Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #697062 > unrolled thread
| Started by | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-08-05 02:13 -0400 |
| Last post | 2018-08-08 05:44 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 248 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 02:13 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-08-05 00:19 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tson Ylor <uo@srsysts.sd> - 2018-08-05 12:08 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-08-05 10:08 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 13:06 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 12:10 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 18:57 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:33 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 18:07 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 17:23 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 22:43 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 04:39 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 13:45 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 08:38 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 16:56 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 20:11 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 15:24 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 08:42 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-08 11:49 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 13:07 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 17:02 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 12:51 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 13:06 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 17:27 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 12:50 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 10:32 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 17:58 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 12:11 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 09:43 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-05 08:27 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tson Ylor <uo@srsysts.sg> - 2018-08-05 14:13 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 08:12 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 12:19 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 06:38 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 12:23 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tson Ylor <uo@srsysts.sg> - 2018-08-05 17:47 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:32 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hp> - 2018-08-06 18:05 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 17:15 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hn> - 2018-08-07 09:21 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-08-07 08:36 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 12:17 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 18:57 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 13:31 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 20:40 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 16:19 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-06 04:29 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:55 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:43 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 18:17 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 17:25 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 22:43 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 04:42 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 13:45 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 12:52 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 17:23 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 20:18 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-06 04:27 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 06:13 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:55 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-06 15:17 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 11:59 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:09 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-06 15:31 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:47 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-06 16:01 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 14:11 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-06 16:22 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 17:29 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-06 21:29 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 14:34 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-06 16:48 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-06 21:49 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-06 18:01 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 04:46 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 13:49 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 12:54 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 17:23 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 20:18 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 15:55 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 13:00 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 09:53 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 09:57 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 17:23 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 18:00 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 22:22 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 17:54 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 15:05 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 15:24 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 19:53 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-09 11:49 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 18:27 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 22:47 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 19:11 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 15:08 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 12:30 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 16:43 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 15:05 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 18:30 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 23:05 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-11 03:12 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-11 03:15 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-11 13:55 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 10:25 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 06:52 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-10 09:36 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-07 01:58 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 21:45 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 09:48 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-07 17:29 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 21:29 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 09:46 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 06:44 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:41 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:39 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-06 19:22 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 18:14 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 01:49 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 