Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #724605 > unrolled thread

No evidence of WIMPs- again

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  No evidence of WIMPs- again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-25 07:42 -0800
    Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-25 23:27 +0000
      Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-25 16:51 -0800
        Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-26 01:05 +0000
          Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-26 18:07 -0800
            Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 14:15 +0000
            Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-27 17:36 +0000
          Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-26 22:32 -0500
            Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 14:27 +0000
              Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 09:06 -0800
                Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-27 17:45 +0000
                Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 19:06 +0000
              Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 19:16 -0500
                Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 01:47 +0000
                  Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 04:26 -0500
                    Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 13:48 +0000
                      Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 13:46 -0500
                        Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 14:27 -0800
                          Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 22:58 +0000
                            Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 21:34 -0800
                              Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 14:30 +0000
                                Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 08:31 -0800
                                  Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 17:19 +0000
                                    Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 09:24 -0800
                                      Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 17:50 +0000
                                      Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 14:47 -0500
                                    Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 12:48 -0500
                                      Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 17:52 +0000
                                        Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 14:50 -0500
                                          Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-30 15:30 -0800
                                            Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 03:00 -0800
                                              Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 18:22 -0800
                                                Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 18:43 -0800
                                                  Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 20:45 -0800
                                                    Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 21:07 -0800
                                                      Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 21:26 -0800
    Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-26 16:15 -0800
    Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2019-01-27 15:49 -0800
      Re: No evidence of WIMPs- again mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 17:03 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#724605 — No evidence of WIMPs- again

https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/17999/20190123/new-detector-fails-confirm-evidence-dark-matter.htm

Give it up, guys.
Ya got gravity backwards.
All matter pushes on all matter- long range pull is not possible and not logical

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#724661

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/17999/20190123/new-detector-fails-confirm-evidence-dark-matter.htm
> 
> Give it up, guys.
> Ya got gravity backwards.
> All matter pushes on all matter- long range pull is not possible and not logical
> 

Why do you believe they long range pull is not possible and not logical?
Explain your position. 

Please note that demanding of me that I explain my position is not an
explanation of your position. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#724674

Odd
“Please note that demanding of me that I explain my position is not an 
explanation of your position”
You always demand of others but never comply to their requests. So

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#724678

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “Please note that demanding of me that I explain my position is not an 
> explanation of your position”
> You always demand of others but never comply to their requests. So
> 

I can explain with math. You can’t explain your position ANY way. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#724777

Odd
“
I can explain with math. You can’t explain your position ANY way. ”

SURE you can, Odd.
My statistics class made it very clear that EITHER side can be proven by math.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#724807

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “
> I can explain with math. You can’t explain your position ANY way. ”
> 
> SURE you can, Odd.
> My statistics class made it very clear that EITHER side can be proven by math.
> 
> 

So you say you won’t listen to math because it’s all lies. Got it. 
You still can’t explain your position ANY way. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#724831

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Odd
>"
>I can explain with math. You can=E2=80=99t explain your position ANY way. "

>SURE you can, Odd.
>My statistics class made it very clear that EITHER side can be proven by math.

He said math, not statistics. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#724785

On 1/25/2019 8:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Odd
>> “Please note that demanding of me that I explain my position is not an
>> explanation of your position”
>> You always demand of others but never comply to their requests. So
>>
> 
> I can explain with math. You can’t explain your position ANY way.

Odd you can't explain shit with with. And even if you could math is 100% 
fantasy and means nothing in relation to reality.

You have no reasonable logical explanation (even without details) as to 
what might generate a "pull". Pushes are EASY to theorize. Look at air. 
Molecules bouncing against each other generating pushes. But what could 
possibly generate "pulls"? tiny strings of aether? What are those sting 
made of? aetherons? What holds them together? "fields"? And what are 
those "fields" simply fantasy so now you have to theorize that the 
aetheons are held together with even tinier "strings" pulling all of 
them. And the argument goes on and one into nonsense.

Listen to John, Odd, John knows a lot more about this then you do.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#724809

benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/25/2019 8:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Odd
>>> “Please note that demanding of me that I explain my position is not an
>>> explanation of your position”
>>> You always demand of others but never comply to their requests. So
>>> 
>> 
>> I can explain with math. You can’t explain your position ANY way.
> 
> Odd you can't explain shit with with. And even if you could math is 100% 
> fantasy and means nothing in relation to reality.

