Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #699525 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-08-21 19:45 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-08-28 11:51 -0700 |
| Articles | 17 on this page of 57 — 7 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Black holes are out in principle mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-21 19:45 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 20:28 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-21 20:32 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-21 20:33 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-21 22:14 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-08-23 16:35 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 17:54 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 10:25 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-24 13:02 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-08-24 14:10 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-24 14:11 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 10:56 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-08-28 13:48 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 14:06 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 21:36 +0000
Re: Black holes are out in principle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 16:00 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 16:14 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-08-28 15:05 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-08-24 14:30 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-25 18:02 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-26 07:25 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-26 15:36 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-27 03:48 +0000
Re: Black holes are out in principle mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-26 20:58 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-27 04:22 +0000
Re: Black holes are out in principle mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-26 21:28 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 08:57 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-27 16:21 +0000
Re: Black holes are out in principle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 09:42 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-27 18:14 +0000
Re: Black holes are out in principle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 11:25 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-27 18:46 +0000
Re: Black holes are out in principle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 12:07 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 19:27 +0000
Re: Black holes are out in principle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 14:26 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 14:31 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 14:40 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 22:20 +0000
Re: Black holes are out in principle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 17:03 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 17:11 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 01:29 +0000
Re: Black holes are out in principle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 05:15 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 13:12 +0000
Re: Black holes are out in principle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 06:18 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 13:40 +0000
Re: Black holes are out in principle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 06:20 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 06:30 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-28 17:47 +0000
Re: Black holes are out in principle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 13:40 +0000
Re: Black holes are out in principle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 06:54 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 14:58 +0000
Re: Black holes are out in principle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 10:09 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-28 17:51 +0000
Re: Black holes are out in principle Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 20:27 +0000
Re: Black holes are out in principle moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-28 17:44 +0000
Re: Black holes are out in principle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 11:12 -0700
Re: Black holes are out in principle john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 11:51 -0700
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 01:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pm28hl$vis$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #700187 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > But in YOUR world, your ‘fundamental particle’ separates into as many > little bits as is needed to make a perfectly spherical shell, right? Nope > And then none of them go anywhere (what do you call them- ‘shell-ums’?- > but none of them go anywhere, they just have kinetic energy. Is that right? Nope > And then when there are TWO electrons, that just goes double. Right? Nope > I love your science, Odd. Can’t love what you don’t understand. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 05:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4df4348a-9c7d-4364-a89c-10d7770beb69@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700197 |
Odd “Can’t love what you don’t understand. ” Make me understand how an electron makes a perfectly spherical surface.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 13:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pm3ho0$12qd$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #700220 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “Can’t love what you don’t understand. ” > Make me understand how an electron makes a perfectly spherical surface. > First of all, spherically symmetric does not mean having a spherical surface. And John, I’ve given up on trying to make you understand anything. Because you cannot read. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 06:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5f1edf69-db97-49aa-a882-85c379022694@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700225 |
Odd “ First of all, spherically symmetric does not mean having a spherical surface. “ Okay now say what it DOES mean.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 13:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pm3jcb$15t2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #700226 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “ > First of all, spherically symmetric does not mean having a spherical > surface. “ > Okay now say what it DOES mean. > See, John, this is why people give up on explaining things to you. There are a thousand ways to get something wrong and one way to get it right. And you would rather flail about guessing wrong a hundred times than to do something simple like googling “spherically symmetric” and doing more than just look at pictures. You could try READING a short explanation of what spherically symmetric means and looking through examples that break your expectations but meet the definitions. But you are either too fucking lazy or too fucking stupid to do that. And so what you’re going to do is stick with one of the thousand wrong ideas that’s stuck in your head, and call the right ones (that you don’t understand) mathworld nonsense. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 06:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3cb9fdee-fc7a-40c7-aa10-1d772c8eeac6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700225 |
Odd “I’ve given up on trying to make you understand anything. Because you cannot read. ” You haven’t written anything. Spherically symmetric mean you can bisect it along any plane and the two halves will be identical.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 06:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9a873678-ff2a-4a9c-b7d8-8bb61392984d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700228 |
Me “Spherically symmetric mean you can bisect it along any plane and the two halves will be identical. ” Actually, ALL atomic constituents follow spherically symmetric TRAJECTORIES as they SPEED around inside the atom.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 17:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pm41qk$g2a$8@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #700233 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Actually, ALL atomic constituents follow spherically symmetric TRAJECTORIES No such thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 13:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pm3jcc$15t2$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #700228 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “I’ve given up on trying to make you understand anything. Because > you cannot read. ” > You haven’t written anything. > Spherically symmetric mean you can bisect it along any plane and the two > halves will be identical. > Right! Which doesn’t say a DAMN THING about a spherical surface. So can you think of an example that is spherically symmetric but has no surface? I can. And if you spend just a minute more or so googling, you’ll find one too. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 06:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6992cf66-04ce-4e1e-ab49-af8c0c54f5c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700239 |
Odd “Right.” Yes, but you seize on things like the word ‘surface’. Give me ONE example in the REAL world of spherical symmetry. A picture. Not a hand-wave.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 14:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pm3nts$1egu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #700243 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “Right.” > Yes, but you seize on things like the word ‘surface’. Right, because it’s not the defining characteristic. It’s a bad guess. > Give me ONE example in the REAL world of spherical symmetry. A picture. Not a hand-wave. > A dandelion head. A non-rotating star. The shock wave from an aerial burst. A water drop on the ISS. The electric field around a charged ping pong ball. The dissipating gas cloud around a ball of dry ice in orbit around Saturn. The earth’s atmosphere. Notice some of these have surfaces and some don’t. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 10:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b89a624d-30b8-495e-babc-8dcc52cf26de@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700248 |
Odd “dandelion head. “ Definitely not- maybe radial “A non-rotating star. “ Hahaha. There’s that imagination again. No. “The shock wave from an aerial burst. “ No. “A water drop on the ISS. “ Yes! Good one. “The electric field around a charged ping pong ball.” Cut it in two and prove that. “The dissipating gas cloud around a ball of dry ice in orbit around Saturn. “ No. “The earth’s atmospher” No. One out of seven. Good. For you
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 17:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pm4236$aff$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #700254 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd >One out of seven. >Good. For you I'd say 6 of 7. The seeds of a dandelion head would be too large and produce differences. Ignoring the stem as well, of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 20:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pm4b8d$imu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #700254 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “dandelion head. “ > Definitely not- maybe radial > “A non-rotating star. “ > Hahaha. There’s that imagination again. No. > “The shock wave from an aerial burst. “ > No. > “A water drop on the ISS. “ > Yes! Good one. > “The electric field around a charged ping pong ball.” > Cut it in two and prove that. > “The dissipating gas cloud around a ball of dry ice in orbit around Saturn. “ > No. > “The earth’s atmospher” > No. > > One out of seven. > Good. For you > Explain to me the ones you said no to. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 17:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pm41lo$g2a$6@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #700220 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Make me understand how an electron makes a perfectly spherical surface. Schrodinger solution for 1s: psi(r,theta,phi) = Ae^-Br where A and B are positive constants which depend on nuclear charge, mass etc. No theta or phi dependence, so 100% spherically symmetric.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 11:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9a6f0d4f-49d5-4ceb-93b2-7cb2b95538b6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700257 |
MM “No theta or phi dependence, so 100% spherically symmetric” And you plot these points one by one and prove what?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 11:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bf1b0b05-bff3-453b-abce-6baff2577733@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700262 |
MM “No theta or phi dependence, so 100% spherically symmetric” And you plot these points one by one and prove what? ” Answer me. You plot these points one by one and prove what?
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web