18:55 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 04:54 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-06 22:17 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-05 18:41 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-06 08:59 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 16:24 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-06 11:20 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 06:40 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 14:27 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-05 22:50 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:51 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-06 13:08 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-08-05 12:23 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 19:31 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-08-05 13:09 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-08-07 11:40 +1000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 01:49 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 04:53 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hn> - 2018-08-07 10:02 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-07 08:55 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 13:05 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-07 11:24 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 16:56 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 20:04 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-08 09:05 +0200
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-08-08 17:14 +1000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 10:34 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 07:45 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 11:18 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-08 20:16 +0200
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-08-09 09:15 +1000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 19:57 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-08-09 11:48 +1000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 11:02 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-08 11:08 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 13:23 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-08 20:26 +0200
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 14:52 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 20:06 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-09 10:15 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 12:48 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-11 23:37 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenvhw.ho> - 2018-08-12 11:31 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenvhw.ho> - 2018-08-12 11:34 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-12 10:09 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-12 21:29 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-13 10:53 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 11:41 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-15 18:56 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 17:24 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 14:32 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 13:22 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 18:59 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 20:19 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 00:59 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 06:33 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 11:33 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 08:53 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 16:00 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 09:19 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 16:46 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 10:30 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 20:54 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 14:13 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 13:43 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 20:54 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 13:37 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 10:52 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 20:54 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 11:17 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 12:09 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 20:58 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 15:19 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 22:33 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 15:55 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 14:11 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 07:22 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 15:56 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 11:03 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 18:32 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 14:21 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 00:15 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 17:35 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 02:38 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 02:54 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 19:15 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 14:01 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-19 22:20 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:29 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 16:31 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 15:44 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 21:57 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 20:02 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:21 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 00:15 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 22:03 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 20:05 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:39 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:22 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 19:44 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 16:30 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 00:15 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 22:01 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 14:01 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 12:39 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 18:35 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:12 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 19:44 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 20:15 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 05:43 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 07:23 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:25 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 15:38 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 16:06 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 02:38 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 20:54 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 15:24 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 20:01 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 23:55 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 10:58 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 15:26 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 12:36 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 17:53 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 12:21 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 21:49 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 19:28 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 15:08 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 07:01 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hn> - 2018-08-08 11:12 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 05:44 -0700
