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 12 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 Next page →
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-18 22:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <plaj2c$gnc$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699131 |
On 8/18/2018 8:15 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8/18/2018 10:11 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Odd >>>> “ >>>> >>>> Math is a language that describes how the atom works. Laws of physics are ” >>>> >>>> No, Odd. >>>> Probability patterns are just that- probabilities. >>>> How often something is found in some location says NOTHING about how it >>>> works- it just says how often it is found there. >>>> You know NOTHING about HOW atoms work- and you don’t seem to WANT to know. >>>> >>> >>> There’s more to the math than just the probability where it will be found. >>> >>> Try reading. >>> >> Odd, you are still ignorant beyond belief. John is (mostly) correct and >> you are stump stupid as usual. What do solutions to the Schrodinger >> equation actually tell us about atoms? Exactly what John said (well >> except that it is the wavefunctions times their complex conjugate that >> gives not probability but rather probability density...but Odd that is >> math and physics WAY beyond your level of understanding) > > There’s a bit more to it than that. Or maybe you can talk about the Stark > effect or Zeeman splitting with the bonehead description you just made. > >> >> You should try getting an education in science. It's really not too >> late. Except for the fact that you are willfully determined to maintain >> your total ignorance. You could start by reading my kick-ass book that >> tells how science really works. Odd tries to change the subject by trying to snow everyone with jargon. We aren't impressed with you odd. You are nothing but a fool.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 14:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plbt88$v0o$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699149 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/18/2018 8:15 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 8/18/2018 10:11 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Odd >>>>> “ >>>>> >>>>> Math is a language that describes how the atom works. Laws of physics are ” >>>>> >>>>> No, Odd. >>>>> Probability patterns are just that- probabilities. >>>>> How often something is found in some location says NOTHING about how it >>>>> works- it just says how often it is found there. >>>>> You know NOTHING about HOW atoms work- and you don’t seem to WANT to know. >>>>> >>>> >>>> There’s more to the math than just the probability where it will be found. >>>> >>>> Try reading. >>>> >>> Odd, you are still ignorant beyond belief. John is (mostly) correct and >>> you are stump stupid as usual. What do solutions to the Schrodinger >>> equation actually tell us about atoms? Exactly what John said (well >>> except that it is the wavefunctions times their complex conjugate that >>> gives not probability but rather probability density...but Odd that is >>> math and physics WAY beyond your level of understanding) >> >> There’s a bit more to it than that. Or maybe you can talk about the Stark >> effect or Zeeman splitting with the bonehead description you just made. >> >>> >>> You should try getting an education in science. It's really not too >>> late. Except for the fact that you are willfully determined to maintain >>> your total ignorance. You could start by reading my kick-ass book that >>> tells how science really works. > > Odd tries to change the subject by trying to snow everyone with jargon. These are real phenomena. Quantum mechanics deals with these phenomena. Your description doesn’t. See the gap? > We aren't impressed with you odd. You are nothing but a fool. > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 12:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <plc6fc$1m92$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699209 |
On 8/19/2018 10:01 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8/18/2018 8:15 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 8/18/2018 10:11 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Odd >>>>>> “ >>>>>> >>>>>> Math is a language that describes how the atom works. Laws of physics are ” >>>>>> >>>>>> No, Odd. >>>>>> Probability patterns are just that- probabilities. >>>>>> How often something is found in some location says NOTHING about how it >>>>>> works- it just says how often it is found there. >>>>>> You know NOTHING about HOW atoms work- and you don’t seem to WANT to know. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There’s more to the math than just the probability where it will be found. >>>>> >>>>> Try reading. >>>>> >>>> Odd, you are still ignorant beyond belief. John is (mostly) correct and >>>> you are stump stupid as usual. What do solutions to the Schrodinger >>>> equation actually tell us about atoms? Exactly what John said (well >>>> except that it is the wavefunctions times their complex conjugate that >>>> gives not probability but rather probability density...but Odd that is >>>> math and physics WAY beyond your level of understanding) >>> >>> There’s a bit more to it than that. Or maybe you can talk about the Stark >>> effect or Zeeman splitting with the bonehead description you just made. >>> >>>> >>>> You should try getting an education in science. It's really not too >>>> late. Except for the fact that you are willfully determined to maintain >>>> your total ignorance. You could start by reading my kick-ass book that >>>> tells how science really works. >> >> Odd tries to change the subject by trying to snow everyone with jargon. > > These are real phenomena. Quantum mechanics deals with these phenomena. > Your description doesn’t. See the gap? Fast talking to change to a different subject, counselor, is not valid debate. You are simply trying to throw chaff in the wind. Johns initial premise that the structure of atoms is mostly unknown and that the major theory of what is known is largely based upon probability and handwaving is obviously correct. Adding perturbations (and masturbations) to the theory of atomic structure does in no way change the fact that it's all based upon probabilities as was correctly already stated by John. Trying to add new jargon does not in anyway change that fact. Odd, Science, unlike politics, law and journalism is based upon truth not lies and fantasies. You are obviously incapable of participating in a discussion of science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 18:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plcd9v$2i2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699219 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/19/2018 10:01 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 8/18/2018 8:15 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 8/18/2018 10:11 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Odd >>>>>>> “ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Math is a language that describes how the atom works. Laws of physics are ” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, Odd. >>>>>>> Probability patterns are just that- probabilities. >>>>>>> How often something is found in some location says NOTHING about how it >>>>>>> works- it just says how often it is found there. >>>>>>> You know NOTHING about HOW atoms work- and you don’t seem to WANT to know. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There’s more to the math than just the probability where it will be found. >>>>>> >>>>>> Try reading. >>>>>> >>>>> Odd, you are still ignorant beyond belief. John is (mostly) correct and >>>>> you are stump stupid as usual. What do solutions to the Schrodinger >>>>> equation actually tell us about atoms? Exactly what John said (well >>>>> except that it is the wavefunctions times their complex conjugate that >>>>> gives not probability but rather probability density...but Odd that is >>>>> math and physics WAY beyond your level of understanding) >>>> >>>> There’s a bit more to it than that. Or maybe you can talk about the Stark >>>> effect or Zeeman splitting with the bonehead description you just made. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> You should try getting an education in science. It's really not too >>>>> late. Except for the fact that you are willfully determined to maintain >>>>> your total ignorance. You could start by reading my kick-ass book that >>>>> tells how science really works. >>> >>> Odd tries to change the subject by trying to snow everyone with jargon. >> >> These are real phenomena. Quantum mechanics deals with these phenomena. >> Your description doesn’t. See the gap? > > Fast talking to change to a different subject, counselor, is not valid > debate. You are simply trying to throw chaff in the wind. Johns initial > premise that the structure of atoms is mostly unknown and that the major > theory of what is known is largely based upon probability and handwaving > is obviously correct. No, it is not obviously correct. Stop lying just for the sake of generating noise. It makes you look stupid. > > Adding perturbations (and masturbations) to the theory of atomic > structure does in no way change the fact that it's all based upon > probabilities as was correctly already stated by John. Trying to add new > jargon does not in anyway change that fact. > > Odd, Science, unlike politics, law and journalism is based upon truth > not lies and fantasies. You are obviously incapable of participating in > a discussion of science. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 14:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <plf0b7$aun$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699244 |
