) That shouldn't be too hard for you to understand, John. Consider a weather map of Canada, with temperature shown. For every point on the map, there is a temperature. Perhaps it is cold in the Arctic and a heat wave in the southeast. You can show that on the map. Don't forget the third dimension, the temperature at ground level will be different than at 10,000 feet. So you can map temperature in 3D. Also the effect of time, check the temperature in the Arctic years ago vs. now, for global warming evidence. Consider the same map but this time it shows wind speed and direction. Every point on the map has a speed and direction. You can involve the third dimension as well, for example downdrafts or the jet stream high up while calm at the ground. The temperature and wind speeds can exist independently of each other. Or they can interact, the wind can blow cold air down from the Arctic for example. Notice that temperature and wind speed act differently. Temperature is a scalar, it's just a number (temperature) at every point. Wind speed is a vector, there is a number (speed) and a direction at every point. >What's astonishing about this is that physicists now believe that the >fundamental thing that physics is about is the interaction, not the >object. And rather than physical laws, physicists now think of >symmetries as the fundamental constraint. Well, if there is no interaction with something, then we can act as if the something isn't there, so we don't even know if the something exists or not. Also the normal physical laws can be derived from the interactions. Two charges attracting each other with a physical strength can be derived by the various interactions involved.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-18 11:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fc5d5a85-9d9c-4deb-8bca-295ca2ce7834@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #694491 |
Hahahaha
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-18 11:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <792191c6-995b-4723-96f2-21366f634128@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #694491 |
Michael There’s a guy that thinks everything is connected by strings. You two think everything IS those strings. Ever see a Maypole?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-18 11:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <edc92b3f-99a0-4bd8-b315-c18df7fba4f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #694493 |
Michael and Odd TweedleDum and TweedleDee Sometimes when they have no recollection of their previous statements like that, you wonder if it’s just a guy from a different shift, or maybe filling in.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-18 18:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pio1r2$k3i$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #694494 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Michael and Odd >TweedleDum and TweedleDee >Sometimes when they have no recollection of their previous statements like >that, you wonder if it's just a guy from a different shift, or maybe >filling in. Here we go! Time to post that Odd and I are really PD in disguise!! Even though PD hasn't been here for years!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-18 11:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9e7d1e82-6444-4c3e-afe0-b1cb2fe6a25a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #694499 |
MM “Here we go! Time to post that Odd and I are really PD in disguise!! Even though PD hasn't been here for years! ” TweedleDum and TweedleDee. Swarming graviton-Planck-fields. TwoTards for QM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-18 19:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pio3lp$565$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #694501 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> tarded: >MM >"Here we go! Time to post that Odd and I are really PD in disguise!! Even >though PD hasn't been here for years! >" >TweedleDum and TweedleDee. >Swarming graviton-Planck-fields. >TwoTards for QM I want to be TweedleDee this time! Odd always gets to be TweedleDee! It's not fair!! I always have to be TweedleDum!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-18 18:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pio1nj$1aa9$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #694481 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Here, Odd, I’ll save you the time: > “But the real picture of the 21st century is far stranger, and amateurs > may not be fully aware of it. > > In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields > which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time > like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the > fabric OF space and time. > > There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by > symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than > the conservation laws of nature. > > Ripples can be measured by a quantity called "action", which physicists > have known about for a long time. What they didn't know until the 20th > century is that the smallest chunk of action is given by a number called > Planck's constant. These smallest ripples are what we associate with > field quanta, and when physicists say "fundamental particles" they are > really talking about