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 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-03 13:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pk1mg3$ob3$3@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
Field lines aren’t “given off” by electrons.
> 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.
>
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-03 13:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pk24dj$1i1e$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696864 |
On 8/3/2018 9:48 AM, 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
>
> Field lines aren’t “given off” by electrons.
Then how do they get out there is space? Oh wait, that's right.
Wikipedia says they don't exist in space like latitude and longitude!
You are still an idiot.
>> 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 18:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pk2619$1kmd$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696886 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/3/2018 9:48 AM, 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
>>
>> Field lines aren’t “given off” by electrons.
>
> Then how do they get out there is space?
They don’t get there.
> Oh wait, that's right.
> Wikipedia says they don't exist in space like latitude and longitude!
> You are still an idiot.
>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-03 15:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pk2998$1pel$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696902 |
On 8/3/2018 2:14 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 8/3/2018 9:48 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 8/2/2018 1:18 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So an electron is a little ball?
>>>>>> How does it get "distributed"?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Does it divide itself into a whole lot of little balls? How many? I thought
>>>>>> it was 'fundamental'?
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a probability distribution function, idiot. Like what we've been
>>>>> trying to tell you for years.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you go back to the electron being a little ball and somehow consider
>>>>> your belief to be evidence we're wrong and say something dumb like
>>>>> "I thought it was 'fundamental'".
>>>>>
>>>> Wait a minute! Everybody {knows) that electrons are not only little
>>>> balls but these balls are so tiny they don't have any volume at all! Yet
>>>> somehow they seem to be giving off
>>>
>>> Field lines aren’t “given off” by electrons.
>>
>> Then how do they get out there is space?
>
> They don’t get there.
Babbling senile fantasy. Read a science book, Odd.
Learn something about fields and math, OK?
>> Oh wait, that's right.
>> Wikipedia says they don't exist in space like latitude and longitude!
>> You are still an idiot.
>>
>>>> these "field lines"! How can nothing
>>>> at all do that? Oh wait! I got it. Since the field lines don't exist
>>>> either that means both the electron and it's field lines don't exist so
>>>> that makes it OK. Got it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-03 13:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pk1mg2$ob3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696745 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > MM > “Here you go, John. > ” > Ah! > So an electron is a little ball? > How does it get “distributed”? > Were you looking for a drawing of field lines or were you looking for a drawing of electrons? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-03 00:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pk06sj$dui$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696741 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > benj > “do you think Odd will tell us exactly how many field lines > are around each electron” > I want him to draw a picture of an electron and it’s field lines > Why? Because you forgot how to google? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-02 01:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pju54i$shc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696704 |
On 8/1/2018 9:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > 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. Boinker I've forgotten more than you ever knew! So just how many "field lines" are there? Just how dense are the lines you intend to count? It's mathematical nonsense. I've read MANY textbooks that have said so. If you have read as many texts as you pretend you'd have read it too. Why don't you start with something simple and down at your amateur level, OK? Like say Google or wikipedia? "A field line is a locus that is defined by a vector field and a starting location within the field. Field lines are useful for visualizing vector fields, which are otherwise hard to depict. Unlike longitude and latitude lines on a globe, or topographic lines on a topographic map, they are not physically present at any locations; they are merely conceptual tools." You are STILL an amateur at science but an expert at being an idiot! Benj + John = 1 Boinker = 0