On 8/19/2018 2:35 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8/19/2018 10:01 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 8/18/2018 8:15 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 8/18/2018 10:11 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Odd >>>>>>>> “ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Math is a language that describes how the atom works. Laws of physics are ” >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, Odd. >>>>>>>> Probability patterns are just that- probabilities. >>>>>>>> How often something is found in some location says NOTHING about how it >>>>>>>> works- it just says how often it is found there. >>>>>>>> You know NOTHING about HOW atoms work- and you don’t seem to WANT to know. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There’s more to the math than just the probability where it will be found. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Try reading. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Odd, you are still ignorant beyond belief. John is (mostly) correct and >>>>>> you are stump stupid as usual. What do solutions to the Schrodinger >>>>>> equation actually tell us about atoms? Exactly what John said (well >>>>>> except that it is the wavefunctions times their complex conjugate that >>>>>> gives not probability but rather probability density...but Odd that is >>>>>> math and physics WAY beyond your level of understanding) >>>>> >>>>> There’s a bit more to it than that. Or maybe you can talk about the Stark >>>>> effect or Zeeman splitting with the bonehead description you just made. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You should try getting an education in science. It's really not too >>>>>> late. Except for the fact that you are willfully determined to maintain >>>>>> your total ignorance. You could start by reading my kick-ass book that >>>>>> tells how science really works. >>>> >>>> Odd tries to change the subject by trying to snow everyone with jargon. >>> >>> These are real phenomena. Quantum mechanics deals with these phenomena. >>> Your description doesn’t. See the gap? >> >> Fast talking to change to a different subject, counselor, is not valid >> debate. You are simply trying to throw chaff in the wind. Johns initial >> premise that the structure of atoms is mostly unknown and that the major >> theory of what is known is largely based upon probability and handwaving >> is obviously correct. > > No, it is not obviously correct. Stop lying just for the sake of generating > noise. It makes you look stupid. > >> >> Adding perturbations (and masturbations) to the theory of atomic >> structure does in no way change the fact that it's all based upon >> probabilities as was correctly already stated by John. Trying to add new >> jargon does not in anyway change that fact. >> >> Odd, Science, unlike politics, law and journalism is based upon truth >> not lies and fantasies. You are obviously incapable of participating in >> a discussion of science. >> > > > Everyone looks stupid to you Boinker, because you are on the inside of stupid looking out! Pretending that science knows everything is the dumbest and most arrogant mistake humans can make. You would look a lot smarter with a little humility.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 19:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plf5no$kq9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699333 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/19/2018 2:35 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 8/19/2018 10:01 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 8/18/2018 8:15 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/18/2018 10:11 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Odd >>>>>>>>> “ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Math is a language that describes how the atom works. Laws of physics are ” >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, Odd. >>>>>>>>> Probability patterns are just that- probabilities. >>>>>>>>> How often something is found in some location says NOTHING about how it >>>>>>>>> works- it just says how often it is found there. >>>>>>>>> You know NOTHING about HOW atoms work- and you don’t seem to WANT to know. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There’s more to the math than just the probability where it will be found. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Try reading. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Odd, you are still ignorant beyond belief. John is (mostly) correct and >>>>>>> you are stump stupid as usual. What do solutions to the Schrodinger >>>>>>> equation actually tell us about atoms? Exactly what John said (well >>>>>>> except that it is the wavefunctions times their complex conjugate that >>>>>>> gives not probability but rather probability density...but Odd that is >>>>>>> math and physics WAY beyond your level of understanding) >>>>>> >>>>>> There’s a bit more to it than that. Or maybe you can talk about the Stark >>>>>> effect or Zeeman splitting with the bonehead description you just made. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You should try getting an education in science. It's really not too >>>>>>> late. Except for the fact that you are willfully determined to maintain >>>>>>> your total ignorance. You could start by reading my kick-ass book that >>>>>>> tells how science really works. >>>>> >>>>> Odd tries to change the subject by trying to snow everyone with jargon. >>>> >>>> These are real phenomena. Quantum mechanics deals with these phenomena. >>>> Your description doesn’t. See the gap? >>> >>> Fast talking to change to a different subject, counselor, is not valid >>> debate. You are simply trying to throw chaff in the wind. Johns initial >>> premise that the structure of atoms is mostly unknown and that the major >>> theory of what is known is largely based upon probability and handwaving >>> is obviously correct. >> >> No, it is not obviously correct. Stop lying just for the sake of generating >> noise. It makes you look stupid. >> >>> >>> Adding perturbations (and masturbations) to the theory of atomic >>> structure does in no way change the fact that it's all based upon >>> probabilities as was correctly already stated by John. Trying to add new >>> jargon does not in anyway change that fact. >>> >>> Odd, Science, unlike politics, law and journalism is based upon truth >>> not lies and fantasies. You are obviously incapable of participating in >>> a discussion of science. >>> >> >> >> > Everyone looks stupid to you Boinker, because you are on the inside of > stupid looking out! > > Pretending that science knows everything Nobody is claiming that, pot-stirrer. The converse of “mostly unknown and based on hand waving” is not “knows everything”. > is the dumbest and most > arrogant mistake humans can make. You would look a lot smarter with a > little humility. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 20:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <203f0656-06e8-452d-9afc-6ab077645136@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #699219 |
On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 12:39:13 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 8/19/2018 10:01 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 8/18/2018 8:15 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On 8/18/2018 10:11 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> Odd > >>>>>> “ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Math is a language that describes how the atom works. Laws of physics are ” > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No, Odd. > >>>>>> Probability patterns are just that- probabilities. > >>>>>> How often something is found in some location says NOTHING about how it > >>>>>> works- it just says how often it is found there. > >>>>>> You know NOTHING about HOW atoms work- and you don’t seem to WANT to know. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> There’s more to the math than just the probability where it will be found. > >>>>> > >>>>> Try reading. > >>>>> > >>>> Odd, you are still ignorant beyond belief. John is (mostly) correct and > >>>> you are stump stupid as usual. What do solutions to the Schrodinger > >>>> equation actually tell us about atoms? Exactly what John said (well > >>>> except that it is the wavefunctions times their complex conjugate that > >>>> gives not probability but rather probability density...but Odd that is > >>>> math and physics WAY beyond your level of understanding) > >>> > >>> There’s a bit more to it than that. Or maybe you can talk about the Stark > >>> effect or Zeeman splitting with the bonehead description you just made. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> You should try getting an education in science. It's really not too > >>>> late. Except for the fact that you are willfully determined to maintain > >>>> your total ignorance. You could start by reading my kick-ass book that > >>>> tells how science really works. > >> > >> Odd tries to change the subject by trying to snow everyone with jargon. > > > > These are real phenomena. Quantum mechanics deals with these phenomena. > > Your description doesn’t. See the gap? > > Fast talking to change to a different subject, counselor, is not valid > debate. You are simply trying to throw chaff in the wind. Johns initial > premise that the structure of atoms is mostly unknown and that the major > theory of what is known is largely based upon probability and handwaving > is obviously correct. But John then proceeds to handwave precessing clouds of fractal particles forming galactic atoms. > > Adding perturbations (and masturbations) to the theory of atomic > structure does in no way change the fact that it's all based upon > probabilities as was correctly already stated by John. Trying to add new > jargon does not in anyway change that fact. Trying to add magical particles and fractal EM radiation does change facts? > > Odd, Science, unlike politics, law and journalism is based upon truth > not lies and fantasies. You are obviously incapable of participating in > a discussion of science. Your defence of john is baffling. John's idea's are pure fantasy. I think you need to reconsider who is incapable of discussing science. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 05:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eb45e799-eb2c-4243-a5aa-3592123b4aa0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #699284 |
ed ed ed “But John then proceeds to handwave precessing clouds of fractal particles forming galactic atoms. ” My latest orbit which I believe to have discovered the S is sure to cause extreme Michael freakage since it uses precession of the rotating disc in not only ONE orthogonal plane, but in BOTH!! MM gnashing of teeth forecast. I figured out that my new phone has too weak of a wifi signal to hotspot my old computer- what to do what to do- but it works by just connecting it with the cord, so I will be uploading files of the S soon. I have at least a few nice animations I can do with this one. Exploding Michael’s Brain
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 07:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8844b082-df6b-47d7-bd5c-2d511a6f048f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #699310 |
On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 8:43:45 AM UTC-4, john wrote: > ed ed ed > “But John then proceeds to handwave precessing clouds of fractal > particles forming galactic atoms. > ” > > My latest orbit which I believe to have discovered > the S is sure to cause extreme Michael freakage since it uses > precession of the rotating disc in not only ONE orthogonal > plane, but in BOTH!! > Your lack of artistic skills is only surpassed by your lack of scientific skills. But please continue drawing your pictures. It at least keeps you off the streets. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 14:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <plf12i$bjr$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699284 |
On 8/19/2018 11:15 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 12:39:13 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: >> On 8/19/2018 10:01 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 8/18/2018 8:15 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 8/18/2018 10:11 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Odd >>>>>>>> “ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Math is a language that describes how the atom works. Laws of physics are ” >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, Odd. >>>>>>>> Probability patterns are just that- probabilities. >>>>>>>> How often something is found in some location says NOTHING about how it >>>>>>>> works- it just says how often it is found there. >>>>>>>> You know NOTHING about HOW atoms work- and you don’t seem to WANT to know. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There’s more to the math than just the probability where it will be found. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Try reading. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Odd, you are still ignorant beyond belief. John is (mostly) correct and >>>>>> you are stump stupid as usual. What do solutions to the Schrodinger >>>>>> equation actually tell us about atoms? Exactly what John said (well >>>>>> except that it is the wavefunctions times their complex conjugate that >>>>>> gives not probability but rather probability density...but Odd that is >>>>>> math and physics WAY beyond your level of understanding) >>>>> >>>>> There’s a bit more to it than that. Or maybe you can talk about the Stark >>>>> effect or Zeeman splitting with the bonehead description you just made. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You should try getting an education in science. It's really not too >>>>>> late. Except for the fact that you are willfully determined to maintain >>>>>> your total ignorance. You could start by reading my kick-ass book that >>>>>> tells how science really works. >>>> >>>> Odd tries to change the subject by trying to snow everyone with jargon. >>> >>> These are real phenomena. Quantum mechanics deals with these phenomena. >>> Your description doesn’t. See the gap? >> >> Fast talking to change to a different subject, counselor, is not valid >> debate. You are simply trying to throw chaff in the wind. Johns initial >> premise that the structure of atoms is mostly unknown and that the major >> theory of what is known is largely based upon probability and handwaving >> is obviously correct. > > But John then proceeds to handwave precessing clouds of fractal > particles forming galactic atoms. > >> >> Adding perturbations (and masturbations) to the theory of atomic >> structure does in no way change the fact that it's all based upon >> probabilities as was correctly already stated by John. Trying to add new >> jargon does not in anyway change that fact. > > Trying to add magical particles and fractal EM radiation > does change facts? > >> >> Odd, Science, unlike politics, law and journalism is based upon truth >> not lies and fantasies. You are obviously incapable of participating in >> a discussion of science. > > Your defence of john is baffling. John's idea's are pure fantasy. > I think you need to reconsider who is incapable of discussing > science. > > Ed > How are theories created? There is no algorithm that does this (ask Einstein). However fantasy theories are tested against reality. Those that are wrong just remain fantasy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-18 15:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <964a88ef-cc86-435b-a942-56ddabbee32b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #698949 |
On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 3:09:22 PM UTC-4, john wrote: > ed > “Describes John for sure, except the part about grabbing books. > he merely thumps his own chest! ” > Well- > I do work on spherical pathways and actually SHOW them to > people- translation: provide PICTURES to explain/verify ideas. You are an artist not a scientist, and a poor artist at that. > Far as I can see, you just splash probability math on > everything and say there IS no visual representation > of the atom possible. > Or is that Odd? It would be extremely ODD for me to say such things. Probability is a feature for example of QM, but not of Relativity. And visual representations of the atom are all over the place. Enjoy, Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-18 16:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2be87ebd-b7a2-4dd2-987b-fdb06ecc296f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #699116 |
ed “And visual representations of the atom are all over the place. ” Okay. Show me one
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 02:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plal80$k21$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699122 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > ed > “And visual representations > of the atom are all over the place. ” > Okay. > Show me one > For the 6372nd time... AIAB -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-17 20:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pl7cm4$1sc2$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #698911 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/17/2018 11:53 AM, john wrote: >> Odd >> “Your book isn’t censored. It’s ignored. Know the difference? >> ” >> Odd refuses to read anything that isn’t peer-approved. >> Might pollute his little brain >> > This is the salient characteristic of religion. To steadfastly refuse to > consider or even be exposed to ideas contrary to the bubble you've > created in your brain. Thus Odd's self-defense mechanism is to close his > eyes to any but thoroughly-approved ideas so that his world is not > disturbed by heresy contrary to his religious believes. Then grabs > Physics textbooks and thumps them like a Christian fundie! He's really a > sad case of being determined to stay ignorant at all costs. > Yep. I’m perfectly happy not to waste my time on what I consider to be noise. So here, I’ll ask you a question. Everybody has limited bandwidth and no one has the capacity to dive into the whole spectrum of information. And that means you have to make choices about what you look at. Don’t pretend that you look at everything. So what’s the basis of YOUR choices on what is worthwhile looking at? WHY do you choose what you choose? What do you consider noise that you don’t waste your time on and WHY? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-16 15:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c2d1cca4-5c11-436f-b0e9-918a7b281dff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #698731 |
