Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #706328 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Musatov <tomusatov@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-10-05 19:08 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-10-12 13:32 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 123 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
'Space' is never empty Musatov <tomusatov@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 19:08 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-05 21:54 -0500
Re: 'Space' is never empty mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 22:21 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 23:27 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 14:54 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 17:17 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-06 16:46 -0500
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 22:10 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 21:31 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 12:25 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 05:31 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 14:30 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-07 09:07 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 20:36 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-07 21:31 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 06:02 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 11:54 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 10:24 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 12:33 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 19:44 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-09 09:00 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-09 18:58 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-09 14:53 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-09 20:59 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-09 21:23 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 05:52 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 09:44 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 06:59 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 15:59 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 09:12 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 18:01 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 22:14 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 15:41 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 00:07 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 20:50 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 23:33 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 13:06 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 13:01 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 17:57 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 18:28 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 22:52 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 09:58 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 15:57 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 22:34 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 20:45 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 13:06 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 13:13 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 17:57 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 18:52 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 22:56 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 05:55 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 13:15 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 06:51 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 14:13 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 12:07 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 17:52 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 17:20 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 22:11 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 21:49 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-13 13:35 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-13 21:59 -0700
You can't _ measure motion if you never stop measuring. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-10-13 22:51 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 10:17 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 18:20 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 09:50 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 15:24 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-17 12:47 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 20:43 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-11 00:03 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 12:29 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 12:49 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 16:59 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-11 18:23 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 13:27 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-12 07:39 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 12:00 -0400
Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-10-13 22:38 -0700
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-13 23:39 -0700
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 14:45 +0000
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 08:04 -0700
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 16:12 +0000
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 09:33 -0700
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 20:20 +0000
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-14 13:40 -0700
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 13:52 -0700
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 21:09 +0000
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-14 18:18 -0700
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 05:34 -0700
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 14:24 +0000
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-14 21:44 -0700
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. Rogue Cormac <kremvax2004@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-14 10:58 -0600
