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 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-17 22:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pl7ioo$61o$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #698990 |
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??? > > Odd, will you stop embarrassing yourself and try to learn a little > science? Even John makes you look like an idiot. > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-18 08:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pl954k$a1a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #698994 |
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. 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 | 2018-08-18 14:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pl9acr$j5p$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699039 |
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? > 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 | 2018-08-18 16:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pla0a8$1muu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699049 |
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. 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 | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-18 16:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d4c0c2d5-f2a7-47ec-83a0-e2362f7776bd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #699107 |
On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 4:41:48 PM UTC-4, benj 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. It's one of the basic facts of reality. "Badly" is your > understanding of science. Ah but you are showing how poorly the english translation works. Because to test it I still have to go back to the numbers and do summations. Show me have to do that clearly and efficiently in only english. Keep just three significant digits, Okay? Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-18 21:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <plakde$j1p$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699127 |
On 8/18/2018 6:47 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 4:41:48 PM UTC-4, benj 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. It's one of the basic facts of reality. "Badly" is your >> understanding of science. > > Ah but you are showing how poorly the english translation works. > Because to test it I still have to go back to the numbers and do > summations. Show me have to do that clearly and efficiently > in only english. Keep just three significant digits, Okay? > > Ed > hi Ed, I have a great book that discusses the problems of using language to discuss science. It was lecture notes from a proff back in the 30's "the nature of physical theory" by Bridgman, Nobel prize winner, a Dover book. probably free somewhere on the internet. He talks about math and relitivity, wave function too most of the time in this newsgroup, arguments are over language, it is a poor medium to transfer knowledge. Lawyers Make $$$$ doing just that, retranslating overlapping laws for their clients. Is most advertizing fake news? (we are constrained by language)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 20:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4cf7069a-92cb-4b7b-aecc-d7c272c1b8d5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #699155 |
On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 10:24:56 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote: > On 8/18/2018 6:47 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > > Ah but you are showing how poorly the english translation works. > > Because to test it I still have to go back to the numbers and do > > summations. Show me have to do that clearly and efficiently > > in only english. Keep just three significant digits, Okay? > > > > Ed > > > > > hi Ed, I have a great book that discusses the problems of using language > to discuss science. It was lecture notes from a proff back in the 30's > "the nature of physical theory" by Bridgman, Nobel prize winner, a Dover > book. probably free somewhere on the internet. He talks about math and > relitivity, wave function too Thanks, I'll look that up. > > most of the time in this newsgroup, arguments are over language, You got that right. Notice how kooks like JM and Mr. Seto never do calculations? I'm sure you have. > it is a > poor medium to transfer knowledge. Lawyers Make $$$$ doing just that, > retranslating overlapping laws for their clients. For example I read a story the Godel has analyzed the constitution as part of preparing for US citizenship He spoke to Einstein about contradictions that he found. Einstein firmly instructed Godel not to mention that during his citizenship exam. > > Is most advertizing fake news? (we are constrained by language) Yes we are. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 14:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <plf1v1$e4b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699288 |
On 8/19/2018 11:27 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 10:24:56 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote: >> On 8/18/2018 6:47 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > >>> >>> Ah but you are showing how poorly the english translation works. >>> Because to test it I still have to go back to the numbers and do >>> summations. Show me have to do that clearly and efficiently >>> in only english. Keep just three significant digits, Okay? >>> >>> Ed >>> >> >> >> hi Ed, I have a great book that discusses the problems of using language >> to discuss science. It was lecture notes from a proff back in the 30's >> "the nature of physical theory" by Bridgman, Nobel prize winner, a Dover >> book. probably free somewhere on the internet. He talks about math and >> relitivity, wave function too > > Thanks, I'll look that up. > >> >> most of the time in this newsgroup, arguments are over language, > > You got that right. Notice how kooks like JM and Mr. Seto > never do calculations? I'm sure you have. > >> it is a >> poor medium to transfer knowledge. Lawyers Make $$$$ doing just that, >> retranslating overlapping laws for their clients. > > For example > I read a story the Godel has analyzed the constitution as > part of preparing for US citizenship He spoke to Einstein > about contradictions that he found. Einstein firmly instructed > Godel not to mention that during his citizenship exam. No problem during a Democrat administration. All Godel needed to do was point out the Constitution is a "living document" and those in power can change anything they wish to conform to modern times. >> Is most advertizing fake news? (we are constrained by language) > > Yes we are. > Ed >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-21 15:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f4c2a290-cc68-41b0-8e4b-811a4f9b6c40@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #699341 |