On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 1:22:06 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 8/16/2018 10:32 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Tom > >> “ss on this last, and I see no approach that has any hope of ever > >> achieving any, because of the fundamental and profound disconnect > >> between the world and our minds. ” > >> > >> I hope you’re not a typical scientist > >> > > > > While I don’t entirely agree with Tom on this, as he knows, your comment > > only illustrates that you have certain childish expectations of what > > science should be, do, and provide. > > Speaking as a scientist I can only endorse John's comment. Neither you > nor Tom have the slightest idea what science is all about. You have the > liberal arts view of science that it's all about ill-defined words that > you can argue about which in your view is "doing science". Holding > insane views such as Tom's ridiculous idea that so long as reality is > not completely known in all details then man knows nothing at all about > reality. Clearly a great deal is known about reality since man has been > running experiments on it since man has been around. Obviously "knowing > it all" is a state that can never be achieved, but the view that this > means we know nothing is simply nonsense babble. Well this is an epistemology discussion not physics, but a good number of PhD scientists I know follow this simple observation: All theories are wrong (meaning do not fully or accurately describe the nature of reality). However, some are useful. I cannot say from my small sample that you, benj, are in the minority, but I can say your view is far from unanimous among physicists. > > > I think it might be worth doing a little reading in books written by > > physicists on what it is that they actually do and what they actually > > produce, rather than you just inventing some expectation that they aren’t > > even intending to match. > > So why don't both you and Tom read MY book written by a scientist that > carefully examines science, pseudoscience, myth and religion and shows > how it all can work together to advance science to the next level. It is > very telling that you, Odd, have refused to read it and insist on > basking in your ignorance and fantasies and I presume Tom's attitude > will be the same. Such is typical of your ilk. > > www.hypersphere.us I'll add it to my reading list but I cannot promise a time for it yet. I presume you are referring to www.hypersphere.us/PseudoScience.pdf Enjoy, ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-16 20:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pl538m$8c1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #698794 |
On 8/16/2018 6:24 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 1:22:06 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: >> On 8/16/2018 10:32 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Tom >>>> “ss on this last, and I see no approach that has any hope of ever >>>> achieving any, because of the fundamental and profound disconnect >>>> between the world and our minds. ” >>>> >>>> I hope you’re not a typical scientist >>>> >>> >>> While I don’t entirely agree with Tom on this, as he knows, your comment >>> only illustrates that you have certain childish expectations of what >>> science should be, do, and provide. >> >> Speaking as a scientist I can only endorse John's comment. Neither you >> nor Tom have the slightest idea what science is all about. You have the >> liberal arts view of science that it's all about ill-defined words that >> you can argue about which in your view is "doing science". Holding >> insane views such as Tom's ridiculous idea that so long as reality is >> not completely known in all details then man knows nothing at all about >> reality. Clearly a great deal is known about reality since man has been >> running experiments on it since man has been around. Obviously "knowing >> it all" is a state that can never be achieved, but the view that this >> means we know nothing is simply nonsense babble. > > Well this is an epistemology discussion not physics, but a good > number of PhD scientists I know follow this simple observation: > All theories are wrong (meaning do not fully or accurately > describe the nature of reality). > However, some are useful. Which is what I just said. But all theories being wrong does not imply that nothing is known about reality. The fact that some theories are useful puts the lie to that view. > I cannot say from my small sample that you, benj, are in the > minority, but I can say your view is far from unanimous among > physicists. I just agreed with them, so obviously I not only am one, but agree with them. I don't agree with you, however. I'm not sure that is a minority. Saying "all theories are wrong", which is to say that all are incomplete, is saying that everything about reality is not known (which I've already suggested knowing everything is very likely not possible) But not knowing everything is certainly not the same as knowing nothing. Quantity matters. >>> I think it might be worth doing a little reading in books written by >>> physicists on what it is that they actually do and what they actually >>> produce, rather than you just inventing some expectation that they aren’t >>> even intending to match. >> >> So why don't both you and Tom read MY book written by a scientist that >> carefully examines science, pseudoscience, myth and religion and shows >> how it all can work together to advance science to the next level. It is >> very telling that you, Odd, have refused to read it and insist on >> basking in your ignorance and fantasies and I presume Tom's attitude >> will be the same. Such is typical of your ilk. >> >> www.hypersphere.us > > I'll add it to my reading list but I cannot promise a time > for it yet. I presume you are referring to > www.hypersphere.us/PseudoScience.pdf Yes. You don't owe it too me. But it's like many things that are not "official" something to provoke thought. > Enjoy, > ed >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-08 23:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pkfvu0$19fl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697523 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/7/2018 12:24 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 8/7/18 3:53 AM, benj wrote: >>> Are you talking mathematics or physics? >> >> Both -- the mathematical structure of current physical theories and models. >> >>> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no >>> charges and hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid of >>> fields but actually is filled with an electric (an other types) of >>> fields whose value is simply zero? >> >> Yes. Because if you believe Maxwell's equations apply, or if you believe >> that QED applies, then you are FORCED to conclude there is a >> corresponding electromagnetic field everywhere, including regions in >> which it is zero (which really never happens). >> >> As I said before, this is INHERENT in what "field" means. >> >> Tom Roberts > > What you mean is that it is INHERENT in the definition what a vector > field is, mathematically. Or a scalar field, or a tensor field, physically. > (Note you must use the term vector field > because otherwise the term can be confused with an algebraic field which > is something else entirely, right?) > > A vector field starts with a region of some mathematical space and a > vector quantity is assigned to each point (an infinite number of them) > in that subspace. No, over the whole space. By definition. > Therefore, by definition the vector field exists > (assuming I have chosen to define one) even though all vectors at every > point are zero. You and Odd win, right? Of course if I choose NOT to > define a field in that space (reality is determined by my imagination, > right?) then there is no field in that subspace only a coordinate > system, unless I choose not to define one of those either, in which case > there is no subspace existing at all and I win, right? > > Wrong. Mathematics is not more real than reality. In reality and in > Maxwell theory in particular, the mathematics is only a model to > describe what seems to be force field like phenomena produced by > charges. You place too much primacy on forces as the anchor to reality. As has been pointed out by physicists for a couple of centuries, the description of dynamics in terms of forces and