Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #695601 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-07-25 16:02 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-07-28 15:29 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 178 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 16:02 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 23:34 +0000
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-25 19:28 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-25 21:47 -0500
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-25 22:08 -0700
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 09:52 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-26 09:28 -0500
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-26 12:47 -0700
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 13:30 -0700
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-26 21:27 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 01:03 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 18:25 -0700
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-26 18:41 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 02:02 +0000
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-26 19:33 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-27 01:41 +0000
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-27 02:56 +0000
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-26 20:10 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-28 16:42 -0500
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-28 14:53 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-28 23:15 -0500
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 05:29 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 12:36 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 05:44 -0700
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 06:03 -0700
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 06:14 -0700
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 06:48 -0700
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 08:32 -0700
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-29 19:11 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 19:32 +0000
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-29 18:59 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Wayne Dial <ulau@dvbpdn.dv> - 2018-07-29 19:37 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 06:41 -0700
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 07:51 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 15:41 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 09:45 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-31 10:14 -0500
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 11:56 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-30 10:42 -0500
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-30 16:59 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 19:32 +0000
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-29 18:50 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Wayne Dial <ulau@dvbpdn.dv> - 2018-07-29 19:42 +0000
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-29 12:57 -0700
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-30 17:04 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 10:18 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 17:25 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-30 16:15 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 00:26 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 05:17 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 12:41 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 13:37 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 07:13 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 00:41 +0000
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-01 01:04 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 04:48 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 12:04 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 05:37 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 13:01 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 06:13 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 14:58 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 08:33 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 18:37 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-01 13:44 -0500
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 15:12 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-08-01 15:51 -0400
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 16:11 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-01 15:13 -0500
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-01 21:06 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-01 17:18 -0500
Re: What is a particle? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 10:55 -0700
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-03 19:11 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-04 18:22 -0500
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 19:54 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 10:55 -0700
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 15:02 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 21:05 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 14:59 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 21:05 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 20:05 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 01:38 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-01 18:55 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 03:17 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 01:36 -0400
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 01:04 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 09:41 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 10:37 -0400
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 07:42 -0700
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-02 15:06 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 08:34 -0700
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 09:52 -0700
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-02 17:18 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 10:50 -0700
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-02 20:42 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 16:12 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 00:16 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 20:51 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:48 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 07:27 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 15:22 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 08:30 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 17:30 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 14:06 -0400
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:56 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 18:14 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 15:16 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 20:41 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 02:51 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 14:22 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-04 12:29 -0400
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-04 13:55 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 10:38 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-02 22:51 -0500
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 22:25 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-04 20:11 -0500