these field quanta. > > So, recapping so far, the idea of "things" moving through space and time > has become replaced with the idea of fields that extend everywhere, and > the ripples in them that are bestowed with small amounts of action. > > (I've glossed over a key idea that a field is nothing more than a map of > the value(s) of a property(ies) OF spacetime itself. Different fields > correspond to different sets of properties of spacetime, and all the > fields overlay each other. The little quantized ripples in the fields > can be distinct from each other though, in some sense.) > > Now the last core concept is that a ripple carrying some action in one > field can generate or disturb a ripple carrying some action in a > different field. This is what we call an interaction between fields. > Here's where another old idea gets replaced -- charge (like color charge > or electromagnetic charge) is not some kind of "stuff" that belongs to > "things"; instead, charge is just defined as that tendency for a given > pair of fields to interact and create ripples in each other. The laws > that control these interactions are in fact driven by yet more > symmetries of nature (local gauge symmetries). > > What's astonishing about this is that physicists now believe that the > fundamental thing that physics is about is the interaction, not the > object. And rather than physical laws, physicists now think of > symmetries as the fundamental constraint. ” > Right. Now don’t mangle it. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-18 11:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ffbbbc9f-dc46-4216-8624-1ab570d86856@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #694478 |
Odd I want to put these exchanges all together: John: Let’s nail this down. You believe that fields exist everywhere in every possible place they can be, accommodating every possible scenario, but just ‘not active’, or ‘not discernible’, until they ARE active, but nothing is producing them, or flowing through space, they just ‘are’. Is that about it, Odd? Odd: No that’s not it. I’ve said nothing of the kind. Good grief, John, just one made-up babble after another. John:Here, Odd, I’ll save you the time: (reposts Odds post fromAug2017 ) “But the real picture of the 21st century is far stranger, and amateurs may not be fully aware of it. In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the fabric OF space and time. There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than the conservation laws of nature. Ripples can be measured by a quantity called "action", which physicists have known about for a long time. What they didn't know until the 20th century is that the smallest chunk of action is given by a number called Planck's constant. These smallest ripples are what we associate with field quanta, and when physicists say "fundamental particles" they are really talking about these field quanta. So, recapping so far, the idea of "things" moving through space and time has become replaced with the idea of fields that extend everywhere, and the ripples in them that are bestowed with small amounts of action. (I've glossed over a key idea that a field is nothing more than a map of the value(s) of a property(ies) OF spacetime itself. Different fields correspond to different sets of properties of spacetime, and all the fields overlay each other. The little quantized ripples in the fields can be distinct from each other though, in some sense.) Now the last core concept is that a ripple carrying some action in one field can generate or disturb a ripple carrying some action in a different field. This is what we call an interaction between fields. Here's where another old idea gets replaced -- charge (like color charge or electromagnetic charge) is not some kind of "stuff" that belongs to "things"; instead, charge is just defined as that tendency for a given pair of fields to interact and create ripples in each other. The laws that control these interactions are in fact driven by yet more symmetries of nature (local gauge symmetries). What's astonishing about this is that physicists now believe that the fundamental thing that physics is about is the interaction, not the object. And rather than physical laws, physicists now think of symmetries as the fundamental constraint. ” That’s Odd on not just Space, but everything. It’s kind of QM all grown up, where it’s ALL bullshit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-18 11:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f6bce6a6-7322-4355-9004-a783cfb9793b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #694488 |