accelerations, or by momentum and energy exchange, or by the principle of least action and a Lagrangian, or by a Hamiltonian — these are all formally equivalent, with none of them being more “real” than the others. > People (Odd's textbooks) love to talk about "fields" as if they > were real physical things. They are NOT. That’s your opinion and your bias and yours alone. They are not MY textbooks, they are the textbooks of PHYSICISTS. And so if you say you are a trained physicist while rejecting the statements made by physicists in their training materials, one has to question the value of your training. > Forces are real, models are > fantasy. Bullshit. See above. > Hence when charges are missing, there are no forces present in > the subspace. People use the terminology that there are no "fields" > there but as seen above that is mathematically wrong on several counts > if someone has defined a null vector field there. And if a charge is > suddenly placed in that subspace it is known that forces from it will > NOT be measured immediately at a distance from it (unless we are talking > ESP interactions) as the actions travel away from the source at velocity c. I’ll give you a simple example. Suppose you have a region where there is a changing, nonzero value of electric field, and outside this region the value of the field is zero, or as you would have it, no field AT ALL. Maxwell’s equations will relate how the derivative with respect to time will be related to the spatial gradient of the magnetic field. Since there was no magnetic field there at all to begin with, what magnetic field is Maxwell’s equation relating to?? Likewise, let’s allow that there is a magnetic field somehow there now which is changing, then this will specify a gradient of an electric field, including in the region where you said there was nothing for there to be a gradient of! So what is Maxwell’s equation referring to, since there IS NO electricity field to specify a gradient for? Notice carefully that Maxwell’s equations do not indicate the CREATION of a field where there was none before. They simply relate the derivatives of fields that must ALREADY BE DEFINED in that region of space. > > I certainly can DEFINE my "field" to not be present until that force > arrives. My model. My fantasy. Generally people do this. In fact it's > worse than this because EM fields are NOT quite the mathematical ones. > Because forces must be measured with a "test" charge. And means there > are interactions on both charges. So how can one define a "force field" > from just a single charge? As Jackson points out, one must use a > calculus-like limit operation to obtain that for the field values. And > Lo, that means that all those values that you are using are in truth > total fantasy and not reality at all because of that calculation! I’ll give you another example that may help. Suppose you have a body in stable equilibrium someplace. There are no forces acting on this body. There are no accelerations. You can analyze this same situation with energy considerations. Are you going to say that because there are no forces on this body, then energy is just as meaningless as fields would be? Physicists don’t say so. Potential energy may be at a local minimum there, but energy is certainly defined and REAL. > > So now it's little wonder that genius Odd (and you) have decided that in > your lib fantasy worlds what only what you can imagine is the only thing > that is real? Needless to say this is the polar opposite of real science. I’m so amused that you say all the physics textbooks get this wrong, and are therefore the opposite of “real science”. What is this “real science” you were trained on, and what materials did you use to become trained in this “real science”? Or is this “real science” something that you have invented on your own, Ben? These are straightforward questions that you could at least be honest in answering. > > Does this set you guys straight? Yeah, I didn't really think it would. > > > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-09 10:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pkhkqe$a62$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697657 |
On 8/8/2018 7:55 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8/7/2018 12:24 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 8/7/18 3:53 AM, benj wrote: >>>> Are you talking mathematics or physics? >>> >>> Both -- the mathematical structure of current physical theories and models. >>> >>>> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no >>>> charges and hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid of >>>> fields but actually is filled with an electric (an other types) of >>>> fields whose value is simply zero? >>> >>> Yes. Because if you believe Maxwell's equations apply, or if you believe >>> that QED applies, then you are FORCED to conclude there is a >>> corresponding electromagnetic field everywhere, including regions in >>> which it is zero (which really never happens). >>> >>> As I said before, this is INHERENT in what "field" means. >>> >>> Tom Roberts >> >> What you mean is that it is INHERENT in the definition what a vector >> field is, mathematically. > > Or a scalar field, or a tensor field, physically. So clearly you want to talk about mathematical fantasy rather than physics! >> (Note you must use the term vector field >> because otherwise the term can be confused with an algebraic field which >> is something else entirely, right?) >> >> A vector field starts with a region of some mathematical space and a >> vector quantity is assigned to each point (an infinite number of them) >> in that subspace. > > No, over the whole space. By definition. WRONG! I just gave the proper definition for a vector field. This is obvious since I as a mathematician can define any limit to all space that I choose and define a field over it. Math is fantasy, after all. >> Therefore, by definition the vector field exists >> (assuming I have chosen to define one) even though all vectors at every >> point are zero. You and Odd win, right? Of course if I choose NOT to >> define a field in that space (reality is determined by my imagination, >> right?) then there is no field in that subspace only a coordinate >> system, unless I choose not to define one of those either, in which case >> there is no subspace existing at all and I win, right? >> >> Wrong. Mathematics is not more real than reality. In reality and in >> Maxwell theory in particular, the mathematics is only a model to >> describe what seems to be force field like phenomena produced by >> charges. > > You place too much primacy on forces as the anchor to reality. As has been > pointed out by physicists for a couple of centuries, the description of > dynamics in terms of forces and accelerations, or by momentum and energy > exchange, or by the principle of least action and a Lagrangian, or by a > Hamiltonian — these are all formally equivalent, with none of them being > more “real” than the others. Nonsense argument. Electrical forces ARE the reality. All the different mathematical ways of describing those forces are simply mathematical models. >> People (Odd's textbooks) love to talk about "fields" as if they >> were real physical things. They are NOT. > > That’s your opinion and your bias and yours alone. They are not MY > textbooks, they are the textbooks of PHYSICISTS. And so if you say you are > a trained physicist while rejecting the statements made by physicists in > their training materials, one has to question the value of your training. So in your opinion, statements made by physicists when printed in books can never be wrong nor questioned. So which one of these books is the bible you are thumping today. Get some old physics books and see if everything the physicists said in it is absolutely true and infallible. You are making religious arguments here. >> Forces are real, models are >> fantasy. > > Bullshit. See above. So you still cling to your guns and bible that mathematics is somehow reality or conversely that fantasy is actually reality. You and Ed and Starfaker need to have a "deep thoughts" party. >> Hence when charges are missing, there are no forces present in >> the subspace. People use the terminology that there are no "fields" >> there but as seen above that is mathematically wrong on several counts >> if someone has defined a null vector field there. And if a charge is >> suddenly placed in that subspace it is known that forces from it will >> NOT be measured immediately at a distance from it (unless we are talking >> ESP interactions) as the actions travel away from the source at velocity c. > > I’ll give you a simple example. Suppose you have a region where there is a > changing, nonzero value of electric field, and outside this region the > value of the field is zero, or as you would have it, no field AT ALL. > Maxwell’s equations will relate how the derivative with respect to time > will be related to the spatial gradient of the magnetic field. Since there > was no magnetic field there at all to begin with, what magnetic field is > Maxwell’s equation relating to?? IF there is a region where the forces are zero, then obviously there still could be a mathematical field defined there of value zero. Similarly, if you examine