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 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-03 08:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fa9d060d-0cda-4c8b-a53a-59f04d38c3fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #696871 |
Odd “What makes you say that, John” Odd, electrons follow repeating pathways at significant fractions of the speed of light. In gold they go so fast, it is the relativistic effects that cause golds color. Piss off, Odd.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-03 17:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pk23fs$1gn5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696872 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “What makes you say that, John” > Odd, electrons follow repeating pathways No they don’t. > at significant fractions of the speed of light. Yes that’s true. > In gold they go so fast, it is the relativistic effects that cause golds color. > Piss off, Odd. > You may know from Maxwell’s equations that a changing electric field produces a magnetic field. So I’ve got a charged ping pong ball sitting on top of a straw. Where’s the magnetic field due to the changing electric field? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-03 14:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pk25ia$1jq7$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696869 |
On 8/3/2018 10:27 AM, john wrote: > Odd > “Electric fields are Not moving for stationary charges. > ” > No charges anywhere are stationary, Odd. > Yeah, quote the uncertainty principle to him. Hey Odd. If you'd read a few physics textbooks you'd know these things!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-03 13:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pk2515$1j1l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696865 |
On 8/3/2018 9:48 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 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.
Yes they are you dumbass. Electric fields travel away from the charge at
speed c so for a non-moving charge that field (and hence your imaginary
field lines) are ALWAYS moving away from the charge somewhere between
the charge and infinity.
Odd, I suggest that to get out of your science ignorance you try reading
a few actual physics textbooks and put those philosophy books aside for
a while.
>> 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.
Ever see me root for BAnjo? You lie.
I am here to school you all. Remember I am highly educated and trained
in advanced science and have held employment in some of the most
prestigious science institutions. I am here to school you Boinker, but
it's like taking a hammer to concrete trying to break into your closed
mind. It's all about science truth. Sometimes the underdogs have found
things that your famed establishment science has tried to sweep under
the scientific rug. I'm here to try to roll that carpet back and look at
the dirt. You are here to make sure it never gets rolled back. It's
really as simple as 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-03 18:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pk2619$1kmd$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696892 |
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 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.
>
> Yes they are you dumbass. Electric fields travel away from the charge at
> speed c
Bullshit. Where’s your reference?
CHANGES in the electric field, either due to a change in the amount of
charge or the motion of the charge, propagate at c.
But an electric field is everywhere ALWAYS by definition, so for a static
situation, nothing is moving.
Good grief, man, you are so screwed up it’s pitiable.
> so for a non-moving charge that field (and hence your imaginary
> field lines) are ALWAYS moving away from the charge somewhere between
> the charge and infinity.
>
> Odd, I suggest that to get out of your science ignorance you try reading
> a few actual physics textbooks and put those philosophy books aside for
> a while.
Exactly! Let’s take JD Jackson’s book on Classical Electrodynamics
Tell me where it says that the electric field moves at c away from a static
charge distribution. Go ahead, find it.
>
>>> 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.
>
> Ever see me root for BAnjo? You lie.
>
> I am here to school you all. Remember I am highly educated and trained
> in advanced science and have held employment in some of the most
> prestigious science institutions. I am here to school you Boinker, but
> it's like taking a hammer to concrete trying to break into your closed
> mind. It's all about science truth. Sometimes the underdogs have found
> things that your famed establishment science has tried to sweep under
> the scientific rug. I'm here to try to roll that carpet back and look at
> the dirt. You are here to make sure it never gets rolled back. It's
> really as simple as 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 | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-03 15:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pk29lv$1qpt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696903 |
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 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.
>>
>> Yes they are you dumbass. Electric fields travel away from the charge at
>> speed c
>
> Bullshit. Where’s your reference?
Your total ignorance of science is showing Boinker.
Read ANY physics textbook rather than just pretending to have read them.
If electric field did not travel out at c then Einstein would be wrong.
OR do you deny Einstein like all the K0Os here?
> CHANGES in the electric field, either due to a change in the amount of
> charge or the motion of the charge, propagate at c.
>
> But an electric field is everywhere ALWAYS by definition, so for a static
> situation, nothing is moving.
Learn some math. Unless the electron has ALWAYS existed this CANNOT be
true. Don't you believe in the Big Bang? What a Kook! Read some science
textbooks, Odd. The theory that the universe is eternal is not accepted.