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-02 09:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjuimm$1ip3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696716 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/1/2018 9:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> 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. > > Boinker I've forgotten more than you ever knew! > > So just how many "field lines" are there? Just how dense are the lines > you intend to count? Depends on the scale. Are you not reading what I write? > It's mathematical nonsense. I've read MANY > textbooks that have said so. Name four. Authors, titles, page references. > If you have read as many texts as you > pretend you'd have read it too. > > Why don't you start with something simple and down at your amateur > level, OK? Like say Google or wikipedia? > > > "A field line is a locus that is defined by a vector field and a > starting location within the field. Field lines are useful for > visualizing vector fields, which are otherwise hard to depict. Unlike > longitude and latitude lines on a globe, or topographic lines on a > topographic map, they are not physically present at any locations; they > are merely conceptual tools." That’s right! How does that make them nonsense?? Here are your statements: They do not make sense and have never made sense. Mathematically "field lines" are utter nonsense. There is no consistent way you can define these fantasy "lines" from a field. How does it follow from them not being physically there that they are utter nonsense?? Is a conceptual tool that is widely used utter nonsense? > > You are STILL an amateur at science but an expert at being an idiot! > > Benj + John = 1 > Boinker = 0 > What are your scoring? Counters painted selves into? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-02 10:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pjv4nh$k6b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696722 |
On 8/2/2018 5:25 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8/1/2018 9:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Boinker I've forgotten more than you ever knew! >> >> So just how many "field lines" are there? Just how dense are the lines >> you intend to count? > > Depends on the scale. Are you not reading what I write? > >> It's mathematical nonsense. I've read MANY >> textbooks that have said so. > > Name four. Authors, titles, page references. > >> If you have read as many texts as you >> pretend you'd have read it too. >> >> Why don't you start with something simple and down at your amateur >> level, OK? Like say Google or wikipedia? >> >> >> "A field line is a locus that is defined by a vector field and a >> starting location within the field. Field lines are useful for >> visualizing vector fields, which are otherwise hard to depict. Unlike >> longitude and latitude lines on a globe, or topographic lines on a >> topographic map, they are not physically present at any locations; they >> are merely conceptual tools." > > That’s right! How does that make them nonsense?? > Here are your statements: > They do not make sense and have never made sense. > Mathematically "field lines" are utter nonsense. > There is no consistent way you can define these fantasy "lines" from a > field. > > How does it follow from them not being physically there that they are utter > nonsense?? > Is a conceptual tool that is widely used utter nonsense? I said "mathematical nonsense" you science retard. If you are going to make up what I say, then just post for both of us. They make clear the "lines" cannot be counted and have no true numerical meaning. That they make pretty pictures has nothing to do with math. That is your kind of understanding, isn't it? To you pretty pictures are science! >> You are STILL an amateur at science but an expert at being an idiot! >> >> Benj + John = 1 >> Boinker = 0 >> > > What are your scoring? Counters painted selves into? You lost SO badly and yet like trump haters you keep screaming and pretending that anything you make up is reality. You are so pwned!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-02 15:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjv6a1$n4e$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #696739 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> writes: >>> If you have read as many texts as you >>> pretend you'd have read it too. >>> >>> Why don't you start with something simple and down at your amateur >>> level, OK? Like say Google or wikipedia? >>> >>> >>> "A field line is a locus that is defined by a vector field and a >>> starting location within the field. Field lines are useful for >>> visualizing vector fields, which are otherwise hard to depict. Unlike >>> longitude and latitude lines on a globe, or topographic lines on a >>> topographic map, they are not physically present at any locations; they >>> are merely conceptual tools." >> >> That's right! How does that make them nonsense?? >> Here are your statements: >> They do not make sense and have never made sense. >> Mathematically "field lines" are utter nonsense. >> There is no consistent way you can define these fantasy "lines" from a >> field. >> >> How does it follow from them not being physically there that they are utter >> nonsense?? >> Is a conceptual tool that is widely used utter nonsense? >I said "mathematical nonsense" you science retard. If you are going to >make up what I say, then just post for both of us. They make clear the >"lines" cannot be counted and have no true numerical meaning. That they >make pretty pictures has nothing to do with math. That is your kind of >understanding, isn't it? To you pretty pictures are science! Calling them "nonsense" because they don't physically exist is like calling iso elevation curves on a topo map "nonsense" because if you go out in the field, no hills have iso elevation curves or slope gradients on them! It is an instructive tool, and is pretty much what John S. has been asking for since he is (too!) visually oriented.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-02 16:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pjvob1$1nh5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696742 |