gradients you may find the gradients are all zero as well. Hence they clearly exist but have value zero! Your confusion is that you now make the leap of faith that these mathematical fantasies are REALITY! This is known utter nonsense. The reality of what exactly causes electrical forces is not completely known. There are two different things, Odd, mathematical models and the reality we are modeling. Any (properly) trained scientist knows this and it is assumed in any conversation even when not explicitly stated. > Likewise, let’s allow that there is a magnetic field somehow there now > which is changing, then this will specify a gradient of an electric field, > including in the region where you said there was nothing for there to be a > gradient of! So what is Maxwell’s equation referring to, since there IS NO > electricity field to specify a gradient for? > Notice carefully that Maxwell’s equations do not indicate the CREATION of a > field where there was none before. They simply relate the derivatives of > fields that must ALREADY BE DEFINED in that region of space. Bravo Odd! You used the correct word "specify" rather than the incorrect one "causes". Look, if there is a changing current it creates magnetic and electric forces in the space about it. That is the reality. The mathematics is Maxwell's (Heaviside's) equations and the model they represent. So if I DEFINE a mathematical field about my current I can use the Maxwell EQUATIONS to CALCULATE and PREDICT what forces I might measure out there in that region of space. The field, the equations, the numbers are NOT the reality of the forces. The mathematics models the reality. Why do you find that so difficult to comprehend? >> >> I certainly can DEFINE my "field" to not be present until that force >> arrives. My model. My fantasy. Generally people do this. In fact it's >> worse than this because EM fields are NOT quite the mathematical ones. >> Because forces must be measured with a "test" charge. And means there >> are interactions on both charges. So how can one define a "force field" >> from just a single charge? As Jackson points out, one must use a >> calculus-like limit operation to obtain that for the field values. And >> Lo, that means that all those values that you are using are in truth >> total fantasy and not reality at all because of that calculation! > > I’ll give you another example that may help. Suppose you have a body in > stable equilibrium someplace. There are no forces acting on this body. > There are no accelerations. You can analyze this same situation with energy > considerations. Are you going to say that because there are no forces on > this body, then energy is just as meaningless as fields would be? > Physicists don’t say so. Potential energy may be at a local minimum there, > but energy is certainly defined and REAL. Hey Potential energy is obviously a fantasy because I can make it any value I choose! So is that proof that reality only exists in my fantasies? Somehow, I don't think so. Energy is actually math, while the work the energy does is reality. >> So now it's little wonder that genius Odd (and you) have decided that in >> your lib fantasy worlds what only what you can imagine is the only thing >> that is real? Needless to say this is the polar opposite of real science. > > I’m so amused that you say all the physics textbooks get this wrong, and > are therefore the opposite of “real science”. What is this “real science” > you were trained on, and what materials did you use to become trained in > this “real science”? I did not say "all". That is YOUR fantasy. And furthermore since all of what I"m saying is SUPPOSED to be understood below the surface, lots of times statements even properly formulated are misunderstood by amateurs like you (and by a few professionals as well) to leap to the erroneous conclusion that fantasy is all reality is about. If you understood the fundamentals of this science you would not jump to this erroneous conclusion. > Or is this “real science” something that you have invented on your own, > Ben? Clearly YOUR real science is a figment of your imagination. Actual science, as you have often told others (kooks) here, is determined by measurements of reality. The two are NOT the the same and reality is certainly NOT determined by your fantasies no matter what you may have read in the Hitchhikers Guide or experienced while "doing" mushrooms. > These are straightforward questions that you could at least be honest in > answering. I just did. >> Does this set you guys straight? Yeah, I didn't really think it would. Obviously this comment still applies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-09 15:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pkhmeh$dao$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697724 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/8/2018 7:55 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 8/7/2018 12:24 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>> On 8/7/18 3:53 AM, benj wrote: >>>>> Are you talking mathematics or physics? >>>> >>>> Both -- the mathematical structure of current physical theories and > models. >>>> >>>>> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no >>>>> charges and hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid of >>>>> fields but actually is filled with an electric (an other types) of >>>>> fields whose value is simply zero? >>>> >>>> Yes. Because if you believe Maxwell's equations apply, or if you > believe >>>> that QED applies, then you are FORCED to conclude there is a >>>> corresponding electromagnetic field everywhere, including regions in >>>> which it is zero (which really never happens). >>>> >>>> As I said before, this is INHERENT in what "field" means. >>>> >>>> Tom Roberts >>> >>> What you mean is that it is INHERENT in the definition what a vector >>> field is, mathematically. >> >> Or a scalar field, or a tensor field, physically. > > So clearly you want to talk about mathematical fantasy rather than physics! Not at all. The physics books I have read, including those by Nobel prize winners, have said that fields represent underlying reality. I know you disagree with that, and in so doing you distance yourself from the physics community. I know you will also complain that physics is not a democracy, but it remains the case that you have no reputation with which to claim that your personal insight is of higher value than theirs. Furthermore, your antiquated notion that the primary reality is Newtonian forced and material objects indicates to me that your outlier status is because you’ve been left behind. I want to talk about physics. But I want to talk about CURRENT physics, not the physics of 150 years ago that you cherish. > >>> (Note you must use the term vector field >>> because otherwise the term can be confused with an algebraic field which >>> is something else entirely, right?) >>> >>> A vector field starts with a region of some mathematical space and a >>> vector quantity is assigned to each point (an infinite number of them) >>> in that subspace. >> >> No, over the whole space. By definition. > WRONG! I just gave the proper definition for a vector field. This is > obvious since I as a mathematician can define any limit to all space > that I choose and define a field over it. Math is fantasy, after all. >>> Therefore, by definition the vector field exists >>> (assuming I have chosen to define one) even though all vectors at every >>> point are zero. You and Odd win, right? Of course if I choose NOT to >>> define a field in that space (reality is determined by my imagination, >>> right?) then there is no field in that subspace only a coordinate >>> system, unless I choose not to define one of those either, in which case >>> there is no subspace existing at all and I win, right? >>> >>> Wrong. Mathematics is not more real than reality. In reality and in >>> Maxwell theory in particular, the mathematics is only a model to >>> describe what seems to be force field like phenomena produced by >>> charges. >> >> You place too much primacy on forces as the anchor to reality. As has > been >> pointed out by physicists for a couple of centuries, the description of >> dynamics in terms of forces and accelerations, or by momentum and energy >> exchange, or by the principle of least action and a Lagrangian, or by a >> Hamiltonian — these are all formally equivalent, with none of them being >> more “real” than the others. > Nonsense argument. Electrical forces ARE the reality. All the different > mathematical ways of describing those forces are simply mathematical > models. >>> People (Odd's textbooks) love to talk about "fields" as if they >>> were real physical things. They are NOT. >> >> That’s your opinion and your bias and yours alone. They are not MY >> textbooks, they are the textbooks of PHYSICISTS. And so if you say > you are >> a trained physicist while rejecting the statements made by physicists in >> their training materials, one has to question the value of your training. > So in your opinion, statements made by physicists when printed in books > can never be wrong nor questioned. So which one of these books is the > bible you are thumping today. Get some old physics books and see if > everything the physicists