And an elctronc is never stationary due to the uncertainty principle.
> Good grief, man, you are so screwed up it’s pitiable.
The dumb you are shown to be the more you scream that everyone else is
ignorant. READ SOME SCIENCE BOOKS, MAN! You are ignorant beyond
credibility.
>> so for a non-moving charge that field (and hence your imaginary
>> field lines) are ALWAYS moving away from the charge somewhere between
>> the charge and infinity.
>>
>> Odd, I suggest that to get out of your science ignorance you try reading
>> a few actual physics textbooks and put those philosophy books aside for
>> a while.
>
> Exactly! Let’s take JD Jackson’s book on Classical Electrodynamics
>
> Tell me where it says that the electric field moves at c away from a static
> charge distribution. Go ahead, find it.
Gosh look in the phone book. It's nice and fat, but it doesn't mention
fields traveling at c either! I guess that proves your pseudo science
theories are correct. Get ready for that NOBEL with Bert!
Try reading a book that discusses the problem. Are you a relativity
denier too?
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Ever see me root for BAnjo? You lie.
>>
>> I am here to school you all. Remember I am highly educated and trained
>> in advanced science and have held employment in some of the most
>> prestigious science institutions. I am here to school you Boinker, but
>> it's like taking a hammer to concrete trying to break into your closed
>> mind. It's all about science truth. Sometimes the underdogs have found
>> things that your famed establishment science has tried to sweep under
>> the scientific rug. I'm here to try to roll that carpet back and look at
>> the dirt. You are here to make sure it never gets rolled back. It's
>> really as simple as 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.
>>
>
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-03 20:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pk2emh$3dm$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696914 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 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.
>>>
>>> Yes they are you dumbass. Electric fields travel away from the charge at
>>> speed c
>>
>> Bullshit. Where’s your reference?
>
> Your total ignorance of science is showing Boinker.
> Read ANY physics textbook rather than just pretending to have read them.
> If electric field did not travel out at c then Einstein would be wrong.
Bullshit.
> OR do you deny Einstein like all the K0Os here?
>
>
>> CHANGES in the electric field, either due to a change in the amount of
>> charge or the motion of the charge, propagate at c.
>>
>> But an electric field is everywhere ALWAYS by definition, so for a static
>> situation, nothing is moving.
>
> Learn some math. Unless the electron has ALWAYS existed this CANNOT be
> true. Don't you believe in the Big Bang? What a Kook! Read some science
> textbooks, Odd. The theory that the universe is eternal is not accepted.
> And an elctronc is never stationary due to the uncertainty principle.
>
>> Good grief, man, you are so screwed up it’s pitiable.
>
> The dumb you are shown to be the more you scream that everyone else is
> ignorant. READ SOME SCIENCE BOOKS, MAN! You are ignorant beyond
> credibility.
>
>>> so for a non-moving charge that field (and hence your imaginary
>>> field lines) are ALWAYS moving away from the charge somewhere between
>>> the charge and infinity.
>>>
>>> Odd, I suggest that to get out of your science ignorance you try reading
>>> a few actual physics textbooks and put those philosophy books aside for
>>> a while.
>>
>> Exactly! Let’s take JD Jackson’s book on Classical Electrodynamics
>>
>> Tell me where it says that the electric field moves at c away from a static
>> charge distribution. Go ahead, find it.
You said EVERY textbook says that electric fields travel at c. So I picked
one. So find it.
Go ahead.
>
> Gosh look in the phone book. It's nice and fat, but it doesn't mention
> fields traveling at c either! I guess that proves your pseudo science
> theories are correct. Get ready for that NOBEL with Bert!
>
> Try reading a book that discusses the problem. Are you a relativity
> denier too?
Plenty of relativity in Jackson.
Where is it in there??
>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Ever see me root for BAnjo? You lie.
>>>
>>> I am here to school you all. Remember I am highly educated and trained
>>> in advanced science and have held employment in some of the most
>>> prestigious science institutions. I am here to school you Boinker, but
>>> it's like taking a hammer to concrete trying to break into your closed
>>> mind. It's all about science truth. Sometimes the underdogs have found
>>> things that your famed establishment science has tried to sweep under
>>> the scientific rug. I'm here to try to roll that carpet back and look at
>>> the dirt. You are here to make sure it never gets rolled back. It's
>>> really as simple as 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 | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-04 02:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pk3idm$1ijd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696926 |
On 8/3/2018 4:41 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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 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.