Page 6 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 13 Next page →
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-11 03:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pkm28q$14nu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697928 |
On 8/10/2018 7:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8/10/2018 6:05 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: >>> On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 12:30:27 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: >>>> On 8/10/2018 11:08 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 8/9/2018 6:47 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/9/2018 12:49 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2018 6:53 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2018 6:05 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 5:54:56 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2018 12:53 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 8:18:05 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2018 1:23 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The experimental confirmation of Maxwell’s equations and QED might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good place to start, both of which are built on premises that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fields extend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throughout all space. Which is called out in books that cover those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theories. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theory. Clearly fields DO NOT "extend through all space". Every >>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientist knows this. Idiot. Read a freshman textbook. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You've got a real anti-fields fetish going on there, benj. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Clearly there is no limit built into the fields themselves >>>>>>>>>>>>> or in the mathematics that define them (unless you force >>>>>>>>>>>>> boundary conditions). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Clearly you have a real science ignorance going there. I have NO problem >>>>>>>>>>>> with mathematical vector fields or their rules and properties. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest that mathematical fields are NOT electrical phenomena. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you also post in sci.math in a different name spouting >>>>>>>>>>>>> that there is a limit to numbers? That there are no infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>> sets? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think that because I understand science that I somehow don't >>>>>>>>>>>> understand mathematics? Math is fantasy. Infinite things exist in >>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy just as TinkerBell exists. But there is nothing shown to be >>>>>>>>>>>> infinite in reality except the notable exception of human stupidity. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> because you are arguing that fields have limits just like >>>>>>>>>>> some of the kooks in sci.math argue that there is no infinite set. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, Fields have limits determined by "reality", but I can imagine an >>>>>>>>>> infinite set in my fantasies, therefore ther can exist an infinite set >>>>>>>>>> in mathematics as well as anything else I can imagine. Reality on the >>>>>>>>>> other hand sets it's own rules they are not set by me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> if one cannot measure a 'field', then it is considered not there or down >>>>>>>>> in the noise. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> like spread spectrum, an EM wave spread out and can be below thermal >>>>>>>>> noise, and can be detected. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> fields have limits determined by reality. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jupeter blasts out an EM wave 10 to 25Mhz, does that create a field in >>>>>>>>> ones head ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.spaceacademy.net.au/spacelab/projects/jovrad/jovrad.htm >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Fields" are mathematical fantasy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which is something you have concluded by yourself, without regard either >>>>>>> for the experimental evidence in support of theories based on physical >>>>>>> fields, or for the thoughts of physicists who have concluded that they are >>>>>>> much more than physical fantasy. Either way, your conviction that they are >>>>>>> not real doesn’t seem to be based on any compelling case. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> John is absolutely right about you. Trying to hold a sane conversation >>>>>> with you is like pounding one's head into the concrete pavement. >>>>>> >>>>>> You just babble in your little fantasy world, you make up the shit that >>>>>> you pretend other people are saying and then tear it all down in your >>>>>> own mind to "prove" you are "right" and they are insane "kooks". I'm >>>>>> really not being paid to deal with cases of clinical fantasies. >>>>>> >>>>>> Math is NOT repeat NOT repeat NOT Repeat NOT real. Show me a "2" Where >>>>>> is one. Point it out to me. You can't because it's not REPEAT NOT real. >>>>>> Get that through your thick stupid pointy head. OK? >>>>> >>>>> What’s funny about this is that ALL models have the SAME connection with >>>>> reality, none of them with any “reality” priority. A treatment with forces >>>>> has the same level of reality as a treatment with energy/momentum, which >>>>> has the same level of reality as a treatment with fields, which has the >>>>> same level of reality as least action and Lagrangians. >>>> >>>> No. Models are all models. The physical reality measured is forces due >>>> to currents and charges. Mathematical fantasies are NOT the reality >>>> being measured as you ignorantly insist. Quantities like energy and >>>> momentum are mathematical constructs. >>> >>> If you want to get strict about it, the measurements are of >>> charge, time, and distance. So even forces are mathematical constructs. >> >> You are correct, of course. But then forces are defined by motions >> measured by time and distances. > > Bingo! Notice you said that forces are DEFINED in terms of motions and > mass, which is PRECISELY the same argument you used to diminish the > electric field as being DEFINED as force per test charge in the limit of > vanishing test charge. Thus forces have the same level of abstraction. > > Notice too that length or distance has an operational definition that > relies on simultaneity for any moving objects whose length you wish to > measure. And as for mass, how to define that? Well, one can use > conservation of momentum and compare ratios of velocity changes between > interacting objects. There is a similar bootstrap problem where there is no > underlying measurement you can clearly say, “This. This a the real thing, > not a model.” If you'd read any of those books you claim