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-05 01:24 +0000
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-02 23:32 -0700
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-02 23:36 -0700
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 06:25 -0400
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 06:23 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:48 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:46 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 18:14 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 15:09 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:48 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 00:16 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 01:34 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 09:25 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 10:33 -0400
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-02 15:00 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 16:08 -0400
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-02 20:52 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 00:16 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 20:57 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:09 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:33 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 18:13 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 15:07 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 20:41 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:48 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:45 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 18:14 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 15:07 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 20:41 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-03 20:17 -0500
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 00:16 +0000
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-02 17:34 -0700
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 21:04 -0400
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 18:38 -0700
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 22:54 -0400
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 20:26 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-03 12:25 -0500
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-02 21:03 -0400
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 13:48 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 14:00 -0400
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-01 00:54 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Wayne Dial <ulau@dvbpdn.dv> - 2018-07-30 19:15 +0000
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-01 00:59 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 19:32 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 17:55 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-29 13:20 -0500
Re: What is a particle? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-29 18:47 +0000
Re: What is a particle? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 18:15 -0400
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-28 15:25 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-26 15:38 -0500
Re: What is a particle? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-26 14:13 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-28 11:39 -0500
Re: What is a particle? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-07-26 00:08 -0700
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 05:50 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 13:41 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 06:54 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-26 14:14 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-28 11:41 -0500
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 10:48 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 18:42 +0000
Re: What is a particle? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 12:44 -0700
Re: What is a particle? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-28 19:54 +0000
Re: What is a particle? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-07-28 15:29 -0500
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-02 01:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjtnag$b2q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696698 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/1/2018 5:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 8/1/2018 9:01 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Odd >>>>> “Physicists use this as a handy visualization tool, but if you’ve never read >>>>> what the visualization actually represents, you may be making a serious >>>>> conceptual mistake. ” >>>>> >>>>> Yes, Odd. >>>>> Explain what you conceive as a ‘field’. >>>>> What do those lines actually represent? >>>>> Please tell me so I don’t make a serious conceptual mistake. >>>>> Use very simple English, please >>>>> >>>> >>>> See? I knew it. You don’t know what the field lines even mean, and you’re >>>> just making shit up like motion or flow of exchanged particles. Why do you >>>> MAKE SHIT UP, when the explanation of the visualization takes maybe a half >>>> page of text in a textbook?? Huh?? >>>> >>>> Magnetic and electric fields are vector fields, which means that if you >>>> pick any particular place in space, the field will have a certain >>>> magnitude/strength and a particular direction. Think of the spines on a >>>> hedgehog. Notice the spines are NOT moving anywhere. >>>> >>>> The way field lines represent this vector field is like this: >>>> 1. Pick a place in space. >>>> 2. Find the nearest field line to that place. Put your finger on the >>>> nearest spot on the nearest field line. This won’t be perfect but you can >>>> interpolate. >>>> 3. The direction of the tangent to that field line where you finger is, is >>>> the direction of the field. >>>> 4. The magnitude of the field is inversely proportional to the spacing >>>> between the field lines. So if the field lines are spaced more apart there, >>>> then the magnitude is weaker. If the field lines are closely spaced, then >>>> the field magnitude is stronger. >>>> >>>> With this prescription, you should be able to draw a field line map of the >>>> spines on a hedgehog. Try that to practice this skill. You won’t get it >>>> right the first time. >>>> >>>> NOTHING IS MOVING ALONG THOSE LINES. >>>> >>> Odd you have no idea what you are talking about. "Field lines" or what >>> are often termed Faraday lies of force are as bogus as Farday's Law. >>> >>> They do not make sense and have never made sense and science does not >>> embrace them except to notice how they seem to occur when you put iron >>> filings around a magent. But mathematically "field lines" are utter >>> nonsense. Fields only exist at points there is no consistent way you can >>> define these fantasy "lines" from a field. Science has known this since >>> the time of Faraday. >> >> This is why of course so many textbooks are so good at explaining the field >> line representation of vector fields, and as appropriate, how that relates >> to equipotential surfaces — because it makes no conceptual or mathematical >> sense to Ben. Oh and there’s also all that talk about field fluxes and how >> that’s represented in field line diagrams, and theorems about the surface >> integrals of these field fluxes, a couple of which for example are >> recognizable as Maxwell electrodynamics laws. >> >> Lol. > > I'm not going to