That Odd can’t even remember his own babble.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-18 18:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pio1nl$1aa9$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #694488 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > > I want to put these exchanges all together: > > John: Let’s nail this down. > You believe that fields exist everywhere in every possible place they > can be, accommodating every possible scenario, but just ‘not active’, or > ‘not discernible’, until they ARE active, but nothing is producing them, > or flowing through space, they just ‘are’. > Is that about it, Odd? > Odd: No that’s not it. I’ve said nothing of the kind. Good grief, John, just one > made-up babble after another. > John:Here, Odd, I’ll save you the time: (reposts Odds post fromAug2017 ) > “But the real picture of the 21st century is far stranger, and amateurs > may not be fully aware of it. > > In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields > which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time > like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the > fabric OF space and time. > > There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by > symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than > the conservation laws of nature. > > Ripples can be measured by a quantity called "action", which physicists > have known about for a long time. What they didn't know until the 20th > century is that the smallest chunk of action is given by a number called > Planck's constant. These smallest ripples are what we associate with > field quanta, and when physicists say "fundamental particles" they are > really talking about these field quanta. > > So, recapping so far, the idea of "things" moving through space and time > has become replaced with the idea of fields that extend everywhere, and > the ripples in them that are bestowed with small amounts of action. > > (I've glossed over a key idea that a field is nothing more than a map of > the value(s) of a property(ies) OF spacetime itself. Different fields > correspond to different sets of properties of spacetime, and all the > fields overlay each other. The little quantized ripples in the fields > can be distinct from each other though, in some sense.) > > Now the last core concept is that a ripple carrying some action in one > field can generate or disturb a ripple carrying some action in a > different field. This is what we call an interaction between fields. > Here's where another old idea gets replaced -- charge (like color charge > or electromagnetic charge) is not some kind of "stuff" that belongs to > "things"; instead, charge is just defined as that tendency for a given > pair of fields to interact and create ripples in each other. The laws > that control these interactions are in fact driven by yet more > symmetries of nature (local gauge symmetries). > > What's astonishing about this is that physicists now believe that the > fundamental thing that physics is about is the interaction, not the > object. And rather than physical laws, physicists now think of > symmetries as the fundamental constraint. ” > > That’s Odd on not just Space, but everything. It’s kind of QM all grown > up, where it’s ALL bullshit > Well, fascinating that you think it’s bullshit when it’s validated with data. Fascinating that you believe that anything that does not fit YOUR worldview is bullshit, even though your worldview is not supported by data and is in conflict with known laws of physics (eg precession locked to rotation without external torque). Truth in science is not determined by your incredulity. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-18 19:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <piohlm$41v$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #694498 |
On 7/18/2018 2:43 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >> Odd >> >> I want to put these exchanges all together: >> >> John: Let’s nail this down. >> You believe that fields exist everywhere in every possible place they >> can be, accommodating every possible scenario, but just ‘not active’, or >> ‘not discernible’, until they ARE active, but nothing is producing them, >> or flowing through space, they just ‘are’. >> Is that about it, Odd? >> Odd: No that’s not it. I’ve said nothing of the kind. Good grief, John, just one >> made-up babble after another. >> John:Here, Odd, I’ll save you the time: (reposts Odds post fromAug2017 ) >> “But the real picture of the 21st century is far stranger, and amateurs >> may not be fully aware of it. >> >> In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields >> which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time >> like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the >> fabric OF space and time. >> >> There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by >> symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than >> the conservation laws of nature. >> >> Ripples can be measured by a quantity called "action", which physicists >> have known about for a long time. What they didn't know until the 20th >> century is that the smallest chunk of action is given by a number called >> Planck's constant. These smallest ripples are what we associate with >> field quanta, and when physicists say "fundamental particles" they are >> really talking about these field quanta. >> >> So, recapping so far, the idea of "things" moving through space and time >> has become replaced with the idea of fields that extend everywhere, and >> the ripples in them that are bestowed with small amounts of action. >> >> (I've glossed over a key idea that a field is nothing more than a map of >> the value(s) of a property(ies) OF spacetime itself. Different fields >> correspond to different sets of properties of spacetime, and all the >> fields overlay each other. The little quantized ripples in the fields >> can be distinct from each other though, in some sense.) >> >> Now the last core concept is that a