So Maxwells equations have no bearing to reality? What about Newtonian
gravity equations? What about Keller’s laws? 

> 
> You have no reasonable logical explanation (even without details) as to 
> what might generate a "pull". Pushes are EASY to theorize. Look at air. 
> Molecules bouncing against each other generating pushes. But what could 
> possibly generate "pulls"? tiny strings of aether? 

Why do you imagine that material contact is required for all interactions?
Explain that logic. 

> What are those sting 
> made of? aetherons? What holds them together? "fields"? And what are 
> those "fields" simply fantasy so now you have to theorize that the 
> aetheons are held together with even tinier "strings" pulling all of 
> them. And the argument goes on and one into nonsense.
> 
> Listen to John, Odd, John knows a lot more about this then you do.
> 
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#724826

Odd
benj:
“Listen to John, Odd, John knows a lot more about this then you do. 
> ”
You’ve been told, Odd.
Pull your head out

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#724833

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Odd
>benj:
>"Listen to John, Odd, John knows a lot more about this then you do."
>You've been told, Odd.

By benj?

What next, will you use Archimedes Plutonium as proof that you are right?

>Pull your head out

You are projecting again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#724836

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> benj:
> “Listen to John, Odd, John knows a lot more about this then you do. 
>> ”
> You’ve been told, Odd.
> Pull your head out
> 

Ben is just stirring the pot. You love it. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#725006

On 1/27/2019 9:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/25/2019 8:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Odd
>>>> “Please note that demanding of me that I explain my position is not an
>>>> explanation of your position”
>>>> You always demand of others but never comply to their requests. So
>>>>
>>>
>>> I can explain with math. You can’t explain your position ANY way.
>>
>> Odd you can't explain shit with with. And even if you could math is 100%
>> fantasy and means nothing in relation to reality.
> 
> So Maxwells equations have no bearing to reality? What about Newtonian
> gravity equations? What about Keller’s laws?

No they do not. Equations are created by fantasy. An analog or parallel 
is ASSUMED with reality, but it's already known that this analog is 
WRONG, but right enough in some cases to be useful. Your idea that 
somehow fantasy is more real than reality is simply insane.


>> You have no reasonable logical explanation (even without details) as to
>> what might generate a "pull". Pushes are EASY to theorize. Look at air.
>> Molecules bouncing against each other generating pushes. But what could
>> possibly generate "pulls"? tiny strings of aether?
> 
> Why do you imagine that material contact is required for all interactions?
> Explain that logic.

Why do you think contact must be material. How do you define "material"? 
There is no logical and reasonable way to generate a "pull" without 
SOMETHING transmitting the force over distance. YOu just make up words, 
say they are doing the job and call the problem solved. This is called 
non-thinking, Odd.

>> What are those sting
>> made of? aetherons? What holds them together? "fields"? And what are
>> those "fields" simply fantasy so now you have to theorize that the
>> aetheons are held together with even tinier "strings" pulling all of
>> them. And the argument goes on and one into nonsense.
>>
>> Listen to John, Odd, John knows a lot more about this then you do.

This statement remains truer than ever.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#725019

benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/27/2019 9:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/25/2019 8:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Odd
>>>>> “Please note that demanding of me that I explain my position is not an
>>>>> explanation of your position”
>>>>> You always demand of others but never comply to their requests. So
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I can explain with math. You can’t explain your position ANY way.
>>> 
>>> Odd you can't explain shit with with. And even if you could math is 100%
>>> fantasy and means nothing in relation to reality.
>> 
>> So Maxwells equations have no bearing to reality? What about Newtonian
>> gravity equations? What about Keller’s laws?
> 
> No they do not. Equations are created by fantasy. An analog or parallel 
> is ASSUMED with reality, but it's already known that this analog is 
> WRONG, but right enough in some cases to be useful. 