On 8/2/2018 11:00 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> writes: > >>>> If you have read as many texts as you >>>> pretend you'd have read it too. >>>> >>>> Why don't you start with something simple and down at your amateur >>>> level, OK? Like say Google or wikipedia? >>>> >>>> >>>> "A field line is a locus that is defined by a vector field and a >>>> starting location within the field. Field lines are useful for >>>> visualizing vector fields, which are otherwise hard to depict. Unlike >>>> longitude and latitude lines on a globe, or topographic lines on a >>>> topographic map, they are not physically present at any locations; they >>>> are merely conceptual tools." >>> >>> That's right! How does that make them nonsense?? >>> Here are your statements: >>> They do not make sense and have never made sense. >>> Mathematically "field lines" are utter nonsense. >>> There is no consistent way you can define these fantasy "lines" from a >>> field. >>> >>> How does it follow from them not being physically there that they are utter >>> nonsense?? >>> Is a conceptual tool that is widely used utter nonsense? > >> I said "mathematical nonsense" you science retard. If you are going to >> make up what I say, then just post for both of us. They make clear the >> "lines" cannot be counted and have no true numerical meaning. That they >> make pretty pictures has nothing to do with math. That is your kind of >> understanding, isn't it? To you pretty pictures are science! > > Calling them "nonsense" because they don't physically exist is like > calling iso elevation curves on a topo map "nonsense" because if you go > out in the field, no hills have iso elevation curves or slope gradients on > them! It is an instructive tool, and is pretty much what John S. has been > asking for since he is (too!) visually oriented. > Odd is just ignorant, but you sort of just don't get it. It's not about stripes on a hill! Didn't you read the wiki piece? There are no longitude stripes on the ground yet they exist and are mathematically real. The problem here is mathematically they can't really be defined like elevation curves can. I'll ask you like I keep asking Odd. Just how many field lines are there around an electron sitting in space? Give me that number!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-02 20:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pjvqum$9c0$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #696766 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> writes: >On 8/2/2018 11:00 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> writes: >>> I said "mathematical nonsense" you science retard. If you are going to >>> make up what I say, then just post for both of us. They make clear the >>> "lines" cannot be counted and have no true numerical meaning. That they >>> make pretty pictures has nothing to do with math. That is your kind of >>> understanding, isn't it? To you pretty pictures are science! >> >> Calling them "nonsense" because they don't physically exist is like >> calling iso elevation curves on a topo map "nonsense" because if you go >> out in the field, no hills have iso elevation curves or slope gradients on >> them! It is an instructive tool, and is pretty much what John S. has been >> asking for since he is (too!) visually oriented. >> >Odd is just ignorant, but you sort of just don't get it. It's not about >stripes on a hill! Didn't you read the wiki piece? There are no >longitude stripes on the ground yet they exist and are mathematically >real. The problem here is mathematically they can't really be defined >like elevation curves can. I'll ask you like I keep asking Odd. Just how >many field lines are there around an electron sitting in space? I believe field lines around a charge represent the electric field. The electric field has no SI unit of its own but can be represented as volts/meter or newtons/coulomb. In that case the direction of a line of force corresponds to the direction of the electric field vector, while the number of lines per unit distance or whatever is the strength. A tiny "test charge" will experience force along the field lines. >Give me that number! I have never seen a representation of electric/magnetic lines of force with units, unlike topo map elevations. It's mostly a visualization thing, to help people visualize what's going on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-03 00:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pk06si$dui$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696766 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/2/2018 11:00 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> writes: >> >>>>> If you have read as many texts as you >>>>> pretend you'd have read it too. >>>>> >>>>> Why don't you start with something simple and down at your amateur >>>>> level, OK? Like say Google or wikipedia? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "A field line is a locus that is defined by a vector field and a >>>>> starting location within the field. Field lines are useful for >>>>> visualizing vector fields, which are otherwise hard to depict. Unlike >>>>> longitude and latitude lines on a globe, or topographic lines on a >>>>> topographic map, they are not physically present at any locations; they >>>>> are merely conceptual tools." >>>> >>>> That's right! How does that make them nonsense?? >>>> Here are your statements: >>>> They do not make sense and have never made sense. >>>> Mathematically "field lines" are utter nonsense. >>>> There is no consistent way you can define these fantasy "lines" from a >>>> field. >>>> >>>> How does it follow from them not being physically there that they are utter >>>> nonsense?? >>>> Is a conceptual tool that is widely used utter nonsense? >> >>> I said "mathematical nonsense" you science retard. If you are going to >>> make up what I say, then just post for both of us. They make clear the >>> "lines" cannot be counted and have no true numerical meaning. That they >>> make pretty pictures has nothing to do with math. That is