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 19:06 +0200
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-10-14 14:49 -0700
Re: Einstein never said you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-14 23:06 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 10:34 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 09:33 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 12:48 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-12 13:35 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 17:29 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-13 11:10 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-17 14:33 -0500
Re: 'Space' is never empty poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-12 18:58 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-12 23:54 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 13:22 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 09:42 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 15:59 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 13:21 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 11:55 -0400
Re: 'Space' is never empty mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-08 09:47 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-08 11:51 -0500
Re: 'Space' is never empty poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-08 09:58 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 17:13 +0000
Re: 'Space' is never empty yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-17 12:04 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-10 17:39 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Ivan Smith <invalid@example.com> - 2018-10-11 08:28 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-11 18:20 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-11 19:43 -0500
Re: 'Space' is never empty Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 10:20 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-17 11:58 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-17 12:13 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 15:51 -0400
'Space' is never empty john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 07:55 -0700
Re: 'Space' is never empty mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-12 13:32 -0700
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 09:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e997f4d2-5585-455d-8e59-5953b0dbc2ab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #706699 |
Odd “So what you are describing is like saying you’re going to overthrow Belgium by attacking Sweden, under the premise that some Swedes visit Belgium. ” There is One Science. There is One Truth. You have many ‘sciences’- and some have mutual disagreements. So...you think you have some kind of ground to stand on by harking to your own internecine between your disciplines?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 18:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppitns$80d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #706861 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “So what you are describing is like saying you’re going to overthrow Belgium > by attacking Sweden, under the premise that some Swedes visit Belgium. > ” > There is One Science. > There is One Truth. > You have many ‘sciences’- and some have mutual disagreements. Such as? What disagreements? And no, John. There is one reality. There are multiple ways to describe that reality. Even in describing a lever, you can describe it using forces and torques, you can describe it with energy. These are not contradictory but they are not the same. It has always been the case that there are overlapping, nonidentical models that describe physical systems. There are correspondence principles that tie them together and show their equivalences. Just as there is no one, true human language that is best used to describe the world, there is no one, true science that describes everything fully. Nor should there be. Your understanding of science and how it works borders on childlike. > So...you think you have some kind of ground to stand on by harking to > your own internecine between your disciplines? > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 14:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2eeb7cae-34eb-424c-9683-1254a72afcc8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #706891 |
Odd “Your understanding of science and how it works borders on childlike. ” You’re a Lib?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 20:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ppjiub$17dj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #706925 |
On 10/9/2018 5:53 PM, john wrote: > Odd > “Your understanding of science and how it works borders on childlike. > ” > You’re a Lib? > Ain't it obvious as hell? Like all libs he thinks he can fool everyone into believing he knows science with a big stream of bullshit. He hasn't a clue that science doesn't work that way. And even when presented with an opportunity to learn what he does not know, he rejects it seeking the comfort of his gray world of ignorance with soft slightly yielding walls.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-09 21:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <34bbbc69-55db-4854-8c2b-127ed3531aef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #706947 |
On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 6:00:00 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: > On 10/9/2018 5:53 PM, john wrote: > > Odd > > “Your understanding of science and how it works borders on childlike. > > ” > > You’re a Lib? > > > Ain't it obvious as hell? > Like all libs he thinks he can fool everyone into believing he knows > science with a big stream of bullshit. He hasn't a clue that science > doesn't work that way. And even when presented with an opportunity to > learn what he does not know, he rejects it seeking the comfort of his > gray world of ignorance with soft slightly yielding walls. Dimension is not always full. There is pure gravity. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 05:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60c59094-ae93-47c9-a8b4-e30fff9a159d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #706947 |
