Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #698763 > unrolled thread
| Started by | casagiannoni@optonline.net |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-08-16 16:14 -0400 |
| Last post | 2018-08-18 15:57 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 99 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Light Speed Limit casagiannoni@optonline.net - 2018-08-16 16:14 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-16 13:33 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 15:12 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 19:47 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit casagiannoni@optonline.net - 2018-08-16 20:08 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-16 17:15 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 20:32 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-17 12:55 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 20:28 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit casagiannoni@optonline.net - 2018-08-17 08:00 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 05:48 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit casagiannoni@optonline.net - 2018-08-17 10:42 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 15:27 +0000
Re: Light Speed Limit john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 08:37 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 15:47 +0000
Re: Light Speed Limit john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 09:03 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 16:41 +0000
Re: Light Speed Limit benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 14:19 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 20:39 +0000
Re: Light Speed Limit benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 18:29 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 22:38 +0000
Re: Light Speed Limit benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 08:57 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 14:27 +0000
Re: Light Speed Limit benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 16:41 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 16:47 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-18 21:24 -0500
Re: Light Speed Limit Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 20:27 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:40 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 15:09 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 23:03 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 18:26 +0000
Re: Light Speed Limit benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:00 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 20:39 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:50 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 15:24 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 01:20 +0000
Re: Light Speed Limit john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 18:33 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 18:26 +0000
Re: Light Speed Limit john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 12:14 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 20:47 +0000
Re: Light Speed Limit john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 14:33 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 21:45 +0000
Re: Light Speed Limit john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 16:28 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 23:50 +0000
Re: Light Speed Limit john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 05:27 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:29 +0000
Re: Light Speed Limit Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 20:48 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 22:07 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 18:26 +0000
Re: Light Speed Limit benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:09 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 19:50 +0000
Re: Light Speed Limit benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 18:06 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 22:22 +0000
Re: Light Speed Limit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 22:45 +0000
Re: Light Speed Limit mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-20 17:54 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-20 21:03 -0500
Re: Light Speed Limit Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 15:28 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-23 06:19 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-18 16:48 -0500
Re: Light Speed Limit Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 16:21 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 13:32 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 20:26 +0000
Re: Light Speed Limit benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 18:20 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 15:52 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 21:59 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 13:21 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 10:27 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 18:16 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 16:39 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 10:35 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 10:01 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 10:16 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 13:59 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 16:12 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 17:04 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 20:18 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:27 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit casagiannoni@optonline.net - 2018-08-16 19:50 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 00:59 +0000
Re: Light Speed Limit benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 06:36 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit casagiannoni@optonline.net - 2018-08-17 07:47 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 13:22 +0000
Re: Light Speed Limit casagiannoni@optonline.net - 2018-08-17 10:27 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 08:10 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 15:35 +0000
Re: Light Speed Limit john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 08:51 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 14:27 +0000
Re: Light Speed Limit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 15:19 +0000
Re: Light Speed Limit benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 13:28 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 10:45 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 13:27 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 10:18 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit casagiannoni@optonline.net - 2018-08-17 13:49 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 20:39 +0000
Re: Light Speed Limit casagiannoni@optonline.net - 2018-08-17 16:47 -0400
Re: Light Speed Limit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 20:58 +0000
Re: Light Speed Limit john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 15:12 -0700
Re: Light Speed Limit Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 22:33 +0000
Re: Light Speed Limit Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 15:57 -0700
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 14:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8a26d5cf-e6d1-4760-8b68-31386ae6f205@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #699253 |
Odd “I’m not backpedaling anywhere, John. You can’t absorb what people tell you. ” You just talk nonsense, Odd. Gas molecules may move randomly, but electrons certainly don’t. You ‘move goalposts’ so often, just like benj says. Your sky is falling, Odd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 21:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plcodv$mif$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699258 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “I’m not backpedaling anywhere, John. You can’t absorb what people tell you. > ” > You just talk nonsense, Odd. > Gas molecules may move randomly, but electrons certainly don’t. Yes they do. Your argument recall is that bodies like electrons can’t influence each other by moving randomly. Gas molecules do. The argument is crap. Your GUT FEEL about electrons counts for nothing and your arguments aren’t worth shit. > You ‘move goalposts’ so often, just like benj says. Do you even know what that phrase means? > Your sky is falling, Odd > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 16:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d13e7292-e3fd-46e1-adfd-097c6bde096f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #699261 |