your kind of >>> understanding, isn't it? To you pretty pictures are science! >> >> Calling them "nonsense" because they don't physically exist is like >> calling iso elevation curves on a topo map "nonsense" because if you go >> out in the field, no hills have iso elevation curves or slope gradients on >> them! It is an instructive tool, and is pretty much what John S. has been >> asking for since he is (too!) visually oriented. >> > Odd is just ignorant, but you sort of just don't get it. It's not about > stripes on a hill! Didn't you read the wiki piece? There are no > longitude stripes on the ground yet they exist and are mathematically > real. The problem here is mathematically they can't really be defined > like elevation curves can. I'll ask you like I keep asking Odd. Just how > many field lines are there around an electron sitting in space? Give me > that number! > You say equipotential surfaces around a charged ping pong ball are real. How many are there? Count them. Charged ping pong ball has 2.1nC on it. Go for it. What’s the number of equipotentials within a meter radius? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-02 20:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pk0994$gt8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696794 |
On 8/2/2018 8:16 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8/2/2018 11:00 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>>>> If you have read as many texts as you >>>>>> pretend you'd have read it too. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why don't you start with something simple and down at your amateur >>>>>> level, OK? Like say Google or wikipedia? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "A field line is a locus that is defined by a vector field and a >>>>>> starting location within the field. Field lines are useful for >>>>>> visualizing vector fields, which are otherwise hard to depict. Unlike >>>>>> longitude and latitude lines on a globe, or topographic lines on a >>>>>> topographic map, they are not physically present at any locations; they >>>>>> are merely conceptual tools." >>>>> >>>>> That's right! How does that make them nonsense?? >>>>> Here are your statements: >>>>> They do not make sense and have never made sense. >>>>> Mathematically "field lines" are utter nonsense. >>>>> There is no consistent way you can define these fantasy "lines" from a >>>>> field. >>>>> >>>>> How does it follow from them not being physically there that they are utter >>>>> nonsense?? >>>>> Is a conceptual tool that is widely used utter nonsense? >>> >>>> I said "mathematical nonsense" you science retard. If you are going to >>>> make up what I say, then just post for both of us. They make clear the >>>> "lines" cannot be counted and have no true numerical meaning. That they >>>> make pretty pictures has nothing to do with math. That is your kind of >>>> understanding, isn't it? To you pretty pictures are science! >>> >>> Calling them "nonsense" because they don't physically exist is like >>> calling iso elevation curves on a topo map "nonsense" because if you go >>> out in the field, no hills have iso elevation curves or slope gradients on >>> them! It is an instructive tool, and is pretty much what John S. has been >>> asking for since he is (too!) visually oriented. >>> >> Odd is just ignorant, but you sort of just don't get it. It's not about >> stripes on a hill! Didn't you read the wiki piece? There are no >> longitude stripes on the ground yet they exist and are mathematically >> real. The problem here is mathematically they can't really be defined >> like elevation curves can. I'll ask you like I keep asking Odd. Just how >> many field lines are there around an electron sitting in space? Give me >> that number! >> > > You say equipotential surfaces around a charged ping pong ball are real. > How many are there? Count them. Charged ping pong ball has 2.1nC on it. Go > for it. What’s the number of equipotentials within a meter radius? > There is just one equipotential surface at 1 meter radius. but now many "field lines" are flowing outward from the ball? And what exactly do field lines represent physically? The field? Certainly not. A flow of something? What is flowing in an electric field? It's a concept going nowhere. once again Faraday just got off the track.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-03 13:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pk1k6v$k50$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696802 |
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 11:00 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>>>> If you have read as many texts as you >>>>>>> pretend you'd have read it too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why don't you start with something simple and down at your amateur >>>>>>> level, OK? Like say Google or wikipedia? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "A field line is a locus that is defined by a vector field and a >>>>>>> starting location within the field. Field lines are useful for >>>>>>> visualizing vector fields, which are otherwise hard to depict. Unlike >>>>>>> longitude and latitude lines on a globe, or topographic lines on a >>>>>>> topographic map, they are not physically present at any locations; they >>>>>>> are merely conceptual tools." >>>>>> >>>>>> That's right! How does that make them nonsense?? >>>>>> Here are your statements: >>>>>> They do not make sense and have never made sense. >>>>>> Mathematically "field lines" are utter nonsense. >>>>>> There is no consistent way you can define these fantasy "lines" from a >>>>>> field. >>>>>> >>>>>> How does it follow from them not being physically there that they are utter >>>>>> nonsense?? >>>>>> Is a conceptual tool that is widely used utter nonsense? >>>> >>>>> I said "mathematical nonsense" you science retard. If you are going to >>>>> make up what I say, then just post for both of us. They make clear the >>>>> "lines" cannot be counted and have no true numerical meaning. That they >>>>> make pretty pictures has nothing to do with math. That is your kind of >>>>> understanding, isn't it? To you pretty pictures are science! >>>> >>>> Calling them "nonsense" because they don't physically exist is like >>>> calling iso elevation curves on a topo map "nonsense" because if you go >>>> out in the field, no hills have iso elevation curves or slope gradients on >>>> them! It is an instructive tool, and is pretty much what John S. has been >>>> asking for since he is (too!) visually oriented. >>>> >>> Odd is just ignorant, but you sort of just don't get it. It's not about >>> stripes on a hill! Didn't you read the wiki piece? There are no >>> longitude stripes on the ground yet they exist and are mathematically >>> real. The problem here is mathematically they can't really be defined >>> like elevation curves can. I'll ask you like I keep asking Odd. Just how >>> many field lines are there around an electron sitting in space? Give me >>> that number! >>> >> >> You say equipotential surfaces around a charged ping pong ball are real. >> How many are there? Count them. Charged ping pong ball has 2.1nC on it. Go >> for it. What’s the number of equipotentials within a meter radius? >> > There is just one equipotential surface at 1 meter radius. Not what I asked. How many equipotential surfaces WITHIN 1 meter radius. Don’t dodge. You know you are trying to just stir the pot for fun. > but now many > "field lines" are flowing outward from the ball? And what exactly do > field lines represent physically? The field? Certainly not. Yes, the field. It is a visual representation of the field. Look at your own Wikipedia citation. > A flow of > something? What is flowing in an electric field? It's a concept going > nowhere. once again Faraday just got off the track. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-03 13:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pk23kd$1gpf$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696861 |
On 8/3/2018 9:09 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > 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 11:00 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>>>> If you have read as many texts as you >>>>>>>> pretend you'd have read it too. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why don't you start with something simple and down at your amateur >>>>>>>> level, OK? Like say Google or wikipedia? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "A field line is a locus that is defined by a vector field and a >>>>>>>> starting location within the field. Field lines are useful for >>>>>>>> visualizing vector fields, which are otherwise hard to depict. Unlike >>>>>>>> longitude and latitude lines on a globe, or topographic lines on a >>>>>>>> topographic map, they are not physically present at any locations; they >>>>>>>> are merely conceptual tools." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's right! How does that make them nonsense?? >>>>>>> Here are your statements: >>>>>>> They do not make sense and have never made sense. >>>>>>> Mathematically "field lines" are utter nonsense. >>>>>>> There is no consistent way you can define these fantasy "lines" from a >>>>>>> field. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How does it follow from them not being physically there that they are utter >>>>>>> nonsense?? >>>>>>> Is a conceptual tool that is widely used utter nonsense? >>>>> >>>>>> I said "mathematical nonsense" you science retard. If you are going to >>>>>> make up what I say, then just post for both of us. They make clear the >>>>>> "lines" cannot be counted and have no true numerical meaning. That they >>>>>> make pretty pictures has nothing to do with math. That is your kind of >>>>>> understanding, isn't it? To you pretty pictures are science! >>>>> >>>>> Calling them "nonsense" because they don't physically exist is like >>>>> calling iso elevation curves on a topo map "nonsense" because if you go >>>>> out in the field, no hills have iso elevation curves or slope gradients on >>>>> them! It is an instructive tool, and is pretty much what John S. has been >>>>> asking for since he is (too!) visually oriented. >>>>> >>>> Odd is just ignorant, but you sort of just don't get it. It's not about >>>> stripes on a hill! Didn't you read the wiki piece? There are no >>>> longitude stripes on the ground yet they exist and are mathematically >>>> real. The problem here is mathematically they can't really be defined >>>> like elevation curves can. I'll ask you like I keep asking Odd. Just how >>>> many field lines are there around an electron sitting in space? Give me >>>> that number! >>>> >>> >>> You say equipotential surfaces around a charged ping pong ball are real. >>> How many are there? Count them. Charged ping pong ball has 2.1nC on it. Go >>> for it. What’s the number of equipotentials within a meter radius? >>> >> There is just one equipotential surface at 1 meter radius. > > Not what I asked. How many equipotential surfaces WITHIN 1 meter radius. > Don’t dodge. You know you are trying to just stir the pot for fun. > >> but now many >> "field lines" are flowing outward from the ball? And what exactly do >> field lines represent physically? The field? Certainly not. > > Yes, the field. It is a visual representation of the field. Look at your > own Wikipedia citation. Yes, Visual but not mathematical. My head is starting to hurt from pouonding it against your hard head. John is right. >> A flow of >> something? What is flowing in an electric field? It's a concept going >> nowhere. once again Faraday just got off the track. >> > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-03 18:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pk2617$1kmd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696881 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/3/2018 9:09 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> 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 11:00 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you have read as many texts as you >>>>>>>>> pretend you'd have read it too. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why don't you start with something simple and down at your amateur >>>>>>>>> level, OK? Like say Google or wikipedia? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "A field line is a locus that is defined by a vector field and a >>>>>>>>> starting location within the field. Field lines are useful for >>>>>>>>> visualizing vector fields, which are otherwise hard to depict. Unlike >>>>>>>>> longitude and latitude lines on a globe, or topographic lines on a >>>>>>>>> topographic map, they are not physically present at any locations; they >>>>>>>>> are merely conceptual tools." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's right! How does that make them nonsense?? >>>>>>>> Here are your statements: >>>>>>>> They do not make sense and have never made sense. >>>>>>>> Mathematically "field lines" are utter nonsense. >>>>>>>> There is no consistent way you can define these fantasy "lines" from a >>>>>>>> field. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How does it follow from them not being physically there that they are utter >>>>>>>> nonsense?? >>>>>>>> Is a conceptual tool that is widely used utter nonsense? >>>>>> >>>>>>> I said "mathematical nonsense" you science retard. If you are going to >>>>>>> make up what I say, then just post for both of us. They make clear the >>>>>>> "lines" cannot be counted and have no true numerical meaning. That they >>>>>>> make pretty pictures has nothing to do with math. That is your kind of >>>>>>> understanding, isn't it? To you pretty pictures are science! >>>>>> >>>>>> Calling them "nonsense" because they don't physically exist is like >>>>>> calling iso elevation curves on a topo map "nonsense" because if you go >>>>>> out in the field, no hills have iso elevation curves or slope gradients on >>>>>> them! It is an instructive tool, and is pretty much what John S. has been >>>>>> asking for since he is (too!) visually oriented. >>>>>> >>>>> Odd is just ignorant, but you sort of just don't get it. It's not about >>>>> stripes on a hill! Didn't you read the wiki piece? There are no >>>>> longitude stripes on the ground yet they exist and are mathematically >>>>> real. The problem here is mathematically they can't really be defined >>>>> like elevation curves can. I'll ask you like I keep asking Odd. Just how >>>>> many field lines are there around an electron sitting in space? Give me >>>>> that number! >>>>> >>>> >>>> You say equipotential surfaces around a charged ping pong ball are real. >>>> How many are there? Count them. Charged ping pong ball has 2.1nC on it. Go >>>> for it. What’s the number of equipotentials within a meter radius? >>>> >>> There is just one equipotential surface at 1 meter radius. >> >> Not what I asked. How many equipotential surfaces WITHIN 1 meter radius. >> Don’t dodge. You know you are trying to just stir the pot for fun. >> >>> but now many >>> "field lines" are flowing outward from the ball? And what exactly do >>> field lines represent physically? The field? Certainly not. >> >> Yes, the field. It is a visual representation of the field. Look at your >> own Wikipedia citation. > > Yes, Visual but not mathematical. My head is starting to hurt from > pouonding it against your hard head. John is right. And the difference is only whether the scale is shown or not shown. As is befitting the purpose of the diagram in its context. Here is a topographical map with the scales removed. https://medialoot.com/item/vector-topographic-map-contours/ > >>> A flow of >>> something? What is flowing in an electric field? It's a concept going >>> nowhere. once again Faraday just got off the track. >>> >> >> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-03 15:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pk294j$1pel$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696900 |
On 8/3/2018 2:13 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8/3/2018 9:09 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> 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 11:00 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you have read as many texts as you >>>>>>>>>> pretend you'd have read it too. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why don't you start with something simple and down at your amateur >>>>>>>>>> level, OK? Like say Google or wikipedia? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "A field line is a locus that is defined by a vector field and a >>>>>>>>>> starting location within the field. Field lines are useful for >>>>>>>>>> visualizing vector fields, which are otherwise hard to depict. Unlike >>>>>>>>>> longitude and latitude lines on a globe, or topographic lines on a >>>>>>>>>> topographic map, they are not physically present at any locations; they >>>>>>>>>> are merely conceptual tools." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's right! How does that make them nonsense?? >>>>>>>>> Here are your statements: >>>>>>>>> They do not make sense and have never made sense. >>>>>>>>> Mathematically "field lines" are utter nonsense. >>>>>>>>> There is no consistent way you can define these fantasy "lines" from a >>>>>>>>> field. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How does it follow from them not being physically there that they are utter >>>>>>>>> nonsense?? >>>>>>>>> Is a conceptual tool that is widely used utter nonsense? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I said "mathematical nonsense" you science retard. If you are going to >>>>>>>> make up what I say, then just post for both of us. They make clear the >>>>>>>> "lines" cannot be counted and have no true numerical meaning. That they >>>>>>>> make pretty pictures has nothing to do with math. That is your kind of >>>>>>>> understanding, isn't it? To you pretty pictures are science! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Calling them "nonsense" because they don't physically exist is like >>>>>>> calling iso elevation curves on a topo map "nonsense" because if you go >>>>>>> out in the field, no hills have iso elevation curves or slope gradients on >>>>>>> them! It is an instructive tool, and is pretty much what John S. has been >>>>>>> asking for since he is (too!) visually oriented. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Odd is just ignorant, but you sort of just don't get it. It's not about >>>>>> stripes on a hill! Didn't you read the wiki piece? There are no >>>>>> longitude stripes on the ground yet they exist and are mathematically >>>>>> real. The problem here is mathematically they can't really be defined >>>>>> like elevation curves can. I'll ask you like I keep asking Odd. Just how >>>>>> many field lines are there around an electron sitting in space? Give me >>>>>> that number! >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You say equipotential surfaces around a charged ping pong ball are real. >>>>> How many are there? Count them. Charged ping pong ball has 2.1nC on it. Go >>>>> for it. What’s the number of equipotentials within a meter radius? >>>>> >>>> There is just one equipotential surface at 1 meter radius. >>> >>> Not what I asked. How many equipotential surfaces WITHIN 1 meter radius. >>> Don’t dodge. You know you are trying to just stir the pot for fun. >>> >>>> but now many >>>> "field lines" are flowing outward from the ball? And what exactly do >>>> field lines represent physically? The field? Certainly not. >>> >>> Yes, the field. It is a visual representation of the field. Look at your >>> own Wikipedia citation. >> >> Yes, Visual but not mathematical. My head is starting to hurt from >> pouonding it against your hard head. John is right. > > And the difference is only whether the scale is shown or not shown. > As is befitting the purpose of the diagram in its context. "field lines" HAVE NO SCALES! Read some science, Boinker. > Here is a topographical map with the scales removed. > https://medialoot.com/item/vector-topographic-map-contours/ Topolgical maps HAVE scales (even though in this case they are removed. God, you are dense! John has your ignornace pegged just right. Read a book. > >> >>>> A flow of >>>> something? What is flowing in an electric field? It's a concept going >>>> nowhere. once again Faraday just got off the track. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-03 20:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pk2emf$3dm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696909 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/3/2018 2:13 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 8/3/2018 9:09 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> 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 11:00 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you have read as many texts as you >>>>>>>>>>> pretend you'd have read it too. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why don't you start with something simple and down at your amateur >>>>>>>>>>> level, OK? Like say Google or wikipedia? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "A field line is a locus that is defined by a vector field and a >>>>>>>>>>> starting location within the field. Field lines are useful for >>>>>>>>>>> visualizing vector fields, which are otherwise hard to depict. Unlike >>>>>>>>>>> longitude and latitude lines on a globe, or topographic lines on a >>>>>>>>>>> topographic map, they are not physically present at any locations; they >>>>>>>>>>> are merely conceptual tools." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's right! How does that make them nonsense?? >>>>>>>>>> Here are your statements: >>>>>>>>>> They do not make sense and have never made sense. >>>>>>>>>> Mathematically "field lines" are utter nonsense. >>>>>>>>>> There is no consistent way you can define these fantasy "lines" from a >>>>>>>>>> field. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> How does it follow from them not being physically there that they are utter >>>>>>>>>> nonsense?? >>>>>>>>>> Is a conceptual tool that is widely used utter nonsense? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I said "mathematical nonsense" you science retard. If you are going to >>>>>>>>> make up what I say, then just post for both of us. They make clear the >>>>>>>>> "lines" cannot be counted and have no true numerical meaning. That they >>>>>>>>> make pretty pictures has nothing to do with math. That is your kind of >>>>>>>>> understanding, isn't it? To you pretty pictures are science! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Calling them "nonsense" because they don't physically exist is like >>>>>>>> calling iso elevation curves on a topo map "nonsense" because if you go >>>>>>>> out in the field, no hills have iso elevation curves or slope gradients on >>>>>>>> them! It is an instructive tool, and is pretty much what John S. has been >>>>>>>> asking for since he is (too!) visually oriented. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Odd is just ignorant, but you sort of just don't get it. It's not about >>>>>>> stripes on a hill! Didn't you read the wiki piece? There are no >>>>>>> longitude stripes on the ground yet they exist and are mathematically >>>>>>> real. The problem here is mathematically they can't really be defined >>>>>>> like elevation curves can. I'll ask you like I keep asking Odd. Just how >>>>>>> many field lines are there around an electron sitting in space? Give me >>>>>>> that number! >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You say equipotential surfaces around a charged ping pong ball are real. >>>>>> How many are there? Count them. Charged ping pong ball has 2.1nC on it. Go >>>>>> for it. What’s the number of equipotentials within a meter radius? >>>>>> >>>>> There is just one equipotential surface at 1 meter radius. >>>> >>>> Not what I asked. How many equipotential surfaces WITHIN 1 meter radius. >>>> Don’t dodge. You know you are trying to just stir the pot for fun. >>>> >>>>> but now many >>>>> "field lines" are flowing outward from the ball? And what exactly do >>>>> field lines represent physically? The field? Certainly not. >>>> >>>> Yes, the field. It is a visual representation of the field. Look at your >>>> own Wikipedia citation. >>> >>> Yes, Visual but not mathematical. My head is starting to hurt from >>> pouonding it against your hard head. John is right. >> >> And the difference is only whether the scale is shown or not shown. >> As is befitting the purpose of the diagram in its context. > > "field lines" HAVE NO SCALES! Read some science, Boinker. Yes they do. Most freshman physics books do not display them. > >> Here is a topographical map with the scales removed. >> https://medialoot.com/item/vector-topographic-map-contours/ > > Topolgical maps HAVE scales (even though in this case they are removed. > God, you are dense! John has your ignornace pegged just right. > Read a book. This is a matter of display CHOICE. There are also gradient lines that can be displayed on a topo map. They cut perpendicular to iso-elevation lines, of course, and they are drawn with the same convention: the larger the gradient, the more densely packed the gradient lines are drawn. By CONVENTION, the labels are usually put on the iso-elevation curves and not on the gradients, but OF COURSE there is mathematical meaning to the density of the gradient lines, because you can CALCULATE gradients and therefore with a simple scale [gradient line density : gradient magnitude] you can READ OFF the gradients. > >> >>> >>>>> A flow of >>>>> something? What is flowing in an electric field? It's a concept going >>>>> nowhere. once again Faraday just got off the track. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-03 13:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pk1mg2$ob3$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696766 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/2/2018 11:00 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> writes: >> >>>>> If you have read as many texts as you >>>>> pretend you'd have read it too. >>>>> >>>>> Why don't you start with something simple and down at your amateur >>>>> level, OK? Like say Google or wikipedia? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "A field line is a locus that is defined by a vector field and a >>>>> starting location within the field. Field lines are useful for >>>>> visualizing vector fields, which are otherwise hard to depict. Unlike >>>>> longitude and latitude lines on a globe, or topographic lines on a >>>>> topographic map, they are not physically present at any locations; they >>>>> are merely conceptual tools." >>>> >>>> That's right! How does that make them nonsense?? >>>> Here are your statements: >>>> They do not make sense and have never made sense. >>>> Mathematically "field lines" are utter nonsense. >>>> There is no consistent way you can define these fantasy "lines" from a >>>> field. >>>> >>>> How does it follow from them not being physically there that they are utter >>>> nonsense?? >>>> Is a conceptual tool that is widely used utter nonsense? >> >>> I said "mathematical nonsense" you science retard. If you are going to >>> make up what I say, then just post for both of us. They make clear the >>> "lines" cannot be counted and have no true numerical meaning. That they >>> make pretty pictures has nothing to do with math. That is your kind of >>> understanding, isn't it? To you pretty pictures are science! >> >> Calling them "nonsense" because they don't physically exist is like >> calling iso elevation curves on a topo map "nonsense" because if you go >> out in the field, no hills have iso elevation curves or slope gradients on >> them! It is an instructive tool, and is pretty much what John S. has been >> asking for since he is (too!) visually oriented. >> > Odd is just ignorant, but you sort of just don't get it. It's not about > stripes on a hill! Didn't you read the wiki piece? There are no > longitude stripes on the ground yet they exist and are mathematically > real. Ben, you’re so busy dancing you can’t talk straight. You cite a Wikipedia article that does NOT say that field lines are mathematical nonsense, but does say they are not physically present, from which you conclude they must be mathematical nonsense. Then you say that longitudinal lines, which are ALSO not physically present on the ground, but now they are mathematically real. You say field lines are mathematical nonsense because you can’t count them, but you say that equipotentials are real, but when I ask you to count them you dodge. And you say *I* am the one that’s been cornered when you’ve painted yourself into a corner. Hmmmm. >The problem here is mathematically they can't really be defined > like elevation curves can. I'll ask you like I keep asking Odd. Just how > many field lines are there around an electron sitting in space? Give me > that number! > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web