On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 9:00:00 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 10/9/2018 5:53 PM, john wrote: > > Odd > > “Your understanding of science and how it works borders on childlike. > > ” > > You’re a Lib? > > > Ain't it obvious as hell? > Like all libs he thinks he can fool everyone into believing he knows > science with a big stream of bullshit. He hasn't a clue that science > doesn't work that way. And even when presented with an opportunity to > learn what he does not know, he rejects it seeking the comfort of his > gray world of ignorance with soft slightly yielding walls. Benj, you and John are the ones who fail the willing to learn test. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 09:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ppkvoc$1cbh$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #706995 |
On 10/10/2018 8:52 AM, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 9:00:00 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: >> On 10/9/2018 5:53 PM, john wrote: >>> Odd >>> “Your understanding of science and how it works borders on childlike. >>> ” >>> You’re a Lib? >>> >> Ain't it obvious as hell? >> Like all libs he thinks he can fool everyone into believing he knows >> science with a big stream of bullshit. He hasn't a clue that science >> doesn't work that way. And even when presented with an opportunity to >> learn what he does not know, he rejects it seeking the comfort of his >> gray world of ignorance with soft slightly yielding walls. > > Benj, > you and John are the ones who fail the willing to learn test. > Ed > Proof? Odd's proof is he gets out textbooks and thumps them. It's his version of bible thumping. What's yours?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 06:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <28f82a6f-493d-48a3-8bcd-7e575d0ae511@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #707001 |
benj “Proof? Odd's proof is he gets out textbooks and thumps them. It's his version of bible thumping. What's yours? ” ed and Odd are stuck in an epicycle
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 15:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppl7lu$1sdq$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707004 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > benj > “Proof? Odd's proof is he gets out textbooks and thumps them. It's his > version of bible thumping. What's yours? ” > ed and Odd are stuck in an epicycle > Just grab any word handy that sounds awful. Lib, epicycle, polyunsaturated. Something’s gonna stick, right? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 09:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3aaa4097-8f1f-48d9-8991-9356df4dd975@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #707025 |
Odd “Just grab any word handy that sounds awful. Lib, epicycle, polyunsaturated. Something’s gonna stick, right? ” I doubt it. You’re way too slippery
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 18:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pplsrh$120b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707025 |
On 10/10/2018 11:59 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >> benj >> “Proof? Odd's proof is he gets out textbooks and thumps them. It's his >> version of bible thumping. What's yours? ” >> ed and Odd are stuck in an epicycle >> > > Just grab any word handy that sounds awful. Lib, epicycle, polyunsaturated. > Something’s gonna stick, right? > Typical Odd. He thinks science is all about political debate. He thinks you do science by arguing about words. He's even worse than the people who think science is all about how complex and indecipherable your mathematics are. Odd doesn't even have mathematics. Just words.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 22:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppltki$13gb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707046 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/10/2018 11:59 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>> benj >>> “Proof? Odd's proof is he gets out textbooks and thumps them. It's his >>> version of bible thumping. What's yours? ” >>> ed and Odd are stuck in an epicycle >>> >> >> Just grab any word handy that sounds awful. Lib, epicycle, polyunsaturated. >> Something’s gonna stick, right? >> > Typical Odd. He thinks science is all about political debate. He thinks > you do science by arguing about words. He's even worse than the people > who think science is all about how complex and indecipherable your > mathematics are. Odd doesn't even have mathematics. Just words. > I don’t find mathematics indecipherable. Maybe you and John do. Maybe you think this is somehow unfair, like John does. John wants no science that a third grader can’t follow. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 15:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96cc03e5-d489-4faa-b9f6-db77268b1c46@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #707047 |
Odd “I don’t find mathematics indecipherable. Maybe you and John do. Maybe you think this is” Translate it into something that makes sense. EXPLAIN your understanding.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 00:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppm47k$1bvl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707049 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “I don’t find mathematics indecipherable. Maybe you and John do. Maybe you > think this is” > Translate it into something that makes sense. Mathematics makes sense. In fact, it is a BETTER language for a number of things. What you just said is like saying to someone speaking Japanese, “Use a language that makes sense.” Too parochial to be a grownup. > EXPLAIN your understanding. > Sure. With math. You too old to learn math? I’m not. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 20:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ppm6og$1f76$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707053 |