On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 2:40:39 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 8/19/2018 11:27 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 10:24:56 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote: > >> > >> most of the time in this newsgroup, arguments are over language, > > > > You got that right. Notice how kooks like JM and Mr. Seto > > never do calculations? I'm sure you have. > > > >> it is a > >> poor medium to transfer knowledge. Lawyers Make $$$$ doing just that, > >> retranslating overlapping laws for their clients. > > > > For example > > I read a story the Godel has analyzed the constitution as > > part of preparing for US citizenship He spoke to Einstein > > about contradictions that he found. Einstein firmly instructed > > Godel not to mention that during his citizenship exam. > > No problem during a Democrat administration. All Godel needed to do was > point out the Constitution is a "living document" and those in power can > change anything they wish to conform to modern times. No the contradictions are independent of party/ideology. IOW there are loopholes that republicans leap through just as often as democrats. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-18 23:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <plammn$liq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699127 |
On 8/18/2018 7:47 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 4:41:48 PM UTC-4, benj 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. It's one of the basic facts of reality. "Badly" is your >> understanding of science. > > Ah but you are showing how poorly the english translation works. > Because to test it I still have to go back to the numbers and do > summations. Show me have to do that clearly and efficiently > in only english. Keep just three significant digits, Okay? > > Ed > Whoa! Do I feel the goalposts suddenly moving? You are cleverly trying to "win" by attempting to change the question from CAN science be modeled by languages other than mathematics, to WHICH language is most efficient and compact for such descriptions. That is pretty dishonest on your part. But also allow me to point out that even mathematics as a description is in part a fraud, because the compactness occurs in part because various terms and actions are pre-defined in other locations which is to say, for example, math textbooks. If one were forced to work every mathematical statement in a model backwards until the basic mathematical axioms were reached, math would hardly be any more compact than English as a description. You just want to play word games like Odd does.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 18:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plccnp$1k6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699160 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/18/2018 7:47 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: >> On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 4:41:48 PM UTC-4, benj 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. It's one of the basic facts of reality. "Badly" is your >>> understanding of science. >> >> Ah but you are showing how poorly the english translation works. >> Because to test it I still have to go back to the numbers and do >> summations. Show me have to do that clearly and efficiently >> in only english. Keep just three significant digits, Okay? >> >> Ed >> > Whoa! Do I feel the goalposts suddenly moving? You are cleverly trying > to "win" by attempting to change the question from CAN science be > modeled by languages other than mathematics, to WHICH language is most > efficient and compact for such descriptions. That is pretty dishonest on > your part. Oh knock it off, Ben. You repeatedly say that mathematics is fantasy and has nothing to do with reality. Now you are acknowledging that mathematics may well be the best language for physics models. > > But also allow me to point out that even mathematics as a description is > in part a fraud, because the compactness occurs in part because various > terms and actions are pre-defined in other locations which is to say, > for example, math textbooks. And that’s what ancillary skills are PREREQUISITES. > If one were forced to work every > mathematical statement in a model backwards until the basic mathematical > axioms were reached, math would hardly be any more compact than English > as a description. > > You just want to play word games like Odd does. > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 14:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <plevkg$97v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699238 |
On 8/19/2018 2:26 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8/18/2018 7:47 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: >>> On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 4:41:48 PM UTC-4, benj 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. It's one of the basic facts of reality. "Badly" is your >>>> understanding of science. >>> >>> Ah but you are showing how poorly the english translation works. >>> Because to test it I still have to go back to the numbers and do >>> summations. Show me have to do that clearly and efficiently >>> in only english. Keep just three significant digits, Okay? >>> >>> Ed >>> >> Whoa! Do I feel the goalposts suddenly moving? You are cleverly trying >> to "win" by attempting to change the question from CAN science be >> modeled by languages other than mathematics, to WHICH language is most >> efficient and compact for such descriptions. That is pretty dishonest on >> your part. > > Oh knock it off, Ben. You repeatedly say that mathematics is fantasy and > has nothing to do with reality. Now you are acknowledging that mathematics > may well be the best language for physics models. And the reason your minuscule intellect cannot comprehend that both can be true is? Oh that's right, because in your liberal arts mind, fantasy is reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 20:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e4a96cca-aa07-41f9-bad1-44ff858ed150@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #699160 |
