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 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 22:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppok71$1ev9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707327 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. To HIM. It does make sense to physicists. It does make sense to me. You claim that all those people must be lying. Maybe you’re saying that it doesn’t make sense to you, and since you are smarter than everyone else, then it can’t make sense to anybody. Or maybe you’re saying that you’re a “true scientist” and anyone who claims that it makes sense cannot possibly be a “true scientist”. Go ahead. Say that. > 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. WELL?? >> >>> 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 They DON’T. They are not classical little BBs like planets. > and not spiral in due to loss of > energy. WHat happened to conservation of energy? Nothing. > Does it just stop at > the quantum level? No. > See what I mean? No. I have no idea what problem you think you are raising. Do you? > 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. >>> . >>> >> >> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 09:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bb0ad951-c966-472f-bae4-468be9a66762@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #707327 |
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 6:28:32 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > > So far as I know nobody has actually "seen" the insides of an atom. John > can put forth any theory he likes. What John puts forth here is at best conjecture, and mostly is closer to speculation and occasionally strays into fantasy. > 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. Maybe that is your view benj. You just like to set up strawman arguments to knock down because all you want to do is stir up trouble. Sad. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 15:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pq847o$4rm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #708610 |
On 10/17/2018 12:58 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 6:28:32 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: >> >> So far as I know nobody has actually "seen" the insides of an atom. John >> can put forth any theory he likes. > > What John puts forth here is at best conjecture, and mostly > is closer to speculation and occasionally strays into fantasy. All theory is conjecture and speculation. As Einstein pointed out: “A theory can be proved by experiment; but no path leads from experiment to the birth of a theory." If Boinker had not refused to read my book he'd already know this fact. He is willfully ignorant. You? >> Perhaps you'd like to explain to us >> how electrons can orbit a nucleus and not spiral in due to loss of >> energy. WHat happened to conservation of energy? Does it just stop at >> the quantum level? See what I mean? Your mind is SO closed because your >> textbooks are your bible. And to you the world is just 6000 years old. > > Maybe that is your view benj. You just like to set up strawman arguments > to knock down because all you want to do is stir up trouble. Sad. Hey, stirring up trouble is fun AND it can make some people think. Not Odd, of course, but you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 22:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pq8dea$k9p$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #708645 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/17/2018 12:58 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: >> On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 6:28:32 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: >>> >>> So far as I know nobody has actually "seen" the insides of an atom. John >>> can put forth any theory he likes. >> >> What John puts forth here is at best conjecture, and mostly >> is closer to speculation and occasionally strays into fantasy. > > All theory is conjecture and speculation. As Einstein pointed out: “A > theory can be proved by experiment; but no path leads from experiment to > the birth of a theory." If Boinker had not refused to read my book he'd > already know this fact. He is willfully ignorant. You? Actually Ben I’ve had your book for some time. Einstein perhaps is unaware of what went into the GIM mechanism. > >>> 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. >> >> Maybe that is your view benj. You just like to set up strawman arguments >> to knock down because all you want to do is stir up trouble. Sad. > > Hey, stirring up trouble is fun AND it can make some people think. Not > Odd, of course, but you? > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-10 20:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ppm6fo$1emn$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707049 |
On 10/10/2018 6:41 PM, john 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. > EXPLAIN your understanding. > Since mathematics is just a shorthand language of symbols, it is obvious that anyone who understands mathematics can also translate the meaning of any math into the long form of words. I've never heard Odd do that, have you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 13:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppnhsc$1j81$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707062 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/10/2018 6:41 PM, john wrote: >> Odd >> “I don’t find mathematics indecipherable. Maybe you and John do. Maybe you >> think this is” >> Translate it into something that makes sense. >> EXPLAIN your understanding. >> > Since mathematics is just a shorthand language of symbols, it is obvious > that anyone who understands mathematics can also translate the meaning > of any math into the long form of words. I've never heard Odd do that, > have you? > Have I heard you explain Maxwell’s equations in terms simple enough that John can CORRECTLY understand them? No. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 13:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ppo0c8$dup$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707139 |