On 10/10/2018 8:07 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >> Odd >> “I don’t find mathematics indecipherable. Maybe you and John do. Maybe you >> think this is” >> Translate it into something that makes sense. > > Mathematics makes sense. In fact, it is a BETTER language for a number of > things. Odd does the lawyer tap dance! Rather than demonstrating that he knows math well enough to translate the language into words, instead he simply says it's BETTER than words (and thus because it's better he doesn't need to demonstrate what he is not capable do doing) > What you just said is like saying to someone speaking Japanese, “Use a > language that makes sense.” Too parochial to be a grownup. No. He's saying is you claim to understand Japanese, then translate a little Japanese into English for us to prove you can do what you say. >> EXPLAIN your understanding. >> > > Sure. With math. You too old to learn math? I’m not. And as usual lapses into name-calling to change the subject away from the fact that Odd has been called out and found wanting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 23:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d68e0ca4-3a38-4a87-a786-78abf725f1bc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #707063 |
benj “And as usual lapses into name-calling to change the subject away from the fact that Odd has been called out and found wanting. ” What’s the square root of 4? Plus or negative 2. Just throw out the negative solutions. Except in case you need them. And imaginary is good when you need it. But none of it relates to 3D? Don’t worry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 13:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppnhsb$1j81$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707063 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/10/2018 8:07 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Odd >>> “I don’t find mathematics indecipherable. Maybe you and John do. Maybe you >>> think this is” >>> Translate it into something that makes sense. >> >> Mathematics makes sense. In fact, it is a BETTER language for a number of >> things. > > Odd does the lawyer tap dance! Rather than demonstrating that he knows > math well enough to translate the language into words, instead he simply > says it's BETTER than words (and thus because it's better he doesn't > need to demonstrate what he is not capable do doing) > >> What you just said is like saying to someone speaking Japanese, “Use a >> language that makes sense.” Too parochial to be a grownup. > > No. He's saying is you claim to understand Japanese, then translate a > little Japanese into English for us to prove you can do what you say. This would prove nothing, because he doesn’t understand the math enough to know whether I’ve translated it correctly. For that matter, recall that you were not able to adequately translate even one of Maxwell’s equations into words well enough for John to understand the content. Instead you fell back on excuses that “anyone familiar with the physics would know what I mean.” Which completely made the point for me that for someone to discuss physics, they really do need to learn the languages, including the jargon and the math. You can’t do it otherwise. I can’t either. Stop trying to bait me into lowering everything to John’s level because you can’t do it either. So maybe you and I can discuss physics. But John won’t know what we are talking about, because he just won’t bother to learn it. > >>> EXPLAIN your understanding. >>> >> >> Sure. With math. You too old to learn math? I’m not. > > And as usual lapses into name-calling to change the subject away from > the fact that Odd has been called out and found wanting. > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 13:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ppnvm3$dup$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707138 |
On 10/11/2018 9:06 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 10/10/2018 8:07 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Odd >>>> “I don’t find mathematics indecipherable. Maybe you and John do. Maybe you >>>> think this is” >>>> Translate it into something that makes sense. >>> >>> Mathematics makes sense. In fact, it is a BETTER language for a number of >>> things. >> >> Odd does the lawyer tap dance! Rather than demonstrating that he knows >> math well enough to translate the language into words, instead he simply >> says it's BETTER than words (and thus because it's better he doesn't >> need to demonstrate what he is not capable do doing) >> >>> What you just said is like saying to someone speaking Japanese, “Use a >>> language that makes sense.” Too parochial to be a grownup. >> >> No. He's saying is you claim to understand Japanese, then translate a >> little Japanese into English for us to prove you can do what you say. > > This would prove nothing, because he doesn’t understand the math enough to > know whether I’ve translated it correctly. For that matter, recall that you > were not able to adequately translate even one of Maxwell’s equations into > words well enough for John to understand the content. Instead you fell back > on excuses that “anyone familiar with the physics would know what I mean.” > Which completely made the point for me that for someone to discuss physics, > they really do need to learn the languages, including the jargon and the > math. As I recall I did indeed translate one Maxwell equation so anyone could understand (but apparently not you) which you then criticized not because I had not done what you said I was too dumb to do but rather because I did not do it for ALL the equations. How off topic and idiotic can one get. You just totally ignore the point and create some strawman you can set on fire to "prove" you are "right" once again. Pathetic! > You can’t do it otherwise. I can’t either. Stop trying to bait me into > lowering everything to John’s level because you can’t do it either. I have no problem understanding what John is saying. And I'd have no problem criticizing his theories based upon actual data though typically I don't bother. But when John is right I have no problem caling forth the data to support his ideas (but also usually don't bother) But you and your minions can't seem to do either. All you have is name-calling, and side-trips having nothing to do with the issues in point. This is not a discussion, it's just journalist science which of course is unscience. > So maybe you and I can discuss physics. But John won’t know what we are > talking about, because he just won’t bother to learn it. And maybe you and I could discuss physics in French too, but does that mean that John's ideas are bogus if he doesn't speak french and as you say, "won't bother to learn it"? That does not automatically invalidate his ideas as your reasoning seems to dictate. Instead you should be asking John how his "fractal universe" theory can be true when the atoms as miniature solar systems idea was proved wrong MANY years ago. >> >>>> EXPLAIN your understanding. >>>> >>> >>> Sure. With math. You too old to learn math? I’m not. >> >> And as usual lapses into name-calling to change the subject away from >> the fact that Odd has been called out and found wanting. .