to you'd know that length is defined as "resting length". So you are saying that length is fantasy, mass is fantasy, time is certainly fantasy and reality is clearly determined only by the drugs one is "doing". Got it. You are clearly insane. Sorry, if one puts charges and currents into space there are clearly interactions between them that do not depend upon the drugs one is doing or the mathematical models or gauges one is using to describe them. >> The key between math and reality is that >> the laws and actions of reality do not depend upon my thoughts the way >> my choice of a mathematical model does. Hence how one infers and >> describes those phenomena depends on the languages used for the >> description, But the choice of model does not effect the phenomena >> itself because it is determined by hidden unknown laws and motivations >> that we are trying to guess. >> >>>>> I get that YOU personally do not believe this, and you somehow think that >>>>> one of these stands out as “more real”. But physicists do not think so. >>>> >>>> So somehow you as an amateur "thinker" somehow found the authority to >>>> speak for all physicists? Hey, buster, I"m actually in the club and I'd >>>> never presume to speak for them. >>> >>> Honestly benj, I don't know it that's true or not. >>> I just know you have gotten grumby over the years. >> >> Grumby? is that a word? I don't think so. Hey, I'm happy as a clam! >> But that is no reason to tolerate the nonsense that today tries to pass >> for intelligent discussion. >> >> > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-11 03:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1d865fad-54a6-46ef-9d42-bd17f5bb733e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #697974 |
benj “Sorry, if one puts charges and currents into space there are clearly interactions between them that do not depend upon the drugs one is doing ” Tired of banging ur head against the wall?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-11 13:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pkmprl$bcr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697974 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/10/2018 7:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 8/10/2018 6:05 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>> On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 12:30:27 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: >>>>> On 8/10/2018 11:08 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/9/2018 6:47 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/9/2018 12:49 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2018 6:53 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2018 6:05 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 5:54:56 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2018 12:53 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 8:18:05 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2018 1:23 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The experimental confirmation of Maxwell’s equations and QED might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good place to start, both of which are built on premises that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fields extend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throughout all space. Which is called out in books that cover those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theories. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theory. Clearly fields DO NOT "extend through all space". Every >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientist knows this. Idiot. Read a freshman textbook. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've got a real anti-fields fetish going on there, benj. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Clearly there is no limit built into the fields themselves >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or in the mathematics that define them (unless you force >>>>>>>>>>>>>> boundary conditions). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Clearly you have a real science ignorance going there. I have NO problem >>>>>>>>>>>>> with mathematical vector fields or their rules and properties. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest that mathematical fields are NOT electrical phenomena. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you also post in sci.math in a different name spouting >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that there is a limit to numbers? That there are no infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sets? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think that because I understand science that I somehow don't >>>>>>>>>>>>> understand mathematics? Math is fantasy. Infinite things exist in >>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy just as TinkerBell exists. But there is nothing shown to be >>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite in reality except the notable exception of human stupidity. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> because you are arguing that fields have limits just like >>>>>>>>>>>> some of the kooks in sci.math argue that there is no infinite set. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, Fields have limits determined by "reality", but I can imagine an >>>>>>>>>>> infinite set in my fantasies, therefore ther can exist an infinite set >>>>>>>>>>> in mathematics as well as anything else I can imagine. Reality on the >>>>>>>>>>> other hand sets it's own rules they are not set by me. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> if one cannot measure a 'field', then it is considered not there or down >>>>>>>>>> in the noise. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> like spread spectrum, an EM wave spread out and can be below thermal >>>>>>>>>> noise, and can be detected. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> fields have limits determined by reality. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jupeter blasts out an EM wave 10 to 25Mhz, does that create a field in >>>>>>>>>> ones head ? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.spaceacademy.net.au/spacelab/projects/jovrad/jovrad.htm >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Fields" are mathematical fantasy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which is something you have concluded by yourself, without regard either >>>>>>>> for the experimental evidence in support of theories based on physical >>>>>>>> fields, or for the thoughts of physicists who have concluded that they are >>>>>>>> much more than physical fantasy. Either way, your conviction that they are >>>>>>>> not real doesn’t seem to be based on any compelling case. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John is absolutely right about you. Trying to hold a sane conversation >>>>>>> with you is like pounding one's head into the concrete pavement. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You just babble in your little fantasy world, you make up the shit that >>>>>>> you pretend other people are saying and then tear it all down in your >>>>>>> own mind to "prove" you are "right" and they are insane "kooks". I'm >>>>>>> really not being paid to deal with cases of clinical fantasies. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Math is NOT repeat NOT repeat NOT Repeat NOT real. Show me a "2" Where >>>>>>> is one. Point it out to me. You can't because it's not REPEAT NOT real. >>>>>>> Get that through your thick stupid pointy head. OK? >>>>>> >>>>>> What’s funny about this is that ALL models have the SAME connection with >>>>>> reality, none of them with any “reality” priority. A treatment with forces >>>>>> has the same level of reality as a treatment with energy/momentum, which >>>>>> has the same level of reality as a treatment with fields, which has the >>>>>> same level of reality as least action and Lagrangians. >>>>> >>>>> No. Models are all models. The physical reality measured is forces due >>>>> to currents and charges. Mathematical fantasies are NOT the reality >>>>> being measured as you ignorantly insist. Quantities like energy and >>>>> momentum are mathematical constructs. >>>> >>>> If you want to get strict about it, the measurements are of >>>> charge, time, and distance. So even forces are mathematical constructs. >>> >>> You are correct, of course. But then forces are defined by motions >>> measured by time and distances. >> >> Bingo! Notice you said that forces are DEFINED in terms of motions and >> mass, which is PRECISELY the same argument you used to diminish the >> electric field as being DEFINED as force per test charge in the limit of >> vanishing test charge. Thus forces have the same level of abstraction. >> >> Notice too that length or distance has an operational definition that >> relies on simultaneity for any moving objects whose length you wish to >> measure. And as for mass, how to define that? Well, one can use >> conservation of momentum and compare ratios of velocity changes between >> interacting objects. There is a similar bootstrap problem where there is no >> underlying measurement you can clearly say, “This. This a the real thing, >> not a model.” > > If you'd read any of those books you claim to you'd know that length is > defined as "resting length". Author, title, page reference. > So you are saying that length is fantasy, > mass is fantasy, time is certainly fantasy and reality is clearly > determined only by the drugs one is "doing". Got it. > You are clearly insane. > > Sorry, if one puts charges and currents into space there are clearly > interactions between them that do not depend upon the drugs one is doing > or the mathematical models or gauges one is using to describe them. > >>> The key between math and reality is that >>> the laws and actions of reality do not depend upon my thoughts the way >>> my choice of a mathematical model does. Hence how one infers and >>> describes those phenomena depends on the languages used for the >>> description, But the choice of model does not effect the phenomena >>> itself because it is determined by hidden unknown laws and motivations >>> that we are trying to guess. >>> >>>>>> I get that YOU personally do not believe this, and you somehow think that >>>>>> one of these stands out as “more real”. But physicists do not think so. >>>>> >>>>> So somehow you as an amateur "thinker" somehow found the authority to >>>>> speak for all physicists? Hey, buster, I"m actually in the club and I'd >>>>> never presume to speak for them. >>>> >>>> Honestly benj, I don't know it that's true or not. >>>> I just know you have gotten grumby over the years. >>> >>> Grumby? is that a word? I don't think so. Hey, I'm happy as a clam! >>> But that is no reason to tolerate the nonsense that today tries to pass >>> for intelligent discussion. >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-13 10:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <935b0894-d1ff-453f-81f0-cfbd3c1f59f7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #697974 |
On Saturday, August 11, 2018 at 3:12:30 AM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 8/10/2018 7:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Notice too that length or distance has an operational definition that > > relies on simultaneity for any moving objects whose length you wish to > > measure. And as for mass, how to define that? Well, one can use > > conservation of momentum and compare ratios of velocity changes between > > interacting objects. There is a similar bootstrap problem where there is no > > underlying measurement you can clearly say, “This. This a the real thing, > > not a model.” > > If you'd read any of those books you claim to you'd know that length is > defined as "resting length". So you are saying that length is fantasy, > mass is fantasy, time is certainly fantasy and reality is clearly > determined only by the drugs one is "doing". Got it. > You are clearly insane. Even rest length needs definitions such as type of material used, and the test conditions. Defining standards is a tough business. > > Sorry, if one puts charges and currents into space there are clearly > interactions between them that do not depend upon the drugs one is doing > or the mathematical models or gauges one is using to describe them. None of use are disagreeing with that description. In the end Mother nature has the final word. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-10 06:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ecbddcd4-7f34-4604-a3c5-c79be2c3e499@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #697656 |
On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 7:53:10 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 8/8/2018 6:05 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 5:54:56 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > >> On 8/8/2018 12:53 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 8:18:05 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > >>>> On 8/7/2018 1:23 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> The experimental confirmation of Maxwell’s equations and QED might be a > >>>>> good place to start, both of which are built on premises that fields extend > >>>>> throughout all space. Which is called out in books that cover those > >>>>> theories. > >>>> > >>>> Theory. Clearly fields DO NOT "extend through all space". Every > >>>> scientist knows this. Idiot. Read a freshman textbook. > >>> > >>> You've got a real anti-fields fetish going on there, benj. > >>> Clearly there is no limit built into the fields themselves > >>> or in the mathematics that define them (unless you force > >>> boundary conditions). > >> > >> Clearly you have a real science ignorance going there. I have NO problem > >> with mathematical vector fields or their rules and properties. > >> > >> I suggest that mathematical fields are NOT electrical phenomena. > >> > >>> Do you also post in sci.math in a different name spouting > >>> that there is a limit to numbers? That there are no infinite > >>> sets? > >> > >> Why do you think that because I understand science that I somehow don't > >> understand mathematics? Math is fantasy. Infinite things exist in > >> fantasy just as TinkerBell exists. But there is nothing shown to be > >> infinite in reality except the notable exception of human stupidity. > > > > because you are arguing that fields have limits just like > > some of the kooks in sci.math argue that there is no infinite set. > > No, Fields have limits determined by "reality", but I can imagine an > infinite set in my fantasies, therefore ther can exist an infinite set > in mathematics as well as anything else I can imagine. Reality on the > other hand sets it's own rules they are not set by me. > > >>> Do you think that is air you are breathing? > >> > >> Do you think you are breathing an infinite set of irrational numbers? > >> > >> That would be quite irrational! > > > > You seem to be arguing that there is an objective