And not being COMPLETELY AND COMPREHENSIVELY right means to you that it has
no bearing with reality. And you think that something that is useful and
matches lots of high precision measurements nevertheless has nothing to do
with reality? 

And so you are saying that the business of science is to crank out
fantasies? 

Is that really what you want to say? Or are you just pot-stirring?

> Your idea that 
> somehow fantasy is more real than reality is simply insane.
> 
> 
>>> You have no reasonable logical explanation (even without details) as to
>>> what might generate a "pull". Pushes are EASY to theorize. Look at air.
>>> Molecules bouncing against each other generating pushes. But what could
>>> possibly generate "pulls"? tiny strings of aether?
>> 
>> Why do you imagine that material contact is required for all interactions?
>> Explain that logic.
> 
> Why do you think contact must be material. How do you define "material"? 
> There is no logical and reasonable way to generate a "pull" without 
> SOMETHING transmitting the force over distance. 

Why does there have to be a force at all? 
How about capturing mechanics in terms of energy and then states migrate to
configurations of lower configuration energy? What happens to your
“something transmitting” then? Transmitting what in that formulation?

> YOu just make up words, 
> say they are doing the job and call the problem solved. This is called 
> non-thinking, Odd.
> 
>>> What are those sting
>>> made of? aetherons? What holds them together? "fields"? And what are
>>> those "fields" simply fantasy so now you have to theorize that the
>>> aetheons are held together with even tinier "strings" pulling all of
>>> them. And the argument goes on and one into nonsense.
>>> 
>>> Listen to John, Odd, John knows a lot more about this then you do.
> 
> This statement remains truer than ever.
> 
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#725047

On 1/28/2019 8:47 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/27/2019 9:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/25/2019 8:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Odd
>>>>>> “Please note that demanding of me that I explain my position is not an
>>>>>> explanation of your position”
>>>>>> You always demand of others but never comply to their requests. So
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I can explain with math. You can’t explain your position ANY way.
>>>>
>>>> Odd you can't explain shit with with. And even if you could math is 100%
>>>> fantasy and means nothing in relation to reality.
>>>
>>> So Maxwells equations have no bearing to reality? What about Newtonian
>>> gravity equations? What about Keller’s laws?
>>
>> No they do not. Equations are created by fantasy. An analog or parallel
>> is ASSUMED with reality, but it's already known that this analog is
>> WRONG, but right enough in some cases to be useful.
> 
> And not being COMPLETELY AND COMPREHENSIVELY right means to you that it has
> no bearing with reality. And you think that something that is useful and
> matches lots of high precision measurements nevertheless has nothing to do
> with reality?

There is no conclusive evidence of that!

> And so you are saying that the business of science is to crank out
> fantasies?

You think so for sure. And there are a few who agree with you.

> Is that really what you want to say? Or are you just pot-stirring?

Of course the business of science is to crank out fantasies! And the 
problem is people like you who want to stop at that point and declare 
the job done!

>> Your idea that
>> somehow fantasy is more real than reality is simply insane.


Fantasy is NOT more real than reality, Odd. Why is that so difficult for 
you to understand? John understands it!!

>>>> You have no reasonable logical explanation (even without details) as to
>>>> what might generate a "pull". Pushes are EASY to theorize. Look at air.
>>>> Molecules bouncing against each other generating pushes. But what could
>>>> possibly generate "pulls"? tiny strings of aether?
>>>
>>> Why do you imagine that material contact is required for all interactions?
>>> Explain that logic.
>>
>> Why do you think contact must be material. How do you define "material"?
>> There is no logical and reasonable way to generate a "pull" without
>> SOMETHING transmitting the force over distance.
> 
> Why does there have to be a force at all?
> How about capturing mechanics in terms of energy and then states migrate to
> configurations of lower configuration energy? What happens to your
> “something transmitting” then? Transmitting what in that formulation?

Why does there have to be reality at all? The entire body of mathematics 
has been created with out any reality! So why should John and I ask you 
to be limited by it? You has so little imagination you can't even 
IMAGINE a non-material object creating a "pull"! In fact you can't even 
imagine how a material object can do it! Let alone discuss any ideas in 
words how this might happen.

>> YOu just