waste my time trying to cure your massive ignorance. Nor the ignorance of all the physicists who spend a lot of time explaining the field line representation of vector fields. Which you maintain are insensible and incomprehensible. Which you are telling me that if YOU find them incomprehensible, then physicists are simply lying when they present them as comprehensible. > I"ll let John handle that job. Suffice it to say that while text books > often draw field lines as an illustration. They are nonsense. There is > no consistent way to count them or calculate with them. Of course there is. You just need a scale. It’s just like a topographical map where you might not be able to tell how tall a hill is just by counting lines, but if there is a legend that says what the elevation change is between isos is, then you certainly can. Likewise on a field line map, all you need is a scale that tells you what field strength corresponds to what field line density, and you have it. What is true is that many books don’t display the scale in every case, but then again, they might not for a topo map either, because it’s a conceptual point being made. > You are still an > idiot. Equipotential surfaces of course are something quite different > and obviously do exist and are used in calculations. Lol. And you know of course that you can take any topographical map with iso-elevation curves and draw gradient lines on it, where the density of the gradient lines tell you how large the gradient is, and the tangent of the gradient line tells you the direction of the gradient. This is of course EXACTLY analogous to field lines because the mathematical definitions are the same. Good grief, you’ve forgotten so much. > Any other strawmen > want to try to drag out and whack to pieces? > >>> Why don't you forget your philosophy fantasies and learn some science >>> from John? > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-01 18:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <825a82eb-da1c-4d34-8666-7844661595d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #696704 |
Odd “you know of course that you can take any topographical map with iso-elevation curves and draw gradient lines on it, where the density of ” Now we’re getting somewhere! Draw me a picture of your model!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-02 03:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjtt3m$icp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696706 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “you know of course that you can take any topographical map with > iso-elevation curves and draw gradient lines on it, where the density of ” > Now we’re getting somewhere! > Draw me a picture of your model!! > Jesus, John, this is a text forum. You can’t google “topographical map with gradients”? You can’t google “field lines with equipotentials”? You can’t use a fucking public library? Where are you? A nursing home? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-02 01:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pju588$shc$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696711 |
On 8/1/2018 11:17 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >> Odd >> “you know of course that you can take any topographical map with >> iso-elevation curves and draw gradient lines on it, where the density of ” >> Now we’re getting somewhere! >> Draw me a picture of your model!! >> > > Jesus, John, this is a text forum. You can’t google “topographical map with > gradients”? You can’t google “field lines with equipotentials”? You can’t > use a fucking public library? Where are you? A nursing home? > Says the amateur moron too ignorant to look in Wikipedia! Go make some wooden toys. You MAY be able to handle that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-02 01:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ad6e733c-1d31-4113-90f6-7c66895eb34f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #696717 |
benj “Go make some wooden toys. You MAY be able to handle that. ” Aw benj! I was trying to get him to draw me some field lines that an electron is producing! Does an electron produce field lines, Odd? Ever? When? In the atom? Can you draw them?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-02 09:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjujkn$1kh3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696719 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > benj > “Go make some wooden toys. You MAY be able to handle that. ” > Aw benj! > I was trying to get him to draw me some field lines that an electron is producing! > Does an electron produce field lines, Odd? > Ever? > > When? In the atom? > Can you draw them? > So try googling “field lines around an electron”. For Pete’s sake, John, lift a finger. JUST A FINGER. No, not that one. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-02 10:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pjv4uc$kgs$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696723 |
On 8/2/2018 5:41 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >> benj >> “Go make some wooden toys. You MAY be able to handle that. ” >> Aw benj! >> I was trying to get him to draw me some field lines that an electron is producing! >> Does an electron produce field lines, Odd? >> Ever? >> >> When? In the atom? >> Can you draw them? >> > > So try googling “field lines around an electron”. > For Pete’s sake, John, lift a finger. JUST A FINGER. No, not that one. > > John, isn't it so funny that he tells you to Google field lines but he didn't have enough gumption to go read wikipedia to find out they are mathematical nonsense! Do as he SAYS not as he DOES! Gosh John, do you think Odd will tell us exactly how many field lines are around each electron? He knows he's been cornered but still keeps trying to "win" with bluster and bullshit!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-02 07:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0ad3496f-cde1-4718-98cb-012881f739c0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #696740 |
benj “do you think Odd will tell us exactly how many field lines are around each electron” I want him to draw a picture of an electron and it’s field lines
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-02 15:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjv6mf$n4e$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #696741 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >benj >"do you think Odd will tell us exactly how many field lines are around >each electron" >I want him to draw a picture of an electron and it's field lines Here you go, John. http://www.lmfgtfy.com/?q=electron+field+lines
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-02 08:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <27a92e70-6952-4e0b-8b0c-f14e931f3954@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #696743 |
MM “Here you go, John. ” Ah! So an electron is a little ball? How does it get “distributed”?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-02 09:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <72348bbd-c3cf-4ce6-ba8a-b7ac43717f9a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #696745 |