>>>>
>>>> Yes they are you dumbass. Electric fields travel away from the charge at
>>>> speed c
>>>
>>> Bullshit. Where’s your reference?
>>
>> Your total ignorance of science is showing Boinker.
>> Read ANY physics textbook rather than just pretending to have read them.
>> If electric field did not travel out at c then Einstein would be wrong.
>
> Bullshit.
>
>> OR do you deny Einstein like all the K0Os here?
>>
>>
>>> CHANGES in the electric field, either due to a change in the amount of
>>> charge or the motion of the charge, propagate at c.
>>>
>>> But an electric field is everywhere ALWAYS by definition, so for a static
>>> situation, nothing is moving.
>>
>> Learn some math. Unless the electron has ALWAYS existed this CANNOT be
>> true. Don't you believe in the Big Bang? What a Kook! Read some science
>> textbooks, Odd. The theory that the universe is eternal is not accepted.
>> And an elctronc is never stationary due to the uncertainty principle.
>>
>>> Good grief, man, you are so screwed up it’s pitiable.
>>
>> The dumb you are shown to be the more you scream that everyone else is
>> ignorant. READ SOME SCIENCE BOOKS, MAN! You are ignorant beyond
>> credibility.
>>
>>>> so for a non-moving charge that field (and hence your imaginary
>>>> field lines) are ALWAYS moving away from the charge somewhere between
>>>> the charge and infinity.
>>>>
>>>> Odd, I suggest that to get out of your science ignorance you try reading
>>>> a few actual physics textbooks and put those philosophy books aside for
>>>> a while.
>>>
>>> Exactly! Let’s take JD Jackson’s book on Classical Electrodynamics
>>>
>>> Tell me where it says that the electric field moves at c away from a static
>>> charge distribution. Go ahead, find it.
>
> You said EVERY textbook says that electric fields travel at c. So I picked
> one. So find it.
>
> Go ahead.
>
>>
>> Gosh look in the phone book. It's nice and fat, but it doesn't mention
>> fields traveling at c either! I guess that proves your pseudo science
>> theories are correct. Get ready for that NOBEL with Bert!
>>
>> Try reading a book that discusses the problem. Are you a relativity
>> denier too?
>
> Plenty of relativity in Jackson.
>
> Where is it in there??
I know you are a Einstein dingleberry and believe in SR. So if there
were your "action at a distance" then SR would be wrong. You can't
possibly believe that. Hence all fields MUST travel at c or otherwise
FTL communications could take place. This is totally obvious.
Your understanding here is so minimal! All you know is relgious belief.
No lets do some science. Take your charge either your famous "point
charge" of no volume or a charged ping pong ball (they are equivalent)
It is not moving. So what COULD the field look like? Well how long has
it been there? Clearly that MUST be some finite amount of time. (You
believe in the BB, right?) so either the field lines when clear to
infinity instantaneously when the charge was put there/created OR those
fields are traveling outward at no greater than c (as argued above). The
first cannot occur as it violated SR.
Hence your call that this is bullshit is clearly Bullshit.
>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Ever see me root for BAnjo? You lie.
>>>>
>>>> I am here to school you all. Remember I am highly educated and trained
>>>> in advanced science and have held employment in some of the most
>>>> prestigious science institutions. I am here to school you Boinker, but
>>>> it's like taking a hammer to concrete trying to break into your closed
>>>> mind. It's all about science truth. Sometimes the underdogs have found
>>>> things that your famed establishment science has tried to sweep under
>>>> the scientific rug. I'm here to try to roll that carpet back and look at
>>>> the dirt. You are here to make sure it never gets rolled back. It's
>>>> really as simple as 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-04 14:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pk4cr3$tlu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696984 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/3/2018 4:41 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes they are you dumbass. Electric fields travel away from the charge at
>>>>> speed c
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit. Where’s your reference?
>>>
>>> Your total ignorance of science is showing Boinker.
>>> Read ANY physics textbook rather than just pretending to have read them.