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 17:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppo2te$jav$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707191 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/11/2018 9:06 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 10/10/2018 8:07 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Odd >>>>> “I don’t find mathematics indecipherable. Maybe you and John do. Maybe you >>>>> think this is” >>>>> Translate it into something that makes sense. >>>> >>>> Mathematics makes sense. In fact, it is a BETTER language for a number of >>>> things. >>> >>> Odd does the lawyer tap dance! Rather than demonstrating that he knows >>> math well enough to translate the language into words, instead he simply >>> says it's BETTER than words (and thus because it's better he doesn't >>> need to demonstrate what he is not capable do doing) >>> >>>> What you just said is like saying to someone speaking Japanese, “Use a >>>> language that makes sense.” Too parochial to be a grownup. >>> >>> No. He's saying is you claim to understand Japanese, then translate a >>> little Japanese into English for us to prove you can do what you say. >> >> This would prove nothing, because he doesn’t understand the math enough to >> know whether I’ve translated it correctly. For that matter, recall that you >> were not able to adequately translate even one of Maxwell’s equations into >> words well enough for John to understand the content. Instead you fell back >> on excuses that “anyone familiar with the physics would know what I mean.” >> Which completely made the point for me that for someone to discuss physics, >> they really do need to learn the languages, including the jargon and the >> math. > > As I recall I did indeed translate one Maxwell equation so anyone could > understand (but apparently not you) which you then criticized not > because I had not done what you said I was too dumb to do but rather > because I did not do it for ALL the equations. You recall incorrectly. My complaint was not about one equation vs all. My complaint was that you described it so badly that it was wrong, and certainly not well enough that John would understand it correctly. Your response is that a physicist would understand the implicit meaning of the terms you used. Which is exactly COUNTER to what you claimed to be doing, that is, to explain it in language that ANYONE would understand. If you want to take another shot at it to show me how it’s done, we can discuss that. When you think you’re done, I can ask John a couple questions to see if he understands your explanation. > How off topic and > idiotic can one get. You just totally ignore the point and create some > strawman you can set on fire to "prove" you are "right" once again. > > Pathetic! > >> You can’t do it otherwise. I can’t either. Stop trying to bait me into >> lowering everything to John’s level because you can’t do it either. > > I have no problem understanding what John is saying. Neither do I. The problem is, John doesn’t understand what scientists are saying. > And I'd have no > problem criticizing his theories based upon actual data though typically > I don't bother. Why not? That’s EXACTLY what you just said discussion of physics ideas is about. So put your money where your big mouth is and discuss the data. > But when John is right I have no problem caling forth > the data to support his ideas (but also usually don't bother) But you > and your minions can't seem to do either. All you have is name-calling, > and side-trips having nothing to do with the issues in point. This is > not a discussion, it's just journalist science which of course is > unscience. > >> So maybe you and I can discuss physics. But John won’t know what we are >> talking about, because he just won’t bother to learn it. > > And maybe you and I could discuss physics in French too, but does that > mean that John's ideas are bogus if he doesn't speak french and as you > say, "won't bother to learn it"? That does not automatically invalidate > his ideas as your reasoning seems to dictate. I’m saying this: John lifts ideas out from a position of ignorance. He knows no physics and so cannot check ANY of his ideas against what is already tested and validated. I’ll give you an example. John frequently talks about disks rotating about the perpendicular axis and precessing about an axis in the plane of the disk, without any external source of torque. I invite you to explain to him why this violates conservation of angular momentum. When I’ve mentioned it, his response is that if he can draw it happening, it must be physically allowed. So explain the data to him. > Instead you should be > asking John how his "fractal universe" theory can be true when the atoms > as miniature solar systems idea was proved wrong MANY years ago. > >>> >>>>> EXPLAIN your understanding. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sure. With math. You too old to learn math? I’m not. >>> >>> And as usual lapses into name-calling to change the subject away from >>> the fact that Odd has been called out and found wanting. > . > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 18:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ppoiqa$1d3n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707200 |