Odd “Your argument recall is that bodies like electrons can’t influence each other by moving randomly. Gas molecules do. The argument is ” Electrons are constrained Gas, no. You are STILL an idiot
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 23:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plcvo5$11no$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699272 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “Your argument recall is that bodies like electrons can’t > influence each other by moving randomly. Gas molecules do. The argument is ” > > Electrons are constrained So? How does constraining a body suddenly enforce fixed trajectories? > Gas, no. In a bottle? Yes they are. > You are STILL an idiot > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 05:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <becb9590-dd0c-4340-b4c3-979c6cacd251@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #699274 |
Odd “So? How does constraining a body suddenly enforce fixed trajectories? ” Fly an airplane on a string. Now fly two at once, Or Maypole. Cmon, Odd- ur not THAT dumb?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 14:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plej93$1gpu$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699309 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “So? How does constraining a body suddenly enforce fixed trajectories? ” > Fly an airplane on a string. > Now fly two at once, > Or > Maypole. > > Cmon, Odd- ur not THAT dumb? > An airplane has fixed, nonrandom trajectory without the string. I suspect there is just a miss in the language. What do the following mean to you? Random Fixed trajectory Constrained -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 20:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ec652f5e-b233-44e1-bd5d-1eaf4fd7d114@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #699248 |
On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 3:15:01 PM UTC-4, john wrote: > Odd > “To YOU it does, because math conveys NO information to you. This is not ” > You have NO conceptual model. Not even a valid statement. model of what? > The Bohr model is still taught. It is sometimes best to learn simpler models before proceeding o more advanced models. what's wrong with that. > You say it’s wrong. > You’re the liar, here. non-scientific name calling. noted but ignored. > If electrons influence other electrons, then they > certainly don’t move randomly within the atom. not on any measurable path. > You say not only that they HAVE no proscribed movement, > but that they DON’T move. > You’re all over the map, bro. You have severely misunderstood the ideas presented here by Odd (often pointing to the original sources). Your misunderstanding has been noted many times. > > Backpedaling to where, Odd? Don’t know- can’t see Open you eyes john. Move to the light. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-18 22:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <plajdp$heo$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699141 |
On 8/18/2018 9:20 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8/18/2018 10:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 8/17/2018 6:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 8/17/2018 4:39 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/17/2018 12:41 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Odd >>>>>>>>>> “And if it isn’t presented like a comic book illustration >>>>>>>>>> to John, the way he’d like it, then it is WRONG. >>>>>>>>>> “ >>>>>>>>>> Present it ANY OTHER way >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The way that it’s in books is perfect for me and I’m a woodworker. Why >>>>>>>>> doesn’t that work for you??? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and have it make sense. >>>>>>>>>> You can’t because it’s mathematical smoke and mirrors. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Mathematics is a language. You just have to learn it. Calling it smoke and >>>>>>>>> mirrors to avoid that is just a pathetic excuse. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And English is a language. Where did you ever get the wacko idea that it >>>>>>>> is not possible to translate from one language to another? Your ideas >>>>>>>> are anti-intellectual babble. Suffice it to say, Odd, that even though I >>>>>>>> am a shit mathematician I speak and understand the language of >>>>>>>> mathematics FAR more fluently than you do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ah good. Then please demonstrate. Please translate Maxwell’s equations into >>>>>>> language plain enough that John will acquire an accurate understanding of >>>>>>> their physics content. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I’ll wait here for the delivery of what you assure is straightforward. >>>>>> >>>>>> So if I tell you (oh barmaid and carpenter) that if one measures the >>>>>> magnetic force one finds at every place on some surface in space (say >>>>>> enclosing a magnet) then the sum total of those forces will always add >>>>>> up to zero, you somehow think this is not straightforward? >>>>> >>>>> This you believe represents the physics content of Maxwell’s equations????? >>>>> >>>>> And furthermore you believe that is the accurate statement that captures >>>>> del*B = 0??? >>>> >>>> And you believe that the essence includes the rules of mathematics? This >>>> shows just how far you are removed from science. Sure I can explain the >>>> rules of math (what vectors are, what fields are, how one takes an >>>> integral and so one, but that is mathematics. You asked for a >>>> translation of the essence which I did. >>> >>> And you did it very badly. Want to dive in and see why? >>> >>> Let’s start with “measures the magnetic force” everywhere on a surface. >>> Force on what? >> >> I take it you have never noticed that magnets produce a force on each >> other. > > Well notice you didn’t say force in magnets in your simple description. And > on this surface in space how are these magnets aligned? I didn't say "force in magnets", I said "magnetic force" where I assumed that most humans are smart enough to make the connection to magnets. I obviously forgot to take into account humans dumb as you. John really has you pegged right. >> It's one of the basic facts of reality. "Badly" is your >> understanding of science. >> >>>> But in your world logic and >>>> essence is to be eschewed. You bask in fraud and jargon and complexity >>>> rather than appreciating that the advantage of using the mathematics as >>>> a descriptive language rather than some other language is it's >>>> compactness. The fact that math is compact does not mean no other >>>> language can be used. >>>> >>>> John is right about you. When it comes to understanding science you are >>>> really really ignorant. As my mom used to say to me: How can someone so >>>> smart be so dumb! >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 18:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plccnq$1k6$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699152 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/18/2018 9:20 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 8/18/2018 10:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 8/17/2018 6:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/17/2018 4:39 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2018 12:41 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Odd >>>>>>>>>>> “And if it isn’t presented like a comic book illustration >>>>>>>>>>> to John, the way he’d like it, then it is WRONG. >>>>>>>>>>> “ >>>>>>>>>>> Present it ANY OTHER way >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The way that it’s in books is perfect for me and I’m a woodworker. Why >>>>>>>>>> doesn’t that work for you??? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> and have it make sense. >>>>>>>>>>> You can’t because it’s mathematical smoke and mirrors. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Mathematics is a language. You just have to learn it. Calling it smoke and >>>>>>>>>> mirrors to avoid that is just a pathetic excuse. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And English is a language. Where did you ever get the wacko idea that it >>>>>>>>> is not possible to translate from one language to another? Your ideas >>>>>>>>> are anti-intellectual babble. Suffice it to say, Odd, that even though I >>>>>>>>> am a shit mathematician I speak and understand the language of >>>>>>>>> mathematics FAR more fluently than you do. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ah good. Then please demonstrate. Please translate Maxwell’s equations into >>>>>>>> language plain enough that John will acquire an accurate understanding of >>>>>>>> their physics content. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I’ll wait here for the delivery of what you assure is straightforward. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So if I tell you (oh barmaid and carpenter) that if one measures the >>>>>>> magnetic force one finds at every place on some surface in space (say >>>>>>> enclosing a magnet) then the sum total of those forces will always add >>>>>>> up to zero, you somehow think this is not straightforward? >>>>>> >>>>>> This you believe represents the physics content of Maxwell’s equations????? >>>>>> >>>>>> And furthermore you believe that is the accurate statement that captures >>>>>> del*B = 0??? >>>>> >>>>> And you believe that the essence includes the rules of mathematics? This >>>>> shows just how far you are removed from science. Sure I can explain the >>>>> rules of math (what vectors are, what fields are, how one takes an >>>>> integral and so one, but that is mathematics. You asked for a >>>>> translation of the essence which I did. >>>> >>>> And you did it very badly. Want to dive in and see why? >>>> >>>> Let’s start with “measures the magnetic force” everywhere on a surface. >>>> Force on what? >>> >>> I take it you have never noticed that magnets produce a force on each >>> other. >> >> Well notice you didn’t say force in magnets in your simple description. And >> on this surface in space how are these magnets aligned? > > I didn't say "force in magnets", I said "magnetic force" where I assumed > that most humans are smart enough to make the connection to magnets. Well, let’s see, there are magnetic forces on electrons, which are not magnets. There are magnetic forces on conducting wires with currents which are not magnets. There are magnetic forces on plasmas, which are not magnets. There are magnetic forces on diamagnetic materials, which are not magnets. So tell me again what “magnetic forces” should imply. And so let’s say you are talking about ferromagnets on this surface in space. How are they aligned on the surface? You didn’t say, but that most certainly does matter. And you know of course that if these are ferromagnets, then this is a nonlinear problem. Tell me again how your pithy statement captures the physics of del*B=0. > I > obviously forgot to take into account humans dumb as you. John really > has you pegged right. > >>> It's one of the basic facts of reality. "Badly" is your >>> understanding of science. >>> >>>>> But in your world logic and >>>>> essence is to be eschewed. You bask in fraud and jargon and complexity >>>>> rather than appreciating that the advantage of using the mathematics as >>>>> a descriptive language rather than some other language is it's >>>>> compactness. The fact that math is compact does not mean no other >>>>> language can be used. >>>>> >>>>> John is right about you. When it comes to understanding science you are >>>>> really really ignorant. As my mom used to say to me: How can someone so >>>>> smart be so dumb! >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 14:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <plf047$ain$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699239 |
On 8/19/2018 2:26 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8/18/2018 9:20 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 8/18/2018 10:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 8/17/2018 6:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/17/2018 4:39 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2018 12:41 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Odd >>>>>>>>>>>> “And if it isn’t presented like a comic book illustration >>>>>>>>>>>> to John, the way he’d like it, then it is WRONG. >>>>>>>>>>>> “ >>>>>>>>>>>> Present it ANY OTHER way >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The way that it’s in books is perfect for me and I’m a woodworker. Why >>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t that work for you??? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> and have it make sense. >>>>>>>>>>>> You can’t because it’s mathematical smoke and mirrors. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Mathematics is a language. You just have to learn it. Calling it smoke and >>>>>>>>>>> mirrors to avoid that is just a pathetic excuse. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And English is a language. Where did you ever get the wacko idea that it >>>>>>>>>> is not possible to translate from one language to another? Your ideas >>>>>>>>>> are anti-intellectual babble. Suffice it to say, Odd, that even though I >>>>>>>>>> am a shit mathematician I speak and understand the language of >>>>>>>>>> mathematics FAR more fluently than you do. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ah good. Then please demonstrate. Please translate Maxwell’s equations into >>>>>>>>> language plain enough that John will acquire an accurate understanding of >>>>>>>>> their physics content. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I’ll wait here for the delivery of what you assure is straightforward. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So if I tell you (oh barmaid and carpenter) that if one measures the >>>>>>>> magnetic force one finds at every place on some surface in space (say >>>>>>>> enclosing a magnet) then the sum total of those forces will always add >>>>>>>> up to zero, you somehow think this is not straightforward? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This you believe represents the physics content of Maxwell’s equations????? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And furthermore you believe that is the accurate statement that captures >>>>>>> del*B = 0??? >>>>>> >>>>>> And you believe that the essence includes the rules of mathematics? This >>>>>> shows just how far you are removed from science. Sure I can explain the >>>>>> rules of math (what vectors are, what fields are, how one takes an >>>>>> integral and so one, but that is mathematics. You asked for a >>>>>> translation of the essence which I did. >>>>> >>>>> And you did it very badly. Want to dive in and see why? >>>>> >>>>> Let’s start with “measures the magnetic force” everywhere on a surface. >>>>> Force on what? >>>> >>>> I take it you have never noticed that magnets produce a force on each >>>> other. >>> >>> Well notice you didn’t say force in magnets in your simple description. And >>> on this surface in space how are these magnets aligned? >> >> I didn't say "force in magnets", I said "magnetic force" where I assumed >> that most humans are smart enough to make the connection to magnets. > > Well, let’s see, there are magnetic forces on electrons, which are not > magnets. There are magnetic forces on conducting wires with currents which > are not magnets. There are magnetic forces on plasmas, which are not > magnets. There are magnetic forces on diamagnetic materials, which are not > magnets. So tell me again what “magnetic forces” should imply. As far as is known all magnetic forces are due to currents. Try learning some science, Odd. > And so let’s say you are talking about ferromagnets on this surface in > space. How are they aligned on the surface? You didn’t say, but that most > certainly does matter. Nobody said anything about magnets on a surface. Turn off your fnatasy machine Odd, that is not science. Go write the great American Novel (lies) with it. > And you know of course that if these are ferromagnets, then this is a > nonlinear problem. > > Tell me again how your pithy statement captures the physics of del*B=0. Go read a textbook and understand it for a change. You might learn about Gauss's law. It's a fundamental part of electromagnetics. And why do you insist on obscuring the meaning by insisting on the differential