>>> If electric field did not travel out at c then Einstein would be wrong.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>>> OR do you deny Einstein like all the K0Os here?
>>>
>>>
>>>> CHANGES in the electric field, either due to a change in the amount of
>>>> charge or the motion of the charge, propagate at c.
>>>>
>>>> But an electric field is everywhere ALWAYS by definition, so for a static
>>>> situation, nothing is moving.
>>>
>>> Learn some math. Unless the electron has ALWAYS existed this CANNOT be
>>> true. Don't you believe in the Big Bang? What a Kook! Read some science
>>> textbooks, Odd. The theory that the universe is eternal is not accepted.
>>> And an elctronc is never stationary due to the uncertainty principle.
>>>
>>>> Good grief, man, you are so screwed up it’s pitiable.
>>>
>>> The dumb you are shown to be the more you scream that everyone else is
>>> ignorant. READ SOME SCIENCE BOOKS, MAN! You are ignorant beyond
>>> credibility.
>>>
>>>>> so for a non-moving charge that field (and hence your imaginary
>>>>> field lines) are ALWAYS moving away from the charge somewhere between
>>>>> the charge and infinity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Odd, I suggest that to get out of your science ignorance you try reading
>>>>> a few actual physics textbooks and put those philosophy books aside for
>>>>> a while.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly! Let’s take JD Jackson’s book on Classical Electrodynamics
>>>>
>>>> Tell me where it says that the electric field moves at c away from a static
>>>> charge distribution. Go ahead, find it.
>>
>> You said EVERY textbook says that electric fields travel at c. So I picked
>> one. So find it.
>>
>> Go ahead.
>>
>>>
>>> Gosh look in the phone book. It's nice and fat, but it doesn't mention
>>> fields traveling at c either! I guess that proves your pseudo science
>>> theories are correct. Get ready for that NOBEL with Bert!
>>>
>>> Try reading a book that discusses the problem. Are you a relativity
>>> denier too?
>>
>> Plenty of relativity in Jackson.
>>
>> Where is it in there??
>
> I know you are a Einstein dingleberry and believe in SR. So if there
> were your "action at a distance" then SR would be wrong. You can't
> possibly believe that. Hence all fields MUST travel at c or otherwise
> FTL communications could take place. This is totally obvious.
CHANGES in the field travel at c.
You are dancing pretty hard for a guy in a wheelchair.
>
> Your understanding here is so minimal! All you know is relgious belief.
> No lets do some science. Take your charge either your famous "point
> charge" of no volume or a charged ping pong ball (they are equivalent)
> It is not moving. So what COULD the field look like? Well how long has
> it been there? Clearly that MUST be some finite amount of time. (You
> believe in the BB, right?) so either the field lines when clear to
> infinity instantaneously when the charge was put there/created OR those
> fields are traveling outward at no greater than c (as argued above). The
> first cannot occur as it violated SR.
>
> Hence your call that this is bullshit is clearly Bullshit.
>
>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ever see me root for BAnjo? You lie.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am here to school you all. Remember I am highly educated and trained
>>>>> in advanced science and have held employment in some of the most
>>>>> prestigious science institutions. I am here to school you Boinker, but
>>>>> it's like taking a hammer to concrete trying to break into your closed
>>>>> mind. It's all about science truth. Sometimes the underdogs have found
>>>>> things that your famed establishment science has tried to sweep under
>>>>> the scientific rug. I'm here to try to roll that carpet back and look at
>>>>> the dirt. You are here to make sure it never gets rolled back. It's
>>>>> really as simple as 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 | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-04 12:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pk4k8o$1adi$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697009 |
On 8/4/2018 10:22 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 8/3/2018 4:41 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 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 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes they are you dumbass. Electric fields travel away from the charge at
>>>>>> speed c
>>>>>
>>>>> Bullshit. Where’s your reference?
>>>>
>>>> Your total ignorance of science is showing Boinker.
>>>> Read ANY physics textbook rather than just pretending to have read them.
>>>> If electric field did not travel out at c then Einstein would be wrong.
>>>
>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>>> OR do you deny Einstein like all the K0Os here?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> CHANGES in the electric field, either due to a change in the amount of
>>>>> charge or the motion of the charge, propagate at c.
>>>>>
>>>>> But an electric field is everywhere ALWAYS by definition, so for a static
>>>>> situation, nothing is moving.