On 10/11/2018 9:06 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 10/10/2018 6:41 PM, john wrote: >>> Odd >>> “I don’t find mathematics indecipherable. Maybe you and John do. Maybe you >>> think this is” >>> Translate it into something that makes sense. >>> EXPLAIN your understanding. >>> >> Since mathematics is just a shorthand language of symbols, it is obvious >> that anyone who understands mathematics can also translate the meaning >> of any math into the long form of words. I've never heard Odd do that, >> have you? >> > > Have I heard you explain Maxwell’s equations in terms simple enough that > John can CORRECTLY understand them? No. > I haven't heard that. Now maybe John may not believe what I said, but it's simple enough that I"m sure he can understand it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 17:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppo2tj$jav$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707195 |
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 6:41 PM, john 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. >>>> EXPLAIN your understanding. >>>> >>> Since mathematics is just a shorthand language of symbols, it is obvious >>> that anyone who understands mathematics can also translate the meaning >>> of any math into the long form of words. I've never heard Odd do that, >>> have you? >>> >> >> Have I heard you explain Maxwell’s equations in terms simple enough that >> John can CORRECTLY understand them? No. >> > I haven't heard that. Now maybe John may not believe what I said, but > it's simple enough that I"m sure he can understand it. > Well let’s ask him. John, let’s talk about Ben’s explanation of one of Maxwell’s equations. Let’s see if his explanation gave you a clear understanding of it. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 18:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ppok7q$1evh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707201 |
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 6:41 PM, john 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. >>>>> EXPLAIN your understanding. >>>>> >>>> Since mathematics is just a shorthand language of symbols, it is obvious >>>> that anyone who understands mathematics can also translate the meaning >>>> of any math into the long form of words. I've never heard Odd do that, >>>> have you? >>>> >>> >>> Have I heard you explain Maxwell’s equations in terms simple enough that >>> John can CORRECTLY understand them? No. >>> >> I haven't heard that. Now maybe John may not believe what I said, but >> it's simple enough that I"m sure he can understand it. >> > > Well let’s ask him. John, let’s talk about Ben’s explanation of one of > Maxwell’s equations. Let’s see if his explanation gave you a clear > understanding of it. > As I recall it was quite clear and you tried to obscure it all by switching from a differential to an integral representation (or vice versa I don't pay much attention to your blather. It's just some lawyer trick which you use and then pretend you are talking science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-11 22:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppokem$1f6q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707332 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 6:41 PM, john 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. >>>>>> EXPLAIN your understanding. >>>>>> >>>>> Since mathematics is just a shorthand language of symbols, it is obvious >>>>> that anyone who understands mathematics can also translate the meaning >>>>> of any math into the long form of words. I've never heard Odd do that, >>>>> have you? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Have I heard you explain Maxwell’s equations in terms simple enough that >>>> John can CORRECTLY understand them? No. >>>> >>> I haven't heard that. Now maybe John may not believe what I said, but >>> it's simple enough that I"m sure he can understand it. >>> >> >> Well let’s ask him. John, let’s talk about Ben’s explanation of one of >> Maxwell’s equations. Let’s see if his explanation gave you a clear >> understanding of it. >> > As I recall it was quite clear and you tried to obscure it all by > switching from a differential to an integral representation (or vice > versa I don't pay much attention to your blather. It's just some lawyer > trick which you use and then pretend you are talking science. > What the fuck are you talking about. You know NEITHER of those representations mean anything to John, so there is no switch that could be confusing to him. Let’s go back to the plain English words. Try again to explain it in terms JOHN will understand. Then we will find out if he does. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-12 05:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <757012a7-a9a7-4c5b-9b57-cf518d78e894@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #707333 |