reality > > out there. However, you cannot prove it is any more real than > > the mathematics used to describe it. > > Yes, I am arguing that there is a relatively stable reality "out there" > run with a semi-defined set of rules, some of which we have guessed and > some we have not. You are arguing that since this "reality" is > ill-defined, but has been modeled by mathematics therefore it must BE > Mathematics. > > Such a jump in logic is totally unwarranted, illogical, and nonsense. I don't necessarily disagree that there is an objective reality, and I certainly can tell the difference between the observations of that reality and the mathematical theories modeling that reality. What I am saying is even those observations have limits. > > So Plato, we may not know what is creating the pictures on the cave, > nevertheless we are pretty damn sure the pictures are not being created > by our fantasies although our interpretations of them may be. There is still a great chasm between knowing reality and being "pretty damn sure" about reality. > > > “I only decide about my Universe,” continued the man quietly. > > “My Universe is my eyes and my ears. Anything else is hearsay.” > > But physics is actually the study of hearsay! Are you saying because > it's hearsay it is therefore worthless information? Hardly. No you reach a false conclusion about my view. Physics is still the best tool for modeling reality. And the model is not the reality. As someone I work with says: " we are violently agreeing" > > > here, enjoy this: > > http://www.thedailyzen.org/2015/05/27/the-ruler-of-the-universe/ > > > > You really ought to read the trilogy > > The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy > > all 5 books. > > Enjoy. > > Ed > > Yeah, I've read "Hitchhiker's Guide" and I thought it sucked as Sci-fi. > Mostly it is just fantasy and "deep thoughts" of the kind Starfaker is > given to. Really? you think Starfaker even manages "deep thoughts"? LOL I think it is a great set of books. it certainly takes the propositions of infinity to hilarious conclusions! It has my sense of wonderful weirdness. Enjoy. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-10 09:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pkk7t1$e5c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697851 |
On 8/10/2018 8:52 AM, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 7:53:10 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: >> On 8/8/2018 6:05 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: >>> On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 5:54:56 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: >>>> On 8/8/2018 12:53 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 8:18:05 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: >>>>>> On 8/7/2018 1:23 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The experimental confirmation of Maxwell’s equations and QED might be a >>>>>>> good place to start, both of which are built on premises that fields extend >>>>>>> throughout all space. Which is called out in books that cover those >>>>>>> theories. >>>>>> >>>>>> Theory. Clearly fields DO NOT "extend through all space". Every >>>>>> scientist knows this. Idiot. Read a freshman textbook. >>>>> >>>>> You've got a real anti-fields fetish going on there, benj. >>>>> Clearly there is no limit built into the fields themselves >>>>> or in the mathematics that define them (unless you force >>>>> boundary conditions). >>>> >>>> Clearly you have a real science ignorance going there. I have NO problem >>>> with mathematical vector fields or their rules and properties. >>>> >>>> I suggest that mathematical fields are NOT electrical phenomena. >>>> >>>>> Do you also post in sci.math in a different name spouting >>>>> that there is a limit to numbers? That there are no infinite >>>>> sets? >>>> >>>> Why do you think that because I understand science that I somehow don't >>>> understand mathematics? Math is fantasy. Infinite things exist in >>>> fantasy just as TinkerBell exists. But there is nothing shown to be >>>> infinite in reality except the notable exception of human stupidity. >>> >>> because you are arguing that fields have limits just like >>> some of the kooks in sci.math argue that there is no infinite set. >> >> No, Fields have limits determined by "reality", but I can imagine an >> infinite set in my fantasies, therefore ther can exist an infinite set >> in mathematics as well as anything else I can imagine. Reality on the >> other hand sets it's own rules they are not set by me. >> >>>>> Do you think that is air you are breathing? >>>> >>>> Do you think you are breathing an infinite set of irrational numbers? >>>> >>>> That would be quite irrational! >>> >>> You seem to be arguing that there is an objective reality >>> out there. However, you cannot prove it is any more real than >>> the mathematics used to describe it. >> >> Yes, I am arguing that there is a relatively stable reality "out there" >> run with a semi-defined set of rules, some of which we have guessed and >> some we have not. You are arguing that since this "reality" is >> ill-defined, but has been modeled by mathematics therefore it must BE >> Mathematics. >> >> Such a jump in logic is totally unwarranted, illogical, and nonsense. > > I don't necessarily disagree that there is an objective reality, > and I certainly can tell the difference between the observations > of that reality and the mathematical theories modeling that reality. > What I am saying is even those observations have limits. >> >> So Plato, we may not know what is creating the pictures on the cave, >> nevertheless we are pretty damn sure the pictures are not being created >> by our fantasies although our interpretations of them may be. > > There is still a great chasm between knowing reality and > being "pretty damn sure" about reality. >> >>> “I only decide about my Universe,” continued the man quietly. >>> “My Universe is my eyes and my ears. Anything else is hearsay.” >> >> But physics is actually the study of hearsay! Are you saying because >> it's hearsay it is therefore worthless information? Hardly. > > No you reach a false conclusion about my view. Physics is still > the best tool for modeling reality. And the model is not the > reality. As someone I work with says: " we are violently agreeing" > >> >>> here, enjoy this: >>> http://www.thedailyzen.org/2015/05/27/the-ruler-of-the-universe/ >>> >>> You really ought to read the trilogy >>> The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy >>> all 5 books. >>> Enjoy. >>> Ed >> >> Yeah, I've read "Hitchhiker's Guide" and I thought it sucked as Sci-fi. >> Mostly it is just fantasy and "deep thoughts" of the kind Starfaker is >> given to. > > Really? you think Starfaker even manages "deep thoughts"? LOL Starfarted does have a "deep thought" occasionally, but it takes about 6 months to develop, rise to the surface, exude, and then plop onto the surface, steaming. > > I think it is a great set of books. it certainly takes > the propositions of infinity to hilarious conclusions! > It has my sense of wonderful weirdness. > > Enjoy. > Ed >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-07 01:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pkaubl$cg8$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #697330 |
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) writes:
>john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
>>Ur an idiot
>That's the best you can do to show me that point particles are illogical?