MM “MM “Here you go, John. ” Ah! So an electron is a little ball? How does it get “distributed”?” Does it divide itself into a whole lot of little balls? How many? I thought it was ‘fundamental’?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-02 17:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjvedk$42n$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #696746 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >So an electron is a little ball? >How does it get "distributed"? >Does it divide itself into a whole lot of little balls? How many? I thought >it was 'fundamental'? It is a probability distribution function, idiot. Like what we've been trying to tell you for years. But you go back to the electron being a little ball and somehow consider your belief to be evidence we're wrong and say something dumb like "I thought it was 'fundamental'".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-02 10:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5bdfd57d-341c-49d6-bc56-2a15f1f61465@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #696747 |
MM “But you go back to the electron being a little ball and somehow consider your belief to be evidence we're wrong and say something dumb like "I thought it was 'fundamental'". ” Hmm. Your model started with the electron being fundamental. Then when you couldn’t figure out what’s happening with Benzene, you needed it to delocalize and then when you still couldn’t process it having a route, you needed it to distribute itself. And now it’s just a probability function. So your field lines are probability, too? So you think everything is math, and there is no physical form? Wrong, Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-02 20:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjvqba$9c0$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #696751 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >"But you go back to the electron being a little ball and somehow consider >your belief to be evidence we're wrong and say something dumb like >"I thought it was 'fundamental'". " >Hmm. >Your model started with the electron being fundamental. It sure appears that that is true. >Then when you couldn't figure out what's happening with Benzene, That wasn't me. That was chemists before Kekule. > you needed it to delocalize Actually delocalization falls right out of adding the wave functions of more than two atoms in a molecule. The wave functions just add, and produce a new wave function that amounts to delocalization. Cool. The delocalization can be viewed as an extended wave function/probability function. > and then when you still couldn't process it having a route, you needed >it to distribute itself. Nope, we know from HUP that you cannot know both the position and momentum of an electron (or anything else) to more than a certain accuracy. That rules out simple "routes" like your retarded spinny things have. >And now it's just a probability function. With HUP that's about the best you're going to see with electron-sized things. You can't know for certain where it is given limits on the momentum. But you can play dice on where you can find it (sorry, Einstein). >So you think everything is math, and there is no physical form? It seems the more and more we dig, the more and more physics looks like math. For example: The particle zoo --> the Eightfold Way (+decuplet) --> quark theory --> SU(3)/SU(n). SU(n) groups are almost all pure math. >Wrong, Michael I don't get to tell Mother Nature what to do, and I really don't believe you get to tell her, either. She does what she wants to. Scientists try to convince Mother Nature to tell them what she is up to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-02 16:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pjvoj5$1o1n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696747 |
On 8/2/2018 1:18 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> So an electron is a little ball?
>> How does it get "distributed"?
>
>> Does it divide itself into a whole lot of little balls? How many? I thought
>> it was 'fundamental'?
>
> It is a probability distribution function, idiot. Like what we've been
> trying to tell you for years.
>
> But you go back to the electron being a little ball and somehow consider
> your belief to be evidence we're wrong and say something dumb like
> "I thought it was 'fundamental'".
>
Wait a minute! Everybody {knows) that electrons are not only little
balls but these balls are so tiny they don't have any volume at all! Yet
somehow they seem to be giving off these "field lines"! How can nothing
at all do that? Oh wait! I got it. Since the field lines don't exist
either that means both the electron and it's field lines don't exist so
that makes it OK. Got it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-03 00:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pk06sg$dui$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696769 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/2/2018 1:18 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> So an electron is a little ball?
>>> How does it get "distributed"?
>>
>>> Does it divide itself into a whole lot of little balls? How many? I thought
>>> it was 'fundamental'?
>>
>> It is a probability distribution function, idiot. Like what we've been
>> trying to tell you for years.
>>
>> But you go back to the electron being a little ball and somehow consider
>> your belief to be evidence we're wrong and say something dumb like
>> "I thought it was 'fundamental'".
>>
> Wait a minute! Everybody {knows) that electrons are not only little
> balls but these balls are so tiny they don't have any volume at all! Yet
> somehow they seem to be giving off these "field lines"!
No, they do not “give off” field lines. For the third time, field lines are
a way to visualize a vector field. A way to visualize something else. Like
an topo map with iso lines is a way to visualize terrain elevation. Terrain
elevation is a scalar field. The gradient field is a vector field on that
same terrain.
For the third time, nothing is moving along those lines. Those lines do not
stream, do not flow, do not represent motion of anything.
If you and John cannot get that through your head by repetition or by
learning it yourself, then just give up. It’s over your head. I guess topo
maps with gradient lines are too.
> How can nothing
> at all do that? Oh wait! I got it. Since the field lines don't exist
> either that means both the electron and it's field lines don't exist so
> that makes it OK. Got it.
>
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-02 20:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pk08v4$gjm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696793 |
On 8/2/2018 8:16 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 8/2/2018 1:18 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> So an electron is a little ball?
>>>> How does it get "distributed"?
>>>
>>>> Does it divide itself into a whole lot of little balls? How many? I thought
>>>> it was 'fundamental'?
>>>
>>> It is a probability distribution function, idiot. Like what we've been
>>> trying to tell you for years.
>>>
>>> But you go back to the electron being a little ball and somehow consider
>>> your belief to be evidence we're wrong and say something dumb like
>>> "I thought it was 'fundamental'".
>>>
>> Wait a minute! Everybody {knows) that electrons are not only little
>> balls but these balls are so tiny they don't have any volume at all! Yet
>> somehow they seem to be giving off these "field lines"!
>
> No, they do not “give off” field lines. For the third time, field lines are
> a way to visualize a vector field. A way to visualize something else. Like
> an topo map with iso lines is a way to visualize terrain elevation. Terrain
> elevation is a scalar field. The gradient field is a vector field on that
> same terrain.