On 10/11/2018 1:57 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 10/11/2018 9:06 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 10/10/2018 8:07 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Odd >>>>>> “I don’t find mathematics indecipherable. Maybe you and John do. Maybe you >>>>>> think this is” >>>>>> Translate it into something that makes sense. >>>>> >>>>> Mathematics makes sense. In fact, it is a BETTER language for a number of >>>>> things. >>>> >>>> Odd does the lawyer tap dance! Rather than demonstrating that he knows >>>> math well enough to translate the language into words, instead he simply >>>> says it's BETTER than words (and thus because it's better he doesn't >>>> need to demonstrate what he is not capable do doing) >>>> >>>>> What you just said is like saying to someone speaking Japanese, “Use a >>>>> language that makes sense.” Too parochial to be a grownup. >>>> >>>> No. He's saying is you claim to understand Japanese, then translate a >>>> little Japanese into English for us to prove you can do what you say. >>> >>> This would prove nothing, because he doesn’t understand the math enough to >>> know whether I’ve translated it correctly. For that matter, recall that you >>> were not able to adequately translate even one of Maxwell’s equations into >>> words well enough for John to understand the content. Instead you fell back >>> on excuses that “anyone familiar with the physics would know what I mean.” >>> Which completely made the point for me that for someone to discuss physics, >>> they really do need to learn the languages, including the jargon and the >>> math. >> >> As I recall I did indeed translate one Maxwell equation so anyone could >> understand (but apparently not you) which you then criticized not >> because I had not done what you said I was too dumb to do but rather >> because I did not do it for ALL the equations. > > You recall incorrectly. My complaint was not about one equation vs all. My > complaint was that you described it so badly that it was wrong, and > certainly not well enough that John would understand it correctly. Your > response is that a physicist would understand the implicit meaning of the > terms you used. Which is exactly COUNTER to what you claimed to be doing, > that is, to explain it in language that ANYONE would understand. That was your assertion that it was wrong but you could not explain just what was wrong with other than according to you John could not understand it which as far as I could tell was just another of youf fantasies. John never said he could not understand it. You are so funny Odd. You just make up stories about how you are always "right" and then crow "see? Once again you are wrong and I am right? At least you are always a winner in your own mind! > If you want to take another shot at it to show me how it’s done, we can > discuss that. When you think you’re done, I can ask John a couple questions > to see if he understands your explanation. > >> How off topic and >> idiotic can one get. You just totally ignore the point and create some >> strawman you can set on fire to "prove" you are "right" once again. >> >> Pathetic! >> >>> You can’t do it otherwise. I can’t either. Stop trying to bait me into >>> lowering everything to John’s level because you can’t do it either. >> >> I have no problem understanding what John is saying. > > Neither do I. The problem is, John doesn’t understand what scientists are > saying. John understands that a lot of what "scientists' are saying doesn't make any sense. And since you have memorizes what they are saying and parrot it all the time, you don't make any sense either. >> And I'd have no >> problem criticizing his theories based upon actual data though typically >> I don't bother. > > Why not? That’s EXACTLY what you just said discussion of physics ideas is > about. So put your money where your big mouth is and discuss the data. > >> But when John is right I have no problem caling forth >> the data to support his ideas (but also usually don't bother) But you >> and your minions can't seem to do either. All you have is name-calling, >> and side-trips having nothing to do with the issues in point. This is >> not a discussion, it's just journalist science which of course is >> unscience. >> >>> So maybe you and I can discuss physics. But John won’t know what we are >>> talking about, because he just won’t bother to learn it. >> >> And maybe you and I could discuss physics in French too, but does that >> mean that John's ideas are bogus if he doesn't speak french and as you >> say, "won't bother to learn it"? That does not automatically invalidate >> his ideas as your reasoning seems to dictate. > > I’m saying this: John lifts ideas out from a position of ignorance. He > knows no physics and so cannot check ANY of his ideas against what is > already tested and validated. I’ll give you an example. John frequently > talks about disks rotating about the perpendicular axis and precessing > about an axis in the plane of the disk, without any external source of > torque. I invite you to explain to him why this violates conservation of > angular momentum. When I’ve mentioned it, his response is that if he can > draw it happening, it must be physically allowed. So explain the data to > him. So far as I know nobody has actually "seen" the insides of an atom. John can put forth any theory he likes. Perhaps you'd like to explain to us how electrons can orbit a nucleus and not spiral in due to loss of energy. WHat happened to conservation of energy? Does it just stop at the quantum level? See what I mean? Your mind is SO closed because your textbooks are your bible. And to you the world is just 6000 years old. >> Instead you should be >> asking John how his "fractal universe" theory can be true when the atoms >> as miniature solar systems idea was proved wrong MANY years ago. >> >>>> >>>>>> EXPLAIN your understanding. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sure. With math. You too old to learn math? I’m not. >>>> >>>> And as usual lapses into name-calling to change the subject away from >>>> the fact that Odd has been called out and found wanting. >> . >> > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web