said in it is absolutely true and infallible. > You are making religious arguments here. >>> Forces are real, models are >>> fantasy. >> >> Bullshit. See above. > > So you still cling to your guns and bible that mathematics is somehow > reality or conversely that fantasy is actually reality. You and Ed and > Starfaker need to have a "deep thoughts" party. > >>> Hence when charges are missing, there are no forces present in >>> the subspace. People use the terminology that there are no "fields" >>> there but as seen above that is mathematically wrong on several counts >>> if someone has defined a null vector field there. And if a charge is >>> suddenly placed in that subspace it is known that forces from it will >>> NOT be measured immediately at a distance from it (unless we are talking >>> ESP interactions) as the actions travel away from the source at > velocity c. >> >> I’ll give you a simple example. Suppose you have a region where there > is a >> changing, nonzero value of electric field, and outside this region the >> value of the field is zero, or as you would have it, no field AT ALL. >> Maxwell’s equations will relate how the derivative with respect to time >> will be related to the spatial gradient of the magnetic field. Since > there >> was no magnetic field there at all to begin with, what magnetic field is >> Maxwell’s equation relating to?? > IF there is a region where the forces are zero, then obviously there > still could be a mathematical field defined there of value zero. > Similarly, if you examine gradients you may find the gradients are all > zero as well. Hence they clearly exist but have value zero! Your > confusion is that you now make the leap of faith that these mathematical > fantasies are REALITY! This is known utter nonsense. The reality of what > exactly causes electrical forces is not completely known. There are two > different things, Odd, mathematical models and the reality we are > modeling. Any (properly) trained scientist knows this and it is assumed > in any conversation even when not explicitly stated. > > >> Likewise, let’s allow that there is a magnetic field somehow there now >> which is changing, then this will specify a gradient of an electric > field, >> including in the region where you said there was nothing for there to > be a >> gradient of! So what is Maxwell’s equation referring to, since there > IS NO >> electricity field to specify a gradient for? >> Notice carefully that Maxwell’s equations do not indicate the > CREATION of a >> field where there was none before. They simply relate the derivatives of >> fields that must ALREADY BE DEFINED in that region of space. > > Bravo Odd! You used the correct word "specify" rather than the incorrect > one "causes". Look, if there is a changing current it creates magnetic > and electric forces in the space about it. That is the reality. The > mathematics is Maxwell's (Heaviside's) equations and the model they > represent. So if I DEFINE a mathematical field about my current I can > use the Maxwell EQUATIONS to CALCULATE and PREDICT what forces I might > measure out there in that region of space. The field, the equations, the > numbers are NOT the reality of the forces. The mathematics models the > reality. Why do you find that so difficult to comprehend? > >>> >>> I certainly can DEFINE my "field" to not be present until that force >>> arrives. My model. My fantasy. Generally people do this. In fact it's >>> worse than this because EM fields are NOT quite the mathematical ones. >>> Because forces must be measured with a "test" charge. And means there >>> are interactions on both charges. So how can one define a "force field" >>> from just a single charge? As Jackson points out, one must use a >>> calculus-like limit operation to obtain that for the field values. And >>> Lo, that means that all those values that you are using are in truth >>> total fantasy and not reality at all because of that calculation! >> >> I’ll give you another example that may help. Suppose you have a body in >> stable equilibrium someplace. There are no forces acting on this body. >> There are no accelerations. You can analyze this same situation with > energy >> considerations. Are you going to say that because there are no forces on >> this body, then energy is just as meaningless as fields would be? >> Physicists don’t say so. Potential energy may be at a local minimum > there, >> but energy is certainly defined and REAL. > > Hey Potential energy is obviously a fantasy because I can make it any > value I choose! So is that proof that reality only exists in my > fantasies? Somehow, I don't think so. Energy is actually math, while the > work the energy does is reality. > >>> So now it's little wonder that genius Odd (and you) have decided that in >>> your lib fantasy worlds what only what you can imagine is the only thing >>> that is real? Needless to say this is the polar opposite of real > science. >> >> I’m so amused that you say all the physics textbooks get this wrong, and >> are therefore the opposite of “real science”. What is this “real science” >> you were trained on, and what materials did you use to become trained in >> this “real science”? > I did not say "all". That is YOUR fantasy. And furthermore since all of > what I"m saying is SUPPOSED to be understood below the surface, lots of > times statements even properly formulated are misunderstood by amateurs > like you (and by a few professionals as well) to leap to the erroneous > conclusion that fantasy is all reality is about. If you understood the > fundamentals of this science you would not jump to this erroneous > conclusion. >> Or is this “real science” something that you have invented on your own, >> Ben? > > Clearly YOUR real science is a figment of your imagination. Actual > science, as you have often told others (kooks) here, is determined by > measurements of reality. The two are NOT the the same and reality is > certainly NOT determined by your fantasies no matter what you may have > read in the Hitchhikers Guide or experienced while "doing" mushrooms. > >> These are straightforward questions that you could at least be honest in >> answering. > > I just did. > >>> Does this set you guys straight? Yeah, I didn't really think it would. > > Obviously this comment still applies. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-09 12:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pkhqic$kim$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697732 |
On 8/9/2018 11:26 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8/8/2018 7:55 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 8/7/2018 12:24 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>> On 8/7/18 3:53 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>> Are you talking mathematics or physics? >>>>> >>>>> Both -- the mathematical structure of current physical theories and >> models. >>>>> >>>>>> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no >>>>>> charges and hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid of >>>>>> fields but actually is filled with an electric (an other types) of >>>>>> fields whose value is simply zero? >>>>> >>>>> Yes. Because if you believe Maxwell's equations apply, or if you >> believe >>>>> that QED applies, then you are FORCED to conclude there is a >>>>> corresponding electromagnetic field everywhere, including regions in >>>>> which it is zero (which really never happens). >>>>> >>>>> As I said before, this is INHERENT in what "field" means. >>>>> >>>>> Tom Roberts >>>> >>>> What you mean is that it is INHERENT in the definition what a vector >>>> field is, mathematically. >>> >>> Or a scalar field, or a tensor field, physically. >> >> So clearly you want to talk about mathematical fantasy rather than physics! > > Not at all. The physics books I have read, including those by Nobel prize > winners, have said that fields represent underlying reality. I know you > disagree with that, and in so doing you distance yourself from the physics > community. I know you will also complain that physics is not a democracy, > but it remains the case that you have no reputation with which to claim > that your personal insight is of higher value than theirs. Furthermore, > your antiquated notion that the primary reality is Newtonian forced and > material objects indicates to me that your outlier status is because you’ve > been left behind. Dear boy, I have taken CLASSES from Nobel prize winners. Have you? Listen to your OWN WORDS: "Fields REPRESENT underlying reality". That has been my point over an over and yet you persist in your delusion that mathematical fields ARE reality. That is simply nonsense and insane as is your insistence that it is true. Science does not depend on reputation. The fact that there are those in physics who have adopted your religion that mathematics is more real than reality does not make those ideas valid. It's does not matter how many of them there are. If measurements do not back up your theories then as Feynman said, then your theories are WRONG. PERIOD! > I want to talk about physics. But I want to talk about CURRENT physics, not > the physics of 150 years ago that you cherish. Principles of science and laws of nature do not change over time. That is an axiom with considerable