Odd “Try again to explain it in terms JOHN will understand. Then we will find out if he does. ” Instead of debating who understands Maxwell, let’s discuss ideas. I am interested in your idea that galaxies resist precessing. So you think all the galaxies retain their angle of presentation in the sky at all times, barring some temporary energy event? And would you say that, like gyroscopes, if there WERE an energy event, they would tend to translate rather than precess?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-12 13:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppq6po$1rdi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707406 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “Try again to > explain it in terms JOHN will understand. Then we will find out if he does. ” > Instead of debating who understands Maxwell, let’s discuss ideas. > > I am interested in your idea that galaxies resist precessing. Not just galaxies. Everything. Everything resists precessing without an external source of torque. It’s related to a law of physics called conservation of angular momentum. I’d use math to show you this is so, but I’m sure Ben can explain it to you in plain language that even you can understand, let alone a barmaid. > > So you think all the galaxies retain their angle of presentation in the > sky at all times, barring some temporary energy event? > And would you say that, like gyroscopes, if there WERE an energy event, > they would tend to translate rather than precess? > I think I’d like to defer to Ben Jacoby, who can try to explain to you what energy is, so that you two can come to terms on just what the fuck you mean by “energy event”. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-12 06:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <04d5b1cd-c707-4ed1-812a-4f7b0db746e9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #707407 |
Odd “I think I’d like to defer to Ben Jacoby, who can try to explain to you what” You don’t want to discuss
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-12 14:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppqa6o$25r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707411 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “I think I’d like to defer to Ben Jacoby, who can try to explain to you what” > You don’t want to discuss > I don’t want to train you. Discussion is a conversation between people who know something about a subject. You haven’t bothered to learn enough about the subject to discuss it intelligently. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-12 12:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ppqgso$ed4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707416 |
On 10/12/2018 10:13 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >> Odd >> “I think I’d like to defer to Ben Jacoby, who can try to explain to you what” >> You don’t want to discuss >> > > I don’t want to train you. > Discussion is a conversation between people who know something about a > subject. You haven’t bothered to learn enough about the subject to discuss > it intelligently. > I'm Ben Jacoby, Odd, and I say you can't hold a conversation even though you have memorized a lot of "statements" about physics but you never bothered to understand the IDEAS behind those statements. You reject John because he puts forth ideas often without the knowledge of establishment "explanations" which leads you to refuse to discuss ANY ideas which are not simply parroting of what you've learned. And that goes for what John says and much of what I say.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-12 17:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppqmvv$pf9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707452 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/12/2018 10:13 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Odd >>> “I think I’d like to defer to Ben Jacoby, who can try to explain to you what” >>> You don’t want to discuss >>> >> >> I don’t want to train you. >> Discussion is a conversation between people who know something about a >> subject. You haven’t bothered to learn enough about the subject to discuss >> it intelligently. >> > I'm Ben Jacoby, Odd, and I say you can't hold a conversation even though > you have memorized a lot of "statements" about physics but you never > bothered to understand the IDEAS behind those statements. Third time I’ve asked, Ben. What idea do you want to discuss? > You reject > John because he puts forth ideas often without the knowledge of > establishment "explanations" which leads you to refuse to discuss ANY > ideas which are not simply parroting of what you've learned. And that > goes for what John says and much of what I say. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-12 17:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ppr372$1d7c$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707470 |