{no answer from John, not that I ever expected one}
And now John says there is no such thing as zero/nothing? Because he said
so!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-06 21:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ac0ebaa9-2eaf-4d46-acac-a9d17ada69f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #697366 |
MM “>That's the best you can do to show me that point particles are illogical? ” Sorry ur 2 stoooopid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-07 09:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <16d4b1eb-a178-4aee-be87-6c25cc38aee0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #697305 |
On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 4:09:07 PM UTC-4, john wrote: > MM > ] A point particle is an appropriate representation of any object whose size, shape, and structure is irrelevant in a given context. For example, from far enough away, any finite-size object will look like and behave as a point-like object.” > You see, Michael? > ANY particles are points FROM FAR ENOUGH AWAY. > They aren’t ACTUALLY points. > In the given context- science completely ignorant of size shape and structure as is QM- what else can they say? John, You actually made an effort at logic. Congratulations!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-07 17:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pkckt3$457$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #697441 |
Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> writes: >On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 4:09:07 PM UTC-4, john wrote: >> You see, Michael? >> ANY particles are points FROM FAR ENOUGH AWAY. >> They aren't ACTUALLY points. >> In the given context- science completely ignorant of size shape and >> structure as is QM- what else can they say? >John, >You actually made an effort at logic. Congratulations! Yes, John did actually try for once. Good. And John went from "You are hopeless" to a "Congratulations!" in only two minutes in Edward's view. That is also something done right!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-06 21:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pkaek6$mnv$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697298 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > MM > “ > >> You are asking why a point particle is illogical? > > Yes. Explain, but use actual logic in your explanation.” > > Get a 5 year old to explain that to you. > Five year olds wouldn’t have an explanation. They’d have their common experience and a gut feel, that’s it. They would not be able to articulate their reasoning. They would not be able to identify their assumptions and question them. So, John, your convictions are based on the same precepts as a five year old. And you are saying that if a five year old won’t buy it, then it’s wrong. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-07 09:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9983f508-1462-48f4-b61b-67dc60661104@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #697298 |
On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 2:59:11 PM UTC-4, john wrote: > MM > “ > > >You are asking why a point particle is illogical? > > Yes. Explain, but use actual logic in your explanation.” > > Get a 5 year old to explain that to you. So we need to wait a few years until John is old enough to explain this. You are hopeless, John. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-06 06:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d81247dd-370a-4cbb-ac75-2b3c7af02635@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #697141 |
On Sunday, August 5, 2018 at 4:31:07 PM UTC-4, john wrote: > Odd > “> So your argument is that all fields already exist throughout all space > > and then when a charge is created only the disturbances travel down > > these already existing fields at the speed of c? You know that is > > nonsense. > > No, it’s absolutely right. > ” > Odd, you have zero logic. > Some things happen here and others there and many are extremely complicated and repetitive and other places nothing ever happens. > And all that multiplies and squares a mile a minute with Time. > Odd, you don’t possess a logical bone in your body. > > I’ll bet you believe in the Space Elevator. John, you wouldn't know a logical argument, even if the book containing it hit you smack in the face. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-06 13:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pka193$1v9l$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697141 |
On 8/5/2018 4:31 PM, john wrote: > Odd > “> So your argument is that all fields already exist throughout all space >> and then when a charge is created only the disturbances travel down >> these already existing fields at the speed of c? You know that is >> nonsense. > > No, it’s absolutely right. > ” > Odd, you have zero logic. > Some things happen here and others there and many are extremely complicated and repetitive and other places nothing ever happens. > And all that multiplies and squares a mile a minute with Time. > Odd, you don’t possess a logical bone in your body. > > I’ll bet you believe in the Space Elevator. > He's read "science textbooks" that prove a space elevator can work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-06 13:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pka13t$1v9l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697120 |