Electrons clearly "give off" fields. All textbooks agree that electric
fields are moving. Hence "field lines" a a visual aid muc also be
considered moving. But since they are mathematical nonsense that is just
a philosophical thought and no reality. You still don't get that topo
maps have real values. Field lines do not. They are mathematical
nonsense. You know mathematics is a way to visulize the forces between
charged particles. But fields lines are NOT mathematics.
> For the third time, nothing is moving along those lines. Those lines do not
> stream, do not flow, do not represent motion of anything.
Nobody mentioned things moving along lines. Lay off the stash, Odd.
However since electric fields are moving then philosophically one must
say that so-called field lines must move too! That is science.
> If you and John cannot get that through your head by repetition or by
> learning it yourself, then just give up. It’s over your head. I guess topo
> maps with gradient lines are too.
Do you really want me to school you in science? I certainly hve better
things to do than to try to pound reality into you dumb head filled with
your religious notions.
>> How can nothing
>> at all do that? Oh wait! I got it. Since the field lines don't exist
>> either that means both the electron and it's field lines don't exist so
>> that makes it OK. Got it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-03 13:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pk1mg4$ob3$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696801 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/2/2018 8:16 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/2/2018 1:18 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> So an electron is a little ball?
>>>>> How does it get "distributed"?
>>>>
>>>>> Does it divide itself into a whole lot of little balls? How many? I thought
>>>>> it was 'fundamental'?
>>>>
>>>> It is a probability distribution function, idiot. Like what we've been
>>>> trying to tell you for years.
>>>>
>>>> But you go back to the electron being a little ball and somehow consider
>>>> your belief to be evidence we're wrong and say something dumb like
>>>> "I thought it was 'fundamental'".
>>>>
>>> Wait a minute! Everybody {knows) that electrons are not only little
>>> balls but these balls are so tiny they don't have any volume at all! Yet
>>> somehow they seem to be giving off these "field lines"!
>>
>> No, they do not “give off” field lines. For the third time, field lines are
>> a way to visualize a vector field. A way to visualize something else. Like
>> an topo map with iso lines is a way to visualize terrain elevation. Terrain
>> elevation is a scalar field. The gradient field is a vector field on that
>> same terrain.
>
> Electrons clearly "give off" fields.
No they don’t. You’re just stirring the pot.
>\All textbooks agree that electric
> fields are moving.
Bullshit. Not unless the charges are moving. You’re just stirring the pot.
> Hence "field lines" a a visual aid muc also be
> considered moving.
Bullshit.
> But since they are mathematical nonsense that is just
> a philosophical thought and no reality.
As opposed to longitudinal lines on the earth which are not physically
present but are mathematically real, you say. How may lines of longitude
are there on the earth, Ben? Can you count them?
> You still don't get that topo
> maps have real values. Field lines do not.
Sure they do. The values aren’t always shown on the diagrams, but the same
is true for topo maps.
> They are mathematical
> nonsense. You know mathematics is a way to visulize the forces between
> charged particles. But fields lines are NOT mathematics.
>
>> For the third time, nothing is moving along those lines. Those lines do not
>> stream, do not flow, do not represent motion of anything.
>
> Nobody mentioned things moving along lines. Lay off the stash, Odd.
> However since electric fields are moving
Electric fields are Not moving for stationary charges.
> then philosophically one must
> say that so-called field lines must move too! That is science.
>
>> If you and John cannot get that through your head by repetition or by
>> learning it yourself, then just give up. It’s over your head. I guess topo
>> maps with gradient lines are too.
>
> Do you really want me to school you in science? I certainly hve better
> things to do than to try to pound reality into you dumb head filled with
> your religious notions.
You’re not here to school anybody. You’re here to stir the pot and root for
the uneducated underdog. You’ve always been here for that.
>
>>> How can nothing
>>> at all do that? Oh wait! I got it. Since the field lines don't exist
>>> either that means both the electron and it's field lines don't exist so
>>> that makes it OK. Got it.
>
>
>
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-03 07:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <21339d1b-8288-4627-9bb2-e558e34357e7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #696865 |
Odd “Electric fields are Not moving for stationary charges. ” No charges anywhere are stationary, Odd.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-03 15:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pk1s08$1252$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696869 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “Electric fields are Not moving for stationary charges. > ” > No charges anywhere are stationary, Odd. > What makes you say that, John? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web