>>>>
>>>> Learn some math. Unless the electron has ALWAYS existed this CANNOT be
>>>> true. Don't you believe in the Big Bang? What a Kook! Read some science
>>>> textbooks, Odd. The theory that the universe is eternal is not accepted.
>>>> And an elctronc is never stationary due to the uncertainty principle.
>>>>
>>>>> Good grief, man, you are so screwed up it’s pitiable.
>>>>
>>>> The dumb you are shown to be the more you scream that everyone else is
>>>> ignorant. READ SOME SCIENCE BOOKS, MAN! You are ignorant beyond
>>>> credibility.
>>>>
>>>>>> so for a non-moving charge that field (and hence your imaginary
>>>>>> field lines) are ALWAYS moving away from the charge somewhere between
>>>>>> the charge and infinity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Odd, I suggest that to get out of your science ignorance you try reading
>>>>>> a few actual physics textbooks and put those philosophy books aside for
>>>>>> a while.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly! Let’s take JD Jackson’s book on Classical Electrodynamics
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell me where it says that the electric field moves at c away from a static
>>>>> charge distribution. Go ahead, find it.
>>>
>>> You said EVERY textbook says that electric fields travel at c. So I picked
>>> one. So find it.
>>>
>>> Go ahead.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gosh look in the phone book. It's nice and fat, but it doesn't mention
>>>> fields traveling at c either! I guess that proves your pseudo science
>>>> theories are correct. Get ready for that NOBEL with Bert!
>>>>
>>>> Try reading a book that discusses the problem. Are you a relativity
>>>> denier too?
>>>
>>> Plenty of relativity in Jackson.
>>>
>>> Where is it in there??
>>
>> I know you are a Einstein dingleberry and believe in SR. So if there
>> were your "action at a distance" then SR would be wrong. You can't
>> possibly believe that. Hence all fields MUST travel at c or otherwise
>> FTL communications could take place. This is totally obvious.
>
> CHANGES in the field travel at c.
Yes they do. Which includes the "change" when the field began.
> You are dancing pretty hard for a guy in a wheelchair.
I have the science education here. Not you. Read a science book or two.
>> Your understanding here is so minimal! All you know is relgious belief.
>> No lets do some science. Take your charge either your famous "point
>> charge" of no volume or a charged ping pong ball (they are equivalent)
>> It is not moving. So what COULD the field look like? Well how long has
>> it been there? Clearly that MUST be some finite amount of time. (You
>> believe in the BB, right?) so either the field lines when clear to
>> infinity instantaneously when the charge was put there/created OR those
>> fields are traveling outward at no greater than c (as argued above). The
>> first cannot occur as it violated SR.
>>
>> Hence your call that this is bullshit is clearly Bullshit.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ever see me root for BAnjo? You lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am here to school you all. Remember I am highly educated and trained
>>>>>> in advanced science and have held employment in some of the most
>>>>>> prestigious science institutions. I am here to school you Boinker, but
>>>>>> it's like taking a hammer to concrete trying to break into your closed
>>>>>> mind. It's all about science truth. Sometimes the underdogs have found
>>>>>> things that your famed establishment science has tried to sweep under
>>>>>> the scientific rug. I'm here to try to roll that carpet back and look at
>>>>>> the dirt. You are here to make sure it never gets rolled back. It's
>>>>>> really as simple as 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-04 13:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <34b26e24-dbe6-4619-a48e-d7be37fb830a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #697015 |
On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 9:29:17 AM UTC-7, benj wrote:
> On 8/4/2018 10:22 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 8/3/2018 4:41 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> 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 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.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes they are you dumbass. Electric fields travel away from the charge at
> >>>>>> speed c
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Bullshit. Where’s your reference?
> >>>>
> >>>> Your total ignorance of science is showing Boinker.
> >>>> Read ANY physics textbook rather than just pretending to have read them.
> >>>> If electric field did not travel out at c then Einstein would be wrong.
> >>>
> >>> Bullshit.
> >>>
> >>>> OR do you deny Einstein like all the K0Os here?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> CHANGES in the electric field, either due to a change in the amount of
> >>>>> charge or the motion of the charge, propagate at c.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But an electric field is everywhere ALWAYS by definition, so for a static
> >>>>> situation, nothing is moving.