On 8/5/2018 2:57 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8/5/2018 9:27 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 8/5/18 1:13 AM, benj wrote: >>>> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c. >>>> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that >>>> speed. >>>> [... nonsense] >>> >>> He is correct: fields do not "propagate", but changes in fields can and >>> do. To see this, all one has to do is examine a) what "field" means, and >>> b) the form of the Lienard-Wiechert potentials of classical >>> electrodynamics. >>> >>> Your discussion violates basic conservation laws and is therefore >>> useless. Modifying it to obey the conservation of charge forces the two >>> charges to be introduced at the same point and then separated, and that >>> destroys what you think is an argument. >>> >>> But it is true that if you have a charge present, and then wiggle it, >>> locations a distance L away won't observe the wiggling until a delay of >>> L/c. >>> >>> Tom Roberts >> >> So your argument is that all fields already exist throughout all space >> and then when a charge is created only the disturbances travel down >> these already existing fields at the speed of c? You know that is >> nonsense. > > No, it’s absolutely right. Obviously this is now a religious debate and no science can now be discussed. Take your arguments to sci.physics.religion. >> Even if you introduce two charges and separate them, this still creates >> a dipole field traveling away at c. It will not be instantaneously >> sensed by a test charge somewhere. >> > > > You’re not creating the dipole field. You’re changing the field to pick up > a dipole configuration. That configuration — that CHANGE — propagates at c. > So say the textbooks. How can there be a field when there are no charges present? Oh wait, I got it. A zero field is still a field and therefore exists! Do you realize how insane your arguments are? You seem ready to believe ANY sentence no matter how insane or contradictory without blinking an eye. Sorry, a discussion of the beliefs of the asylum patients produces no relevant scientific discussion. John is SO right about you!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-06 19:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <EtidnWTvU-ewe_XGnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #697270 |
On 8/6/18 12:39 PM, benj wrote: > How can there be a field when there are no charges present? You CLEARLY do not know what "field" actually means. In this context, a field is a function on the manifold [#]. That is, the field assigns a value to every point of the manifold. The type of field determines the type of value, such as: scalar fields (temperature, pressure, ...), vector fields (electric and magnetic fields, wind, the EM 4-potential, ...), and tensor fields (the metric, the Maxwell two-form, stress and strain, ...). [#] Here the manifold is spacetime. > Oh wait, I > got it. A zero field is still a field and therefore exists! Of course -- see above. That is inherent in what "field" means. For each of my examples the value zero is still a value. To claim that a region in which the field has value 0 "has no field" would destroy the mathematical structure of any theory involving such nonsense [@]. Colloquially we say "there is no wind" when its velocity is zero, but mathematically that is clearly a wind with zero velocity. [@] If there were no field in such a region, then Maxwell's equations could not possibly be valid. The discovery of 0 as a valid number by the ancients is now an essential aspect of mathematics. You need to progress beyond Roman numerals.... > Do you > realize how insane your arguments are? It is really your attempt to argue about fields without knowing what the word means that is insane. > [... further nonsense omitted] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-06 18:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ac054347-6c65-454e-b83e-c530f667533f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #697352 |
Tom “The discovery of 0 as a valid number by the ancients is now an essential ” Is one of the main reasons your science is so fucked right now. No such thing as nothing. Space is FULL of energy at a smaller gauge. If there were ANY true vacuum anywhere, the pressure of Space would smack it shut like a nuclear bomb. You guys are SO lost. Poor little bean counters that can’t figure out what a bean plant is. :(
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-07 01:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pkatr9$1a7p$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697359 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Tom > “The discovery of 0 as a valid number by the ancients is now an essential ” > Is one of the main reasons your science is so fucked right now. > No such thing as nothing. Space is FULL of energy at a smaller gauge. If > there were ANY true vacuum anywhere, the pressure of Space would smack it > shut like a nuclear bomb. > You guys are SO lost. > Poor little bean counters that can’t figure out what a bean plant is. :( > John sez zero is not a number. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-06 18:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4979d43a-39c4-4dd2-b509-306c2238459f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #697363 |
Odd “- show quoted text - John sez zero is not a number. - show quoted text -” No, fool, that’s not what I said.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-07 04:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pkbmof$d5l$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697365 |
On 8/6/2018 9:55 PM, john wrote: > Odd > “- show quoted text - > John sez zero is not a number. > - show quoted text -” > No, fool, that’s not what I said. > Yeah, Odd writes all our posts for us and hen uses those posts to prove we are as dumb as he is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web