On 10/12/2018 1:52 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 10/12/2018 10:13 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Odd >>>> “I think I’d like to defer to Ben Jacoby, who can try to explain to you what” >>>> You don’t want to discuss >>>> >>> >>> I don’t want to train you. >>> Discussion is a conversation between people who know something about a >>> subject. You haven’t bothered to learn enough about the subject to discuss >>> it intelligently. >>> >> I'm Ben Jacoby, Odd, and I say you can't hold a conversation even though >> you have memorized a lot of "statements" about physics but you never >> bothered to understand the IDEAS behind those statements. > > Third time I’ve asked, Ben. What idea do you want to discuss? Quite trying to avoid the issue by changing the subject. It does not matter "what I want to discuss" what matters is that you are incapable of ANY discussion of ANY idea because you are too busy repeating your religious dogma.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-12 22:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppr674$1ic0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707507 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/12/2018 1:52 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 10/12/2018 10:13 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Odd >>>>> “I think I’d like to defer to Ben Jacoby, who can try to explain to you what” >>>>> You don’t want to discuss >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don’t want to train you. >>>> Discussion is a conversation between people who know something about a >>>> subject. You haven’t bothered to learn enough about the subject to discuss >>>> it intelligently. >>>> >>> I'm Ben Jacoby, Odd, and I say you can't hold a conversation even though >>> you have memorized a lot of "statements" about physics but you never >>> bothered to understand the IDEAS behind those statements. >> >> Third time I’ve asked, Ben. What idea do you want to discuss? > > Quite trying to avoid the issue by changing the subject. It does not > matter "what I want to discuss" what matters is that you are incapable > of ANY discussion of ANY idea because you are too busy repeating your > religious dogma. > > Ben, it seems the only thing you want to discuss is my unwillingness to discuss anything. Do you want to discuss some physics? Yes or no? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-12 21:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pprivf$25t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707528 |
On 10/12/2018 6:11 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 10/12/2018 1:52 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 10/12/2018 10:13 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Odd >>>>>> “I think I’d like to defer to Ben Jacoby, who can try to explain to you what” >>>>>> You don’t want to discuss >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don’t want to train you. >>>>> Discussion is a conversation between people who know something about a >>>>> subject. You haven’t bothered to learn enough about the subject to discuss >>>>> it intelligently. >>>>> >>>> I'm Ben Jacoby, Odd, and I say you can't hold a conversation even though >>>> you have memorized a lot of "statements" about physics but you never >>>> bothered to understand the IDEAS behind those statements. >>> >>> Third time I’ve asked, Ben. What idea do you want to discuss? >> >> Quite trying to avoid the issue by changing the subject. It does not >> matter "what I want to discuss" what matters is that you are incapable >> of ANY discussion of ANY idea because you are too busy repeating your >> religious dogma. >> >> > > Ben, it seems the only thing you want to discuss is my unwillingness to > discuss anything. > > Do you want to discuss some physics? Yes or no? > It's the purpose of this group. But clearly nobody here is interested in doing that. Is it a fractal universe or not? When Hermes Trismegistus said: "As above, so below". Was he saying it's a fractal universe?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-13 13:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ppssar$fj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #707574 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/12/2018 6:11 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 10/12/2018 1:52 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 10/12/2018 10:13 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Odd >>>>>>> “I think I’d like to defer to Ben Jacoby, who can try to explain to you what” >>>>>>> You don’t want to discuss >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I don’t want to train you. >>>>>> Discussion is a conversation between people who know something about a >>>>>> subject. You haven’t bothered to learn enough about the subject to discuss >>>>>> it intelligently. >>>>>> >>>>> I'm Ben Jacoby, Odd, and I say you can't hold a conversation even though >>>>> you have memorized a lot of "statements" about physics but you never >>>>> bothered to understand the IDEAS behind those statements. >>>> >>>> Third time I’ve asked, Ben. What idea do you want to discuss? >>> >>> Quite trying to avoid the issue by changing the subject. It does not >>> matter "what I want to discuss" what matters is that you are incapable >>> of ANY discussion of ANY idea because you are too busy repeating your >>> religious dogma. >>> >>> >> >> Ben, it seems the only thing you want to discuss is my unwillingness to >> discuss anything. >> >> Do you want to discuss some physics? Yes or no? >> > It's the purpose of this group. But clearly nobody here is interested in > doing that. Is it a fractal universe or not? When Hermes Trismegistus > said: "As above, so below". Was he saying it's a fractal universe? > It isn’t a fractal universe, because it lacks self-similarity at all scales. There are features of the universe that are fractal, but not the whole thing. As for Thrice Great Hermès, he was preceded by Parmenides and Zeno in the thoughts of infinite regression. On the other hand, by following the consequences of such thinking, Zeno concluded motion is impossible and an illusion. These are philosophical ideas, not science. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web