form when we are talking about the integral form. I never saw any human so determined to stay ignorant and confuse as many people about him as he could with a bunch of babbling nonsense. You truly are a fool just as John says. >> obviously forgot to take into account humans dumb as you. John really >> has you pegged right. >> >>>> It's one of the basic facts of reality. "Badly" is your >>>> understanding of science. >>>> >>>>>> But in your world logic and >>>>>> essence is to be eschewed. You bask in fraud and jargon and complexity >>>>>> rather than appreciating that the advantage of using the mathematics as >>>>>> a descriptive language rather than some other language is it's >>>>>> compactness. The fact that math is compact does not mean no other >>>>>> language can be used. >>>>>> >>>>>> John is right about you. When it comes to understanding science you are >>>>>> really really ignorant. As my mom used to say to me: How can someone so >>>>>> smart be so dumb! >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 19:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plf61u$le3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699332 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/19/2018 2:26 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 8/18/2018 9:20 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 8/18/2018 10:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/17/2018 6:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2018 4:39 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2018 12:41 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd >>>>>>>>>>>>> “And if it isn’t presented like a comic book illustration >>>>>>>>>>>>> to John, the way he’d like it, then it is WRONG. >>>>>>>>>>>>> “ >>>>>>>>>>>>> Present it ANY OTHER way >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The way that it’s in books is perfect for me and I’m a woodworker. Why >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t that work for you??? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and have it make sense. >>>>>>>>>>>>> You can’t because it’s mathematical smoke and mirrors. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mathematics is a language. You just have to learn it. Calling it smoke and >>>>>>>>>>>> mirrors to avoid that is just a pathetic excuse. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And English is a language. Where did you ever get the wacko idea that it >>>>>>>>>>> is not possible to translate from one language to another? Your ideas >>>>>>>>>>> are anti-intellectual babble. Suffice it to say, Odd, that even though I >>>>>>>>>>> am a shit mathematician I speak and understand the language of >>>>>>>>>>> mathematics FAR more fluently than you do. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ah good. Then please demonstrate. Please translate Maxwell’s equations into >>>>>>>>>> language plain enough that John will acquire an accurate understanding of >>>>>>>>>> their physics content. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I’ll wait here for the delivery of what you assure is straightforward. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So if I tell you (oh barmaid and carpenter) that if one measures the >>>>>>>>> magnetic force one finds at every place on some surface in space (say >>>>>>>>> enclosing a magnet) then the sum total of those forces will always add >>>>>>>>> up to zero, you somehow think this is not straightforward? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This you believe represents the physics content of Maxwell’s equations????? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And furthermore you believe that is the accurate statement that captures >>>>>>>> del*B = 0??? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And you believe that the essence includes the rules of mathematics? This >>>>>>> shows just how far you are removed from science. Sure I can explain the >>>>>>> rules of math (what vectors are, what fields are, how one takes an >>>>>>> integral and so one, but that is mathematics. You asked for a >>>>>>> translation of the essence which I did. >>>>>> >>>>>> And you did it very badly. Want to dive in and see why? >>>>>> >>>>>> Let’s start with “measures the magnetic force” everywhere on a surface. >>>>>> Force on what? >>>>> >>>>> I take it you have never noticed that magnets produce a force on each >>>>> other. >>>> >>>> Well notice you didn’t say force in magnets in your simple description. And >>>> on this surface in space how are these magnets aligned? >>> >>> I didn't say "force in magnets", I said "magnetic force" where I assumed >>> that most humans are smart enough to make the connection to magnets. >> >> Well, let’s see, there are magnetic forces on electrons, which are not >> magnets. There are magnetic forces on conducting wires with currents which >> are not magnets. There are magnetic forces on plasmas, which are not >> magnets. There are magnetic forces on diamagnetic materials, which are not >> magnets. So tell me again what “magnetic forces” should imply. > > As far as is known all magnetic forces are due to currents. Try learning > some science, Odd. Due to, or acting on? Remember, your statement talked about measuring magnetic forces on a surface. Should you perhaps have said something in your description about measuring magnetic forces acting on currents? Remember you’re trying to make the language plain enough that John can get an accurate understanding. So, for John’s sake, are all the currents in this surface in space of equal magnitude? Which direction are they going? Where does the current come from and go to, or does that not matter? Does it matter if the current is through a narrow cross-sectional area or a wide one? And what is this surface you’re talking about? Is it a math fantasy or a real surface? Remember the goal is to get John to understand it, using plain language in sufficient detail. > >> And so let’s say you are talking about ferromagnets on this surface in >> space. How are they aligned on the surface? You didn’t say, but that most >> certainly does matter. > > Nobody said anything about magnets on a surface. Well you didn’t say otherwise, so John might assume you were intending that. Nor are they excluded. But if you start looking at the magnetic forces on ferromagnets on the surface, you’ve got a nonlinear problem. > Turn off your fnatasy > machine Odd, that is not science. Go write the great American Novel > (lies) with it. > >> And you know of course that if these are ferromagnets, then this is a >> nonlinear problem. >> >> Tell me again how your pithy statement captures the physics of del*B=0. > > Go read a textbook and understand it for a change. You might learn about > Gauss's law. It's a fundamental part of electromagnetics. And why do you > insist on obscuring the meaning by insisting on the differential form > when we are talking about the integral form. Really? I thought we were talking in plain language form which should be independent if the math form, no? You said you could explain this well enough that John could understand it. Are you saying you’ve done that? > I never saw any human so > determined to stay ignorant and confuse as many people about him as he > could with a bunch of babbling nonsense. You truly are a fool just as > John says. > >>> obviously forgot to take into account humans dumb as you. John really >>> has you pegged right. >>> >>>>> It's one of the basic facts of reality. "Badly" is your >>>>> understanding of science. >>>>> >>>>>>> But in your world logic and >>>>>>> essence is to be eschewed. You bask in fraud and jargon and complexity >>>>>>> rather than appreciating that the advantage of using the mathematics as >>>>>>> a descriptive language rather than some other language is it's >>>>>>> compactness. The fact that math is compact does not mean no other >>>>>>> language can be used. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John is right about you. When it comes to understanding science you are >>>>>>> really really ignorant. As my mom used to say to me: How can someone so >>>>>>> smart be so dumb! >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 18:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <plfe14$12jc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699349 |