> >>>>
> >>>> Learn some math. Unless the electron has ALWAYS existed this CANNOT be
> >>>> true. Don't you believe in the Big Bang? What a Kook! Read some science
> >>>> textbooks, Odd. The theory that the universe is eternal is not accepted.
> >>>> And an elctronc is never stationary due to the uncertainty principle.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Good grief, man, you are so screwed up it’s pitiable.
> >>>>
> >>>> The dumb you are shown to be the more you scream that everyone else is
> >>>> ignorant. READ SOME SCIENCE BOOKS, MAN! You are ignorant beyond
> >>>> credibility.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> so for a non-moving charge that field (and hence your imaginary
> >>>>>> field lines) are ALWAYS moving away from the charge somewhere between
> >>>>>> the charge and infinity.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Odd, I suggest that to get out of your science ignorance you try reading
> >>>>>> a few actual physics textbooks and put those philosophy books aside for
> >>>>>> a while.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Exactly! Let’s take JD Jackson’s book on Classical Electrodynamics
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Tell me where it says that the electric field moves at c away from a static
> >>>>> charge distribution. Go ahead, find it.
> >>>
> >>> You said EVERY textbook says that electric fields travel at c. So I picked
> >>> one. So find it.
> >>>
> >>> Go ahead.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Gosh look in the phone book. It's nice and fat, but it doesn't mention
> >>>> fields traveling at c either! I guess that proves your pseudo science
> >>>> theories are correct. Get ready for that NOBEL with Bert!
> >>>>
> >>>> Try reading a book that discusses the problem. Are you a relativity
> >>>> denier too?
> >>>
> >>> Plenty of relativity in Jackson.
> >>>
> >>> Where is it in there??
> >>
> >> I know you are a Einstein dingleberry and believe in SR. So if there
> >> were your "action at a distance" then SR would be wrong. You can't
> >> possibly believe that. Hence all fields MUST travel at c or otherwise
> >> FTL communications could take place. This is totally obvious.
> >
> > CHANGES in the field travel at c.
>
> Yes they do. Which includes the "change" when the field began.
>
> > You are dancing pretty hard for a guy in a wheelchair.
>
> I have the science education here. Not you. Read a science book or two.
>
> >> Your understanding here is so minimal! All you know is relgious belief.
> >> No lets do some science. Take your charge either your famous "point
> >> charge" of no volume or a charged ping pong ball (they are equivalent)
> >> It is not moving. So what COULD the field look like? Well how long has
> >> it been there? Clearly that MUST be some finite amount of time. (You
> >> believe in the BB, right?) so either the field lines when clear to
> >> infinity instantaneously when the charge was put there/created OR those
> >> fields are traveling outward at no greater than c (as argued above). The
> >> first cannot occur as it violated SR.
> >>
> >> Hence your call that this is bullshit is clearly Bullshit.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ever see me root for BAnjo? You lie.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I am here to school you all. Remember I am highly educated and trained
> >>>>>> in advanced science and have held employment in some of the most
> >>>>>> prestigious science institutions. I am here to school you Boinker, but
> >>>>>> it's like taking a hammer to concrete trying to break into your closed
> >>>>>> mind. It's all about science truth. Sometimes the underdogs have found
> >>>>>> things that your famed establishment science has tried to sweep under
> >>>>>> the scientific rug. I'm here to try to roll that carpet back and look at
> >>>>>> the dirt. You are here to make sure it never gets rolled back. It's
> >>>>>> really as simple as 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.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
Space is as flat as the flat Earth Roy Masters.
Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-07 10:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <40eefd5c-1d2d-4b94-ad6c-7dba02c654e4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #697009 |
On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 10:22:32 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: [] > > > > I know you are a Einstein dingleberry and believe in SR. So if there > > were your "action at a distance" then SR would be wrong. You can't > > possibly believe that. Hence all fields MUST travel at c or otherwise > > FTL communications could take place. This is totally obvious. > > CHANGES in the field travel at c. > > You are dancing pretty hard for a guy in a wheelchair. LOL!!!!!!!!!! Great one Odd! Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-02 22:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pk0jfl$tlq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696793 |
On 8/2/2018 7:16 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.
try this, => hookup a high voltage generator (20 t0 100kv at less than
1microamp) to a furry kitty on a rubber floor mat.
the fur will spread apart into "field lines" coming off the cat.
no problem, a long haired kat werks best. (glue kitty to mat first)
to discharge the cat, have a friend touch its nose, better to have the
HV genertor off while doing that.