experimental confirmation. How you think that a separation of models and reality is ancient science I have no idea. Odd, until you get this fundamental concept of how science works, you will always remain still an idiot. >>>> (Note you must use the term vector field >>>> because otherwise the term can be confused with an algebraic field which >>>> is something else entirely, right?) >>>> >>>> A vector field starts with a region of some mathematical space and a >>>> vector quantity is assigned to each point (an infinite number of them) >>>> in that subspace. >>> >>> No, over the whole space. By definition. >> WRONG! I just gave the proper definition for a vector field. This is >> obvious since I as a mathematician can define any limit to all space >> that I choose and define a field over it. Math is fantasy, after all. >>>> Therefore, by definition the vector field exists >>>> (assuming I have chosen to define one) even though all vectors at every >>>> point are zero. You and Odd win, right? Of course if I choose NOT to >>>> define a field in that space (reality is determined by my imagination, >>>> right?) then there is no field in that subspace only a coordinate >>>> system, unless I choose not to define one of those either, in which case >>>> there is no subspace existing at all and I win, right? >>>> >>>> Wrong. Mathematics is not more real than reality. In reality and in >>>> Maxwell theory in particular, the mathematics is only a model to >>>> describe what seems to be force field like phenomena produced by >>>> charges. >>> >>> You place too much primacy on forces as the anchor to reality. As has >> been >>> pointed out by physicists for a couple of centuries, the description of >>> dynamics in terms of forces and accelerations, or by momentum and energy >>> exchange, or by the principle of least action and a Lagrangian, or by a >>> Hamiltonian — these are all formally equivalent, with none of them being >>> more “real” than the others. >> Nonsense argument. Electrical forces ARE the reality. All the different >> mathematical ways of describing those forces are simply mathematical >> models. >>>> People (Odd's textbooks) love to talk about "fields" as if they >>>> were real physical things. They are NOT. >>> >>> That’s your opinion and your bias and yours alone. They are not MY >>> textbooks, they are the textbooks of PHYSICISTS. And so if you say >> you are >>> a trained physicist while rejecting the statements made by physicists in >>> their training materials, one has to question the value of your training. >> So in your opinion, statements made by physicists when printed in books >> can never be wrong nor questioned. So which one of these books is the >> bible you are thumping today. Get some old physics books and see if >> everything the physicists said in it is absolutely true and infallible. >> You are making religious arguments here. >>>> Forces are real, models are >>>> fantasy. >>> >>> Bullshit. See above. >> >> So you still cling to your guns and bible that mathematics is somehow >> reality or conversely that fantasy is actually reality. You and Ed and >> Starfaker need to have a "deep thoughts" party. >> >>>> Hence when charges are missing, there are no forces present in >>>> the subspace. People use the terminology that there are no "fields" >>>> there but as seen above that is mathematically wrong on several counts >>>> if someone has defined a null vector field there. And if a charge is >>>> suddenly placed in that subspace it is known that forces from it will >>>> NOT be measured immediately at a distance from it (unless we are talking >>>> ESP interactions) as the actions travel away from the source at >> velocity c. >>> >>> I’ll give you a simple example. Suppose you have a region where there >> is a >>> changing, nonzero value of electric field, and outside this region the >>> value of the field is zero, or as you would have it, no field AT ALL. >>> Maxwell’s equations will relate how the derivative with respect to time >>> will be related to the spatial gradient of the magnetic field. Since >> there >>> was no magnetic field there at all to begin with, what magnetic field is >>> Maxwell’s equation relating to?? >> IF there is a region where the forces are zero, then obviously there >> still could be a mathematical field defined there of value zero. >> Similarly, if you examine gradients you may find the gradients are all >> zero as well. Hence they clearly exist but have value zero! Your >> confusion is that you now make the leap of faith that these mathematical >> fantasies are REALITY! This is known utter nonsense. The reality of what >> exactly causes electrical forces is not completely known. There are two >> different things, Odd, mathematical models and the reality we are >> modeling. Any (properly) trained scientist knows this and it is assumed >> in any conversation even when not explicitly stated. >> >> >>> Likewise, let’s allow that there is a magnetic field somehow there now >>> which is changing, then this will specify a gradient of an electric >> field, >>> including in the region where you said there was nothing for there to >> be a >>> gradient of! So what is Maxwell’s equation referring to, since there >> IS NO >>> electricity field to specify a gradient for? >>> Notice carefully that Maxwell’s equations do not indicate the >> CREATION of a >>> field where there was none before. They simply relate the derivatives of >>> fields that must ALREADY BE DEFINED in that region of space. >> >> Bravo Odd! You used the correct word "specify" rather than the incorrect >> one "causes". Look, if there is a changing current it creates magnetic >> and electric forces in the space about it. That is the reality. The >> mathematics is Maxwell's (Heaviside's) equations and the model they >> represent. So if I DEFINE a mathematical field about my current I can >> use the Maxwell EQUATIONS to CALCULATE and PREDICT what forces I might >> measure out there in that region of space. The field, the equations, the >> numbers are NOT the reality of the forces. The mathematics models the >> reality. Why do you find that so difficult to comprehend? >> >>>> >>>> I certainly can DEFINE my "field" to not be present until that force >>>> arrives. My model. My fantasy. Generally people do this. In fact it's >>>> worse than this because EM fields are NOT quite the mathematical ones. >>>> Because forces must be measured with a "test" charge. And means there >>>> are interactions on both charges. So how can one define a "force field" >>>> from just a single charge? As Jackson points out, one must use a >>>> calculus-like limit operation to obtain that for the field values. And >>>> Lo, that means that all those values that you are using are in truth >>>> total fantasy and not reality at all because of that calculation! >>> >>> I’ll give you another example that may help. Suppose you have a body in >>> stable equilibrium someplace. There are no forces acting on this body. >>> There are no accelerations. You can analyze this same situation with >> energy >>> considerations. Are you going to say that because there are no forces on >>> this body, then energy is just as meaningless as fields would be? >>> Physicists don’t say so. Potential energy may be at a local minimum >> there, >>> but energy is certainly defined and REAL. >> >> Hey Potential energy is obviously a fantasy because I can make it any >> value I choose! So is that proof that reality only exists in my >> fantasies? Somehow, I don't think so. Energy is actually math, while the >> work the energy does is reality. >> >>>> So now it's little wonder that genius Odd (and you) have decided that in >>>> your lib fantasy worlds what only what you can imagine is the only thing >>>> that is real? Needless to say this is the polar opposite of real >> science. >>> >>> I’m so amused that you say all the physics textbooks get this wrong, and >>> are therefore the opposite of “real science”. What is this “real science” >>> you were trained on, and what materials did you use to become trained in >>> this “real science”? >> I did not say "all". That is YOUR fantasy. And furthermore since all of >> what I"m saying is SUPPOSED to be understood below the surface, lots of >> times statements even properly formulated are misunderstood by amateurs >> like you (and by a few professionals as well) to leap to the erroneous >> conclusion that fantasy is all reality is about. If you understood the >> fundamentals of this science you would not jump to this erroneous >> conclusion. >>> Or is this “real science” something that you have invented on your own, >>> Ben? >> >> Clearly YOUR real science is a figment of your imagination. Actual >> science, as you have often told others (kooks) here, is determined by >> measurements of reality. The two are NOT the the same and reality is >> certainly NOT determined by your fantasies no matter what you may have >> read in the Hitchhikers Guide or experienced while "doing" mushrooms. >> >>> These are straightforward questions that you could at least be honest in >>> answering. >> >> I just did. >> >>>> Does this set you guys straight? Yeah, I didn't really think it would. >> >> Obviously this comment still applies. >> > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web