On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 11:03:55 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 8/18/2018 7:47 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 4:41:48 PM UTC-4, benj 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. It's one of the basic facts of reality. "Badly" is your > >> understanding of science. > > > > Ah but you are showing how poorly the english translation works. > > Because to test it I still have to go back to the numbers and do > > summations. Show me have to do that clearly and efficiently > > in only english. Keep just three significant digits, Okay? > > > > Ed > > > Whoa! Do I feel the goalposts suddenly moving? You are cleverly trying > to "win" by attempting to change the question from CAN science be > modeled by languages other than mathematics, to WHICH language is most > efficient and compact for such descriptions. That is pretty dishonest on > your part. Not really. Reading the equation it not presenting it in English, at least it is not conveying the nuances of the mathematics > > But also allow me to point out that even mathematics as a description is > in part a fraud, because the compactness occurs in part because various > terms and actions are pre-defined in other locations which is to say, > for example, math textbooks. If one were forced to work every > mathematical statement in a model backwards until the basic mathematical > axioms were reached, math would hardly be any more compact than English > as a description. No, I am not asking for that. Both languages have dictionaries. but even with those dictionaries, doing even a simple summation will be extremely difficult. > > You just want to play word games like Odd does. BINGO! That's the point. In natural languages it is a lot easier to play those word games. (and you know that YOU play them too;) It is not impossible to play equivalent games in math, but it is easier to identify errors both accidental and deliberate in math versus natural languages. So, not changing goals, just trying to lead you to a correct conclusion. I think you may get the point. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-20 14:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <plf2he$f8m$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699292 |
On 8/19/2018 11:39 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 11:03:55 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: >> On 8/18/2018 7:47 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: >>> On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 4:41:48 PM UTC-4, benj 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. It's one of the basic facts of reality. "Badly" is your >>>> understanding of science. >>> >>> Ah but you are showing how poorly the english translation works. >>> Because to test it I still have to go back to the numbers and do >>> summations. Show me have to do that clearly and efficiently >>> in only english. Keep just three significant digits, Okay? >>> >>> Ed >>> >> Whoa! Do I feel the goalposts suddenly moving? You are cleverly trying >> to "win" by attempting to change the question from CAN science be >> modeled by languages other than mathematics, to WHICH language is most >> efficient and compact for such descriptions. That is pretty dishonest on >> your part. > > Not really. Reading the equation it not presenting it in English, > at least it is not conveying the nuances of the mathematics >> >> But also allow me to point out that even mathematics as a description is >> in part a fraud, because the compactness occurs in part because various >> terms and actions are pre-defined in other locations which is to say, >> for example, math textbooks. If one were forced to work every >> mathematical statement in a model backwards until the basic mathematical >> axioms were reached, math would hardly be any more compact than English >> as a description. > > No, I am not asking for that. Both languages have dictionaries. > but even with those dictionaries, doing even a simple summation > will be extremely difficult. > >> >> You just want to play word games like Odd does. > > BINGO! That's the point. > > In natural languages it is a lot easier to play those word games. > (and you know that YOU play them too;) It is not impossible > to play equivalent games in math, but it is easier to identify > errors both accidental and deliberate in math versus natural > languages. > > So, not changing goals, just trying to lead you to a correct > conclusion. I think you may get the point. > > Ed > to compare a dictionary to a math textbook is wrong and irrelevant. I could just as easily invent an English math book that uses abbreviations and acronyms for various meanings and operations. Would work the same as math symbols. Symbols are irrelevant. Indeed I can easily translate mathematics to alpha-numberic characters. It might not make sense to you but that's only because as Odd likes to point out, you have not read the "textbook". But my computer would understand it perfectly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-21 15:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <107d5316-8788-4531-9f98-00f7f34a2182@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #699343 |
On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 2:50:27 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 8/19/2018 11:39 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 11:03:55 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > >> On 8/18/2018 7:47 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > >>> On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 4:41:48 PM UTC-4, benj 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. It's one of the basic facts of reality. "Badly" is your > >>>> understanding of science. > >>> > >>> Ah but you are showing how poorly the english translation works. > >>> Because to test it I still have to go back to the numbers and do > >>> summations. Show me have to do that clearly and efficiently > >>> in only english. Keep just three significant digits, Okay? > >>> > >>> Ed > >>> > >> Whoa! Do I feel the goalposts suddenly moving? You are cleverly trying > >> to "win" by attempting to change the question from CAN science be > >> modeled by languages other than mathematics, to WHICH language is most > >> efficient and compact for such descriptions. That is pretty