On 8/20/2018 3:50 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8/19/2018 2:26 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 8/18/2018 9:20 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 8/18/2018 10:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/17/2018 6:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2018 4:39 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2018 12:41 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd >>>>>>>>>>>>>> “And if it isn’t presented like a comic book illustration >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to John, the way he’d like it, then it is WRONG. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> “ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Present it ANY OTHER way >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The way that it’s in books is perfect for me and I’m a woodworker. Why >>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t that work for you??? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and have it make sense. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can’t because it’s mathematical smoke and mirrors. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Mathematics is a language. You just have to learn it. Calling it smoke and >>>>>>>>>>>>> mirrors to avoid that is just a pathetic excuse. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And English is a language. Where did you ever get the wacko idea that it >>>>>>>>>>>> is not possible to translate from one language to another? Your ideas >>>>>>>>>>>> are anti-intellectual babble. Suffice it to say, Odd, that even though I >>>>>>>>>>>> am a shit mathematician I speak and understand the language of >>>>>>>>>>>> mathematics FAR more fluently than you do. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ah good. Then please demonstrate. Please translate Maxwell’s equations into >>>>>>>>>>> language plain enough that John will acquire an accurate understanding of >>>>>>>>>>> their physics content. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I’ll wait here for the delivery of what you assure is straightforward. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So if I tell you (oh barmaid and carpenter) that if one measures the >>>>>>>>>> magnetic force one finds at every place on some surface in space (say >>>>>>>>>> enclosing a magnet) then the sum total of those forces will always add >>>>>>>>>> up to zero, you somehow think this is not straightforward? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This you believe represents the physics content of Maxwell’s equations????? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And furthermore you believe that is the accurate statement that captures >>>>>>>>> del*B = 0??? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And you believe that the essence includes the rules of mathematics? This >>>>>>>> shows just how far you are removed from science. Sure I can explain the >>>>>>>> rules of math (what vectors are, what fields are, how one takes an >>>>>>>> integral and so one, but that is mathematics. You asked for a >>>>>>>> translation of the essence which I did. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And you did it very badly. Want to dive in and see why? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let’s start with “measures the magnetic force” everywhere on a surface. >>>>>>> Force on what? >>>>>> >>>>>> I take it you have never noticed that magnets produce a force on each >>>>>> other. >>>>> >>>>> Well notice you didn’t say force in magnets in your simple description. And >>>>> on this surface in space how are these magnets aligned? >>>> >>>> I didn't say "force in magnets", I said "magnetic force" where I assumed >>>> that most humans are smart enough to make the connection to magnets. >>> >>> Well, let’s see, there are magnetic forces on electrons, which are not >>> magnets. There are magnetic forces on conducting wires with currents which >>> are not magnets. There are magnetic forces on plasmas, which are not >>> magnets. There are magnetic forces on diamagnetic materials, which are not >>> magnets. So tell me again what “magnetic forces” should imply. >> >> As far as is known all magnetic forces are due to currents. Try learning >> some science, Odd. > > Due to, or acting on? Remember, your statement talked about measuring > magnetic forces on a surface. Should you perhaps have said something in > your description about measuring magnetic forces acting on currents? > Remember you’re trying to make the language plain enough that John can get > an accurate understanding. > > So, for John’s sake, are all the currents in this surface in space of equal > magnitude? Which direction are they going? Where does the current come from > and go to, or does that not matter? Does it matter if the current is > through a narrow cross-sectional area or a wide one? And what is this > surface you’re talking about? Is it a math fantasy or a real surface? > Remember the goal is to get John to understand it, using plain language in > sufficient detail. > >> >>> And so let’s say you are talking about ferromagnets on this surface in >>> space. How are they aligned on the surface? You didn’t say, but that most >>> certainly does matter. >> >> Nobody said anything about magnets on a surface. > > Well you didn’t say otherwise, so John might assume you were intending > that. Nor are they excluded. But if you start looking at the magnetic > forces on ferromagnets on the surface, you’ve got a nonlinear problem. > >> Turn off your fnatasy >> machine Odd, that is not science. Go write the great American Novel >> (lies) with it. >> >>> And you know of course that if these are ferromagnets, then this is a >>> nonlinear problem. >>> >>> Tell me again how your pithy statement captures the physics of del*B=0. >> >> Go read a textbook and understand it for a change. You might learn about >> Gauss's law. It's a fundamental part of electromagnetics. And why do you >> insist on obscuring the meaning by insisting on the differential form >> when we are talking about the integral form. > > Really? I thought we were talking in plain language form which should be > independent if the math form, no? You said you could explain this well > enough that John could understand it. Are you saying you’ve done that? Odd, John is SO right about you! There is not a shred of consistency or logic anywhere about you. You might as well be promoting climate change. You wanted me to show how Maxwells Equations could be decribed using English which I did, but unsatisfied with having your nose rubbed in it again (I actually only explained one equation not all of them) you just move the goalpost and scream I have not yet kicked the ball to the moon so you "win"! You did not ask me to explain the universe or even all of lectromagnetic phenomena. Just put one logical thought after another and life will be a lot better for you. >> I never saw any human so >> determined to stay ignorant and confuse as many people about him as he >> could with a bunch of babbling nonsense. You truly are a fool just as >> John says. >> >>>> obviously forgot to take into account humans dumb as you. John really >>>> has you pegged right. >>>> >>>>>> It's one of the basic facts of reality. "Badly" is your >>>>>> understanding of science. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> But in your world logic and >>>>>>>> essence is to be eschewed. You bask in fraud and jargon and complexity >>>>>>>> rather than appreciating that the advantage of using the mathematics as >>>>>>>> a descriptive language rather than some other language is it's >>>>>>>> compactness. The fact that math is compact does not mean no other >>>>>>>> language can be used. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> John is right about you. When it comes to understanding science you are >>>>>>>> really really ignorant. As my mom used to say to me: How can someone so >>>>>>>> smart be so dumb! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 22:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plff00$13vm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699366 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/20/2018 3:50 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 8/19/2018 2:26 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 8/18/2018 9:20 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/18/2018 10:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2018 6:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2018 4:39 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2018 12:41 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “And if it isn’t presented like a comic book illustration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to John, the way he’d like it, then it is WRONG. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Present it ANY OTHER way >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The way that it’s in books is perfect for me and I’m a woodworker. Why >>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t that work for you??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and have it make sense. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can’t because it’s mathematical smoke and mirrors. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mathematics is a language. You just have to learn it. Calling it smoke and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mirrors to avoid that is just a pathetic excuse. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And English is a language. Where did you ever get the wacko idea that it >>>>>>>>>>>>> is not possible to translate from one language to another? Your ideas >>>>>>>>>>>>> are anti-intellectual babble. Suffice it to say, Odd, that even though I >>>>>>>>>>>>> am a shit mathematician I speak and understand the language of >>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematics FAR more fluently than you do. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ah good. Then please demonstrate. Please translate Maxwell’s equations into >>>>>>>>>>>> language plain enough that John will acquire an accurate understanding of >>>>>>>>>>>> their physics content. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I’ll wait here for the delivery of what you assure is straightforward. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So if I tell you (oh barmaid and carpenter) that if one measures the >>>>>>>>>>> magnetic force one finds at every place on some surface in space (say >>>>>>>>>>> enclosing a magnet) then the sum total of those forces will always add >>>>>>>>>>> up to zero, you somehow think this is not straightforward? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This you believe represents the physics content of Maxwell’s equations????? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And furthermore you believe that is the accurate statement that captures >>>>>>>>>> del*B = 0??? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And you believe that the essence includes the rules of mathematics? This >>>>>>>>> shows just how far you are removed from science. Sure I can explain the >>>>>>>>> rules of math (what vectors are, what fields are, how one takes an >>>>>>>>> integral and so one, but that is mathematics. You asked for a >>>>>>>>> translation of the essence which I did. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And you did it very badly. Want to dive in and see why? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let’s start with “measures the magnetic force” everywhere on a surface. >>>>>>>> Force on what? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I take it you have never noticed that magnets produce a force on each >>>>>>> other. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well notice you didn’t say force in magnets in your simple description. And >>>>>> on this surface in space how are these magnets aligned? >>>>> >>>>> I didn't say "force in magnets", I said "magnetic force" where I assumed >>>>> that most humans are smart enough to make the connection to magnets. >>>> >>>> Well, let’s see, there are magnetic forces on electrons, which are not >>>> magnets. There are magnetic forces on conducting wires with currents which >>>> are not magnets. There are magnetic forces on plasmas, which are not >>>> magnets. There are magnetic forces on diamagnetic materials, which are not >>>> magnets. So tell me again what “magnetic forces” should imply. >>> >>> As far as is known all magnetic forces are due to currents. Try learning >>> some science, Odd. >> >> Due to, or acting on? Remember, your statement talked about measuring >> magnetic forces on a surface. Should you perhaps have said something in >> your description about measuring magnetic forces acting on currents? >> Remember you’re trying to make the language plain enough that John can get >> an accurate understanding. >> >> So, for John’s sake, are all the currents in this surface in space of equal >> magnitude? Which direction are they going? Where does the current come from >> and go to, or does that not matter? Does it matter if the current is >> through a narrow cross-sectional area or a wide one? And what is this >> surface you’re talking about? Is it a math fantasy or a real surface? >> Remember the goal is to get John to understand it, using plain language in >> sufficient detail. >> >>> >>>> And so let’s say you are talking about ferromagnets on this surface in >>>> space. How are they aligned on the surface? You didn’t say, but that most >>>> certainly does matter. >>> >>> Nobody said anything about magnets on a surface. >> >> Well you didn’t say otherwise, so John might assume you were intending >> that. Nor are they excluded. But if you start looking at the magnetic >> forces on ferromagnets on the surface, you’ve got a nonlinear problem. >> >>> Turn off your fnatasy >>> machine Odd, that is not science. Go write the great American Novel >>> (lies) with it. >>> >>>> And you know of course that if these are ferromagnets, then this is a >>>> nonlinear problem. >>>> >>>> Tell me again how your pithy statement captures the physics of del*B=0. >>> >>> Go read a textbook and understand it for a change. You might learn about >>> Gauss's law. It's a fundamental part of electromagnetics. And why do you >>> insist on obscuring the meaning by insisting on the differential form >>> when we are talking about the integral form. >> >> Really? I thought we were talking in plain language form which should be >> independent if the math form, no? You said you could explain this well >> enough that John could understand it. Are you saying you’ve done that? > > Odd, John is SO right about you! There is not a shred of consistency or > logic anywhere about you. You might as well be promoting climate change. > > You wanted me to show how Maxwells Equations could be decribed using > English which I did, but unsatisfied with having your nose rubbed in it > again (I actually only explained one equation not all of them) you just > move the goalpost There’s no movement of any goalpost. My ask if you is quoted above and copy-pasted here: “Ah good. Then please demonstrate. Please translate Maxwell’s equations into language plain enough that John will acquire an accurate understanding of their physics content. I’ll wait here for the delivery of what you assure is straightforward.” You did not do that. You haven’t done it yet. > and scream I have not yet kicked the ball to the moon > so you "win"! You did not ask me to explain the universe or even all of > lectromagnetic phenomena. Just put one logical thought after another and > life will be a lot better for you. > >>> I never saw any human so >>> determined to stay ignorant and confuse as many people about him as he >>> could with a bunch of babbling nonsense. You truly are a fool just as >>> John says. >>> >>>>> obviously forgot to take into account humans dumb as you. John really >>>>> has you pegged right. >>>>> >>>>>>> It's one of the basic facts of reality. "Badly" is your >>>>>>> understanding of science. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But in your world logic and >>>>>>>>> essence is to be eschewed. You bask in fraud and jargon and complexity >>>>>>>>> rather than appreciating that the advantage of using the mathematics as >>>>>>>>> a descriptive language rather than some other language is it's >>>>>>>>> compactness. The fact that math is compact does not mean no other >>>>>>>>> language can be used. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> John is right about you. When it comes to understanding science you are >>>>>>>>> really really ignorant. As my mom used to say to me: How can someone so >>>>>>>>> smart be so dumb! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 22:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plfgal$15o8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699372 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8/20/2018 3:50 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 8/19/2018 2:26 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 8/18/2018 9:20 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/18/2018 10:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2018 6:38 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2018 4:39 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2018 12:41 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “And if it isn’t presented like a comic book illustration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to John, the way he’d like it, then it is WRONG. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Present it ANY OTHER way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The way that it’s in books is perfect for me and I’m a woodworker. Why >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t that work for you??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and have it make sense. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can’t because it’s mathematical smoke and mirrors. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mathematics is a language. You just have to learn it. Calling it smoke and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mirrors to avoid that is just a pathetic excuse. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And English is a language. Where did you ever get the wacko idea that it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not possible to translate from one language to another? Your ideas >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are anti-intellectual babble. Suffice it to say, Odd, that even though I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> am a shit mathematician I speak and understand the language of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematics FAR more fluently than you do. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah good. Then please demonstrate. Please translate Maxwell’s equations into >>>>>>>>>>>>> language plain enough that John will acquire an accurate understanding of >>>>>>>>>>>>> their physics content. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ll wait here for the delivery of what you assure is straightforward. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So if I tell you (oh barmaid and carpenter) that if one measures the >>>>>>>>>>>> magnetic force one finds at every place on some surface in space (say >>>>>>>>>>>> enclosing a magnet) then the sum total of those forces will always add >>>>>>>>>>>> up to zero, you somehow think this is not straightforward? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This you believe represents the physics content of Maxwell’s equations????? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And furthermore you believe that is the accurate statement that captures >>>>>>>>>>> del*B = 0??? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And you believe that the essence includes the rules of mathematics? This >>>>>>>>>> shows just how far you are removed from science. Sure I can explain the >>>>>>>>>> rules of math (what vectors are, what fields are, how one takes an >>>>>>>>>> integral and so one, but that is mathematics. You asked for a >>>>>>>>>> translation of the essence which I did. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And you did it very badly. Want to dive in and see why? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Let’s start with “measures the magnetic force” everywhere on a surface. >>>>>>>>> Force on what? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I take it you have never noticed that magnets produce a force on each >>>>>>>> other. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well notice you didn’t say force in magnets in your simple description. And >>>>>>> on this surface in space how are these magnets aligned? >>>>>> >>>>>> I didn't say "force in magnets", I said "magnetic force" where I assumed >>>>>> that most humans are smart enough to make the connection to magnets. >>>>> >>>>> Well, let’s see, there are magnetic forces on electrons, which are not >>>>> magnets. There are magnetic forces on conducting wires with currents which >>>>> are not magnets. There are magnetic forces on plasmas, which are not >>>>> magnets. There are magnetic forces on diamagnetic materials, which are not >>>>> magnets. So tell me again what “magnetic forces” should imply. >>>> >>>> As far as is known all magnetic forces are due to currents. Try learning >>>> some science, Odd. >>> >>> Due to, or acting on? Remember, your statement talked about measuring >>> magnetic forces on a surface. Should you perhaps have said something in >>> your description about measuring magnetic forces acting on currents? >>> Remember you’re trying to make the language plain enough that John can get >>> an accurate understanding. >>> >>> So, for John’s sake, are all the currents in this surface in space of equal >>> magnitude? Which direction are they going? Where does the current come from >>> and go to, or does that not matter? Does it matter if the current is >>> through a narrow cross-sectional area or a wide one? And what is this >>> surface you’re talking about? Is it a math fantasy or a real surface? >>> Remember the goal is to get John to understand it, using plain language in >>> sufficient detail. >>> >>>> >>>>> And so let’s say you are talking about ferromagnets on this surface in >>>>> space. How are they aligned on the surface? You didn’t say, but that most >>>>> certainly does matter. >>>> >>>> Nobody said anything about magnets on a surface. >>> >>> Well you didn’t say otherwise, so John might assume you were intending >>> that. Nor are they excluded. But if you start looking at the magnetic >>> forces on ferromagnets on the surface, you’ve got a nonlinear problem. >>> >>>> Turn off your fnatasy >>>> machine Odd, that is not science. Go write the great American Novel >>>> (lies) with it. >>>> >>>>> And you know of course that if these are ferromagnets, then this is a >>>>> nonlinear problem. >>>>> >>>>> Tell me again how your pithy statement captures the physics of del*B=0. >>>> >>>> Go read a textbook and understand it for a change. You might learn about >>>> Gauss's law. It's a fundamental part of electromagnetics. And why do you >>>> insist on obscuring the meaning by insisting on the differential form >>>> when we are talking about the integral form. >>> >>> Really? I thought we were talking in plain language form which should be >>> independent if the math form, no? You said you could explain this well >>> enough that John could understand it. Are you saying you’ve done that? >> >> Odd, John is SO right about you! There is not a shred of consistency or >> logic anywhere about you. You might as well be promoting climate change. >> >> You wanted me to show how Maxwells Equations could be decribed using >> English which I did, but unsatisfied with having your nose rubbed in it >> again (I actually only explained one equation not all of them) you just >> move the goalpost > > There’s no movement of any goalpost. > My ask if you is quoted above and copy-pasted here: “Ah good. Then please > demonstrate. Please translate Maxwell’s equations into language plain > enough that John will acquire an accurate understanding of their physics > content. > I’ll wait here for the delivery of what you assure is straightforward.” > > You did not do that. You haven’t done it yet. And just to reiterate, the point is not to explain it in plain language that YOU understand. The point is to explain it so that someone like John will understand it. And that means not ASSUMING prerequisite understandings — like summing magnetic forces means forces on currents, or that the sum of forces has to be a vector sum (whatever THAT means) rather than just summing a column of numbers, or what summing over a surface means since there’s an infinite number of points available on a surface, or whether the surface in space can just be a plane or have holes in it or whether it has to have a certain size or shape or whether the surface can be made of iron because “surface in space” is just too damn vague to capture the needed information. So try again, Ben. Explain it to John in simple words that don’t leave giant barn-sized holes for him to misconstrue, and which capture all the relevant information and power of the mathematical form. Or better yet, draw him a picture he’ll be able to get the same content from. > >> and scream I have not yet kicked the ball to the moon >> so you "win"! You did not ask me to explain the universe or even all of >> lectromagnetic phenomena. Just put one logical thought after another and >> life will be a lot better for you. >> >>>> I never saw any human so >>>> determined to stay ignorant and confuse as many people about him as he >>>> could with a bunch of babbling nonsense. You truly are a fool just as >>>> John says. >>>> >>>>>> obviously forgot to take into account humans dumb as you. John really >>>>>> has you pegged right. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's one of the basic facts of reality. "Badly" is your >>>>>>>> understanding of science. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But in your world logic and >>>>>>>>>> essence is to be eschewed. You bask in fraud and jargon and complexity >>>>>>>>>> rather than appreciating that the advantage of using the mathematics as >>>>>>>>>> a descriptive language rather than some other language is it's >>>>>>>>>> compactness. The fact that math is compact does not mean no other >>>>>>>>>> language can be used. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> John is right about you. When it comes to understanding science you are >>>>>>>>>> really really ignorant. As my mom used to say to me: How can someone so >>>>>>>>>> smart be so dumb! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 17:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bbbc10ff-bdc4-44ce-b201-d574c5e18ff6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #699376 |
The atom and its particles will move slower behind light's fastest leading motion of infinite degrees of freedom in 6 directions of 3 dimensions. Dimension is cubic with gravity round curve in it. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 21:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <plfrub$1kf5$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699384 |
On 8/20/2018 7:54 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: > The atom and its particles will move slower behind light's fastest > leading motion of infinite degrees of freedom in 6 directions of 3 dimensions. > Dimension is cubic with gravity round curve in it. > > Mitchell Raemsch > wre written - The atom particles light's motion infinite degrees directions dimensions cubic gravity round curve
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-21 15:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7727b643-c53e-472a-bab6-e4f4751ba6dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #699376 |
On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 6:45:47 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> You wanted me to show how Maxwells Equations could be decribed using > >> English which I did, but unsatisfied with having your nose rubbed in it > >> again (I actually only explained one equation not all of them) you just > >> move the goalpost > > > > There’s no movement of any goalpost. > > My ask if you is quoted above and copy-pasted here: “Ah good. Then please > > demonstrate. Please translate Maxwell’s equations into language plain > > enough that John will acquire an accurate understanding of their physics > > content. > > I’ll wait here for the delivery of what you assure is straightforward.” > > > > You did not do that. You haven’t done it yet. > > And just to reiterate, the point is not to explain it in plain language > that YOU understand. The point is to explain it so that someone like John > will understand it. And that means not ASSUMING prerequisite understandings > — like summing magnetic forces means forces on currents, or that the sum of > forces has to be a vector sum (whatever THAT means) rather than just > summing a column of numbers, or what summing over a surface means since > there’s an infinite number of points available on a surface, or whether the > surface in space can just be a plane or have holes in it or whether it has > to have a certain size or shape or whether the surface can be made of iron > because “surface in space” is just too damn vague to capture the needed > information. > > So try again, Ben. Explain it to John in simple words that don’t leave > giant barn-sized holes for him to misconstrue, and which capture all the > relevant information and power of the mathematical form. Or better yet, > draw him a picture he’ll be able to get the same content from. > Notice how quiet john has gotten in this thread? He is so confused, he is speechless. Great job benj & odd!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-23 06:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <00182bd7-173e-4c75-ac40-6150adba8c89@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #699376 |
Odd “mathematical form. Or better yet, draw him a picture he’ll be able to get the same content from” :) Now Odd wants someone else to draw the picture. I think he’s still fairly sure the nucleus goes at the center- but after that he can’t even draw an atom- SO CONFUSED
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-18 16:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pla47h$1sq5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #698990 |
On 8/17/2018 5:29 PM, benj wrote: > On 8/17/2018 4:39 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 8/17/2018 12:41 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Odd >>>>> “And if it isn’t presented like a comic book illustration >>>>> to John, the way he’d like it, then it is WRONG. >>>>> “ >>>>> Present it ANY OTHER way >>>> >>>> The way that it’s in books is perfect for me and I’m a woodworker. Why >>>> doesn’t that work for you??? >>>> >>>>> and have it make sense. >>>>> You can’t because it’s mathematical smoke and mirrors. >>>> >>>> Mathematics is a language. You just have to learn it. Calling it >>>> smoke and >>>> mirrors to avoid that is just a pathetic excuse. >>> >>> And English is a language. Where did you ever get the wacko idea that it >>> is not possible to translate from one language to another? Your ideas >>> are anti-intellectual babble. Suffice it to say, Odd, that even though I >>> am a shit mathematician I speak and understand the language of >>> mathematics FAR more fluently than you do. >> >> Ah good. Then please demonstrate. Please translate Maxwell’s equations >> into >> language plain enough that John will acquire an accurate understanding of >> their physics content. >> >> I’ll wait here for the delivery of what you assure is straightforward. > > So if I tell you (oh barmaid and carpenter) that if one measures the > magnetic force one finds at every place on some surface in space (say > enclosing a magnet) then the sum total of those forces will always add > up to zero, you somehow think this is not straightforward? True; vector sum the force field on an imaginary sphere of radius r from the magnet, assume r is bigger than the physical magnet, and you will get 0. (no magnetic mono poles) Extra Credit; what if the magnet is actually 3 magnets separated by a small distance at a random orientations, what is the vector sum of the field at radius r ? answer = 0
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-18 16:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <22e4df11-79f3-4bc5-991d-82de53026cd3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #698942 |
On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 2:19:09 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 8/17/2018 12:41 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > >> and have it make sense. > >> You can’t because it’s mathematical smoke and mirrors. > > > > Mathematics is a language. You just have to learn it. Calling it smoke and > > mirrors to avoid that is just a pathetic excuse. > > And English is a language. Where did you ever get the wacko idea that it > is not possible to translate from one language to another? Your ideas > are anti-intellectual babble. Suffice it to say, Odd, that even though I > am a shit mathematician I speak and understand the language of > mathematics FAR more fluently than you do. > benj, you should know that English is WAY too imprecise to describe the beauty of ideas expressible in mathematics. Newton and others found that the precision of mathematics works wonderfully in Science. It also works quite well in Engineering also. Or we could go back to the middle ages when building design was essentially in verbal language. (I know that is one of your favorite times in history, right?) But I thought you were all about progress. 8^) Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web