>
> For the third time, nothing is moving along those lines. Those lines do not
> stream, do not flow, do not represent motion of anything.
true, just a mathamatical construct.
>
> 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.
yup.
>
>> 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.
try the cat, you will see the fur line up parallel with the field lines,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-02 22:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8933fbc5-3604-47e0-9c51-2e70a9fb1c4f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #696825 |
Sergio “...glue cat....” Careful, Sergio- they come arrest people for less these days
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-04 20:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pk5is8$rcd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696833 |
On 8/3/2018 12:25 AM, john wrote: > Sergio > “...glue cat....” > Careful, Sergio- they come arrest people for less these days > true, that was "thought crime" I intended to fix the engineering problem of keeping the cat still for only his safety. actually we could use a 'dead cat' for this demonstration of field lines too. No Glue needed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-05 01:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pk5jkl$ios$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #697048 |
Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> writes: >On 8/3/2018 12:25 AM, john wrote: >> Sergio >> “...glue cat....” >> Careful, Sergio- they come arrest people for less these days >> > true, that was "thought crime" >I intended to fix the engineering problem of keeping the cat still for >only his safety. >actually we could use a 'dead cat' for this demonstration of field lines >too. No Glue needed. My high school physics teacher used (live) volunteers with longish hair to demonstrate this. Girls had the best hair of course but they tended not to volunteer, but later one or two long haired girls became braver and volunteered. They stood on an insulating stool and held the business end of a small van de graaf generator the teacher had. At the end they would be discharged by holding the end of a wooden yardstick, the other end held by someone grounded. A friend of mine, however, discharged himself by touching the teacher's neck with his finger, which got quite a jump from him!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-02 23:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ff1c9efa-5c1f-42e4-b171-1184c1fc1626@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #696825 |
On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 8:51:21 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> On 8/2/2018 7:16 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.
>
> try this, => hookup a high voltage generator (20 t0 100kv at less than
> 1microamp) to a furry kitty on a rubber floor mat.
>
> the fur will spread apart into "field lines" coming off the cat.
>
> no problem, a long haired kat werks best. (glue kitty to mat first)
>
>
> to discharge the cat, have a friend touch its nose, better to have the
> HV genertor off while doing that.
>
> >
> > For the third time, nothing is moving along those lines. Those lines do not
> > stream, do not flow, do not represent motion of anything.
>
> true, just a mathamatical construct.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> yup.
>
> >
> >> 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.
>
> try the cat, you will see the fur line up parallel with the field lines,
Electron point energies are vibrating in their quantum sphere radial Sin curve
waves.
Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-02 23:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6fce1fdd-3f37-4750-bf1f-4b6e074cf0f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #696825 |
The sphere surfaces of the wave of particles is the place of their solid aether with infinite density. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-03 06:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pk1ajf$2h6$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696839 |
On 8/3/2018 2:36 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: > The sphere surfaces of the wave of particles is the place of their solid aether > with infinite density. > > Mitchell Raemsch > The only thing infinite is Mitch's stupidity. Most atoms are not spherical in their waves.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-03 06:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pk1ae4$2h6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #696825 |
On 8/2/2018 11:51 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 8/2/2018 7:16 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.
>
> try this, => hookup a high voltage generator (20 t0 100kv at less than
> 1microamp) to a furry kitty on a rubber floor mat.
>
> the fur will spread apart into "field lines" coming off the cat.
>
> no problem, a long haired kat werks best. (glue kitty to mat first)
>
>
> to discharge the cat, have a friend touch its nose, better to have the
> HV genertor off while doing that.
Clearly Sergio has a good grasp of how to make science 'fun'.
>> For the third time, nothing is moving along those lines. Those lines do not
>> stream, do not flow, do not represent motion of anything.
>
> true, just a mathamatical construct.
Not even mathematical Just a visual construct.
>> 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.
>
> yup.
>
>>
>>> 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.
>
> try the cat, you will see the fur line up parallel with the field lines,
Best if the HV is not turned off when discharging the cat!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web