dishonest on > >> your part. > > > > Not really. Reading the equation it not presenting it in English, > > at least it is not conveying the nuances of the mathematics > >> > >> But also allow me to point out that even mathematics as a description is > >> in part a fraud, because the compactness occurs in part because various > >> terms and actions are pre-defined in other locations which is to say, > >> for example, math textbooks. If one were forced to work every > >> mathematical statement in a model backwards until the basic mathematical > >> axioms were reached, math would hardly be any more compact than English > >> as a description. > > > > No, I am not asking for that. Both languages have dictionaries. > > but even with those dictionaries, doing even a simple summation > > will be extremely difficult. > > > >> > >> You just want to play word games like Odd does. > > > > BINGO! That's the point. > > > > In natural languages it is a lot easier to play those word games. > > (and you know that YOU play them too;) It is not impossible > > to play equivalent games in math, but it is easier to identify > > errors both accidental and deliberate in math versus natural > > languages. > > > > So, not changing goals, just trying to lead you to a correct > > conclusion. I think you may get the point. > > > > Ed > > > to compare a dictionary to a math textbook is wrong and irrelevant. I disagree but go on. > I > could just as easily invent an English math book that uses abbreviations > and acronyms for various meanings and operations. Would work the same as > math symbols. Symbols are irrelevant. The problem nowadays with acronyms is that they are constantly being recycled with different meanings. SDLC is my favorite example for this. My first thoughts are of communication protocols (Synchronous Data Link COntrol) and not development processes (Software/System Development Life Cycle). > Indeed I can easily translate > mathematics to alpha-numberic characters. It might not make sense to you > but that's only because as Odd likes to point out, you have not read the > "textbook". But my computer would understand it perfectly. Ah, be careful. Turing's work suggests that that is not going to work for all mathematics. the program is going to crash on some of those inputs. But the new format you develop might not be any harder to learn than Klingon. I actually am not good at learning other spoken languages, So I agree you might stump me fairly easily. But that would just support the point that the ideas conveyed by mathematics are harder to understand when expressed in other forms like natural languages. Enjoy the evening, Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 01:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plagk8$did$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699107 |
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? > 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 | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-18 18:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2ab14ac5-7c01-4ee9-95f3-d5233d89a4a9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #699141 |
Odd “And on this surface in space how are these magnets aligned? ” How are electrons aligned within the atom? Do they react to each other’s movements? You’re suddenly very concerned about field lines after being completely blasé about where, when and how the authors of those field lines produce them. Show me a picture- it conveys MUCH more information than math
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 18:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plccnr$1k6$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699144 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “And > on this surface in space how are these magnets aligned? > ” > How are electrons aligned within the atom? > Do they react to each other’s movements? Yes! Read all about it. Fascinating stuff. Full of testable calculations and comparison with measurements. > You’re suddenly very concerned about field lines after being completely > blasé about where, when and how the authors of those field lines produce them. > Show me a picture- it conveys MUCH more information than math To YOU it does, because math conveys NO information to you. This is not true for others. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 12:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <730fa344-6777-4722-94f6-af4ee6d0288d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #699240 |
Odd “To YOU it does, because math conveys NO information to you. This is not ” You have NO conceptual model. The Bohr model is still taught. You say it’s wrong. You’re the liar, here. If electrons influence other electrons, then they certainly don’t move randomly within the atom. You say not only that they HAVE no proscribed movement, but that they DON’T move. You’re all over the map, bro. Backpedaling to where, Odd? Don’t know- can’t see
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-19 20:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <plcl09$h34$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #699248 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “To YOU it does, because math conveys NO information to you. This is not ” > You have NO conceptual model. > The Bohr model is still taught. Yes, it’s still taught, not as representing current understanding but instead as historical development on the way to quantum mechanics. If you are reading it as claimed to be still valid, then you can’t read. > You say it’s wrong. > You’re the liar, here. > If electrons influence other electrons, then they certainly don’t move > randomly within the atom. What makes you say that? Molecules in a gas scatter randomly. Their motion is in fact called The Random Walk. And yet they influence each other which is what causes pressure, temperature convection, thermal conductivity, thermal equilibrium, osmosis, and about a hundred other things. What drugs are you on that you think random motion means you know NOTHING as a result? > You say not only that they HAVE no proscribed movement, but that they DON’T move. Bullshit, John. I JUST GOT THROUGH TELLING YOU they have kinetic energy which is the energy of motion. What part of this are you just not absorbing??? > You’re all over the map, bro. > > Backpedaling to where, Odd? Don’t know- can’t see I’m not backpedaling anywhere, John. You can’t absorb what people tell you. > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web