ripple carrying some action in one >> field can generate or disturb a ripple carrying some action in a >> different field. This is what we call an interaction between fields. >> Here's where another old idea gets replaced -- charge (like color charge >> or electromagnetic charge) is not some kind of "stuff" that belongs to >> "things"; instead, charge is just defined as that tendency for a given >> pair of fields to interact and create ripples in each other. The laws >> that control these interactions are in fact driven by yet more >> symmetries of nature (local gauge symmetries). >> >> What's astonishing about this is that physicists now believe that the >> fundamental thing that physics is about is the interaction, not the >> object. And rather than physical laws, physicists now think of >> symmetries as the fundamental constraint. ” >> >> That’s Odd on not just Space, but everything. It’s kind of QM all grown >> up, where it’s ALL bullshit >> > > Well, fascinating that you think it’s bullshit when it’s validated with > data. Fascinating that you believe that anything that does not fit YOUR > worldview is bullshit, even though your worldview is not supported by data > and is in conflict with known laws of physics (eg precession locked to > rotation without external torque). > > Truth in science is not determined by your incredulity. Nor by your fantasies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-19 01:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pioppv$f9t$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #694542 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/18/2018 2:43 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Odd >>> >>> I want to put these exchanges all together: >>> >>> John: Let’s nail this down. >>> You believe that fields exist everywhere in every possible place they >>> can be, accommodating every possible scenario, but just ‘not active’, or >>> ‘not discernible’, until they ARE active, but nothing is producing them, >>> or flowing through space, they just ‘are’. >>> Is that about it, Odd? >>> Odd: No that’s not it. I’ve said nothing of the kind. Good grief, John, just one >>> made-up babble after another. >>> John:Here, Odd, I’ll save you the time: (reposts Odds post fromAug2017 ) >>> “But the real picture of the 21st century is far stranger, and amateurs >>> may not be fully aware of it. >>> >>> In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields >>> which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time >>> like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the >>> fabric OF space and time. >>> >>> There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by >>> symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than >>> the conservation laws of nature. >>> >>> Ripples can be measured by a quantity called "action", which physicists >>> have known about for a long time. What they didn't know until the 20th >>> century is that the smallest chunk of action is given by a number called >>> Planck's constant. These smallest ripples are what we associate with >>> field quanta, and when physicists say "fundamental particles" they are >>> really talking about these field quanta. >>> >>> So, recapping so far, the idea of "things" moving through space and time >>> has become replaced with the idea of fields that extend everywhere, and >>> the ripples in them that are bestowed with small amounts of action. >>> >>> (I've glossed over a key idea that a field is nothing more than a map of >>> the value(s) of a property(ies) OF spacetime itself. Different fields >>> correspond to different sets of properties of spacetime, and all the >>> fields overlay each other. The little quantized ripples in the fields >>> can be distinct from each other though, in some sense.) >>> >>> Now the last core concept is that a ripple carrying some action in one >>> field can generate or disturb a ripple carrying some action in a >>> different field. This is what we call an interaction between fields. >>> Here's where another old idea gets replaced -- charge (like color charge >>> or electromagnetic charge) is not some kind of "stuff" that belongs to >>> "things"; instead, charge is just defined as that tendency for a given >>> pair of fields to interact and create ripples in each other. The laws >>> that control these interactions are in fact driven by yet more >>> symmetries of nature (local gauge symmetries). >>> >>> What's astonishing about this is that physicists now believe that the >>> fundamental thing that physics is about is the interaction, not the >>> object. And rather than physical laws, physicists now think of >>> symmetries as the fundamental constraint. ” >>> >>> That’s Odd on not just Space, but everything. It’s kind of QM all grown >>> up, where it’s ALL bullshit >>> >> >> Well, fascinating that you think it’s bullshit when it’s validated with >> data. Fascinating that you believe that anything that does not fit YOUR >> worldview is bullshit, even though your worldview is not supported by data >> and is in conflict with known laws of physics (eg precession locked to >> rotation without external torque). >> >> Truth in science is not determined by your incredulity. > > Nor by your fantasies. > > Data aren’t fantasies. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-19 11:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <piqagi$12n0$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #694560 |
On 7/18/2018 9:33 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/18/2018 2:43 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Odd >>>> >>>> I want to put these exchanges all together: >>>> >>>> John: Let’s nail this down. >>>> You believe that fields exist everywhere in every possible place they >>>> can be, accommodating every possible scenario, but just ‘not active’, or >>>> ‘not discernible’, until they ARE active, but nothing is producing them, >>>> or flowing through space, they just ‘are’. >>>> Is that about it, Odd? >>>> Odd: No that’s not it. I’ve said nothing of the kind. Good grief, John, just one >>>> made-up babble after another. >>>> John:Here, Odd, I’ll save you the time: (reposts Odds post fromAug2017 ) >>>> “But the real picture of the 21st century is far stranger, and amateurs >>>> may not be fully aware of it. >>>> >>>> In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields >>>> which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time >>>> like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the >>>> fabric OF space and time. >>>> >>>> There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by >>>> symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than >>>> the conservation laws of nature. >>>> >>>> Ripples can be measured by a quantity called "action", which physicists >>>> have known about for a long time. What they didn't know until the 20th >>>> century is that the smallest chunk of action is given by a number called >>>> Planck's constant. These smallest ripples are what we associate with >>>> field quanta, and when physicists say "fundamental particles" they are >>>> really talking about these field quanta. >>>> >>>> So, recapping so far, the idea of "things" moving through space and time >>>> has become replaced with the idea of fields that extend everywhere, and >>>> the ripples in them that are bestowed with small amounts of action. >>>> >>>> (I've glossed over a key idea that a field is nothing more than a map of >>>> the value(s) of a property(ies) OF spacetime itself. Different fields >>>> correspond to different sets of properties of spacetime, and all the >>>> fields overlay each other. The little quantized ripples in the fields >>>> can be distinct from each other though, in some sense.) >>>> >>>> Now the last core concept is that a ripple carrying some action in one >>>> field can generate or disturb a ripple carrying some action in a >>>> different field. This is what we call an interaction between fields. >>>> Here's where another old idea gets replaced -- charge (like color charge >>>> or electromagnetic charge) is not some kind of "stuff" that belongs to >>>> "things"; instead, charge is just defined as that tendency for a given >>>> pair of fields to interact and create ripples in each other. The laws >>>> that control these interactions are in fact driven by yet more >>>> symmetries of nature (local gauge symmetries). >>>> >>>> What's astonishing about this is that physicists now believe that the >>>> fundamental thing that physics is about is the interaction, not the >>>> object. And rather than physical laws, physicists now think of >>>> symmetries as the fundamental constraint. ” >>>> >>>> That’s Odd on not just Space, but everything. It’s kind of QM all grown >>>> up, where it’s ALL bullshit >>>> >>> >>> Well, fascinating that you think it’s bullshit when it’s validated with >>> data. Fascinating that you believe that anything that does not fit YOUR >>> worldview is bullshit, even though your worldview is not supported by data >>> and is in conflict with known laws of physics (eg precession locked to >>> rotation without external torque). >>> >>> Truth in science is not determined by your incredulity. >> >> Nor by your fantasies. >> >> > > Data aren’t fantasies. > Your interpretation of data is fantasy. (Unless, of course the "science" is about global warming...then the data is fantasy also)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-19 15:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <piqbbo$1526$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #694630 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/18/2018 9:33 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 7/18/2018 2:43 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Odd >>>>> >>>>> I want to put these exchanges all together: >>>>> >>>>> John: Let’s nail this down. >>>>> You believe that fields exist everywhere in every possible place they >>>>> can be, accommodating every possible scenario, but just ‘not active’, or >>>>> ‘not discernible’, until they ARE active, but nothing is producing them, >>>>> or flowing through space, they just ‘are’. >>>>> Is that about it, Odd? >>>>> Odd: No that’s not it. I’ve said nothing of the kind. Good grief, John, just one >>>>> made-up babble after another. >>>>> John:Here, Odd, I’ll save you the time: (reposts Odds post fromAug2017 ) >>>>> “But the real picture of the 21st century is far stranger, and amateurs >>>>> may not be fully aware of it. >>>>> >>>>> In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields >>>>> which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time >>>>> like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the >>>>> fabric OF space and time. >>>>> >>>>> There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by >>>>> symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than >>>>> the conservation laws of nature. >>>>> >>>>> Ripples can be measured by a quantity called "action", which physicists >>>>> have known about for a long time. What they didn't know until the 20th >>>>> century is that the smallest chunk of action is given by a number called >>>>> Planck's constant. These smallest ripples are what we associate with >>>>> field quanta, and when physicists say "fundamental particles" they are >>>>> really talking about these field quanta. >>>>> >>>>> So, recapping so far, the idea of "things" moving through space and time >>>>> has become replaced with the idea of fields that extend everywhere, and >>>>> the ripples in them that are bestowed with small amounts of action. >>>>> >>>>> (I've glossed over a key idea that a field is nothing more than a map of >>>>> the value(s) of a property(ies) OF spacetime itself. Different fields >>>>> correspond to different sets of properties of spacetime, and all the >>>>> fields overlay each other. The little quantized ripples in the fields >>>>> can be distinct from each other though, in some sense.) >>>>> >>>>> Now the last core concept is that a ripple carrying some action in one >>>>> field can generate or disturb a ripple carrying some action in a >>>>> different field. This is what we call an interaction between fields. >>>>> Here's where another old idea gets replaced -- charge (like color charge >>>>> or electromagnetic charge) is not some kind of "stuff" that belongs to >>>>> "things"; instead, charge is just defined as that tendency for a given >>>>> pair of fields to interact and create ripples in each other. The laws >>>>> that control these interactions are in fact driven by yet more >>>>> symmetries of nature (local gauge symmetries). >>>>> >>>>> What's astonishing about this is that physicists now believe that the >>>>> fundamental thing that physics is about is the interaction, not the >>>>> object. And rather than physical laws, physicists now think of >>>>> symmetries as the fundamental constraint. ” >>>>> >>>>> That’s Odd on not just Space, but everything. It’s kind of QM all grown >>>>> up, where it’s ALL bullshit >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, fascinating that you think it’s bullshit when it’s validated with >>>> data. Fascinating that you believe that anything that does not fit YOUR >>>> worldview is bullshit, even though your worldview is not supported by data >>>> and is in conflict with known laws of physics (eg precession locked to >>>> rotation without external torque). >>>> >>>> Truth in science is not determined by your incredulity. >>> >>> Nor by your fantasies. >>> >>> >> >> Data aren’t fantasies. >> > Your interpretation of data is fantasy. Well, as you certainly recall, if the data are in agreement with a theory, then the theory is supported. If the body of data support one theory more than other competing theories at the time, then that theory becomes accepted. Choosing to dismiss the theory ANYWAY because you just don’t like it doesn’t really fit the cut of good science. > (Unless, of course the "science" > is about global warming...then the data is fantasy also) > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-19 14:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0f4871c6-09ac-42c7-84c3-62d6a665fa6c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #694633 |
Odd “Well, as you certainly recall, if the data are in agreement with a theory, then the theory is supported. If the body of data support one theory more than other competing theories at the time, then that theory becomes accepted. Choosing to dismiss the theory ANYWAY because you just don’t like it doesn’t really fit the cut of good science. ” Where’s where you say if the data doesn’t support the theory, you make up a whole new class of matter and devote huge amounts of effort and resources to find it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-19 22:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pir2d6$f23$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #694684 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “Well, as you certainly recall, if the data are in agreement with a theory, > then the theory is supported. If the body of data support one theory more > than other competing theories at the time, then that theory becomes > accepted. Choosing to dismiss the theory ANYWAY because you just don’t like > it doesn’t really fit the cut of good science. > ” > Where’s where you say if the data doesn’t support the theory, you make up > a whole new class of matter and devote huge amounts of effort and resources to find it. > This often pays off. See neutrinos. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-19 16:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2dc46ad9-9cab-49eb-8e5c-dc8d021dee4d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #694693 |
Odd “This often pays off. See neutrinos. ” I wouldn’t bet on DM saving Suck Gravity’s ass. When ur wrong ur wrong. The longest, most comprehensive search, yet, for Dark Matter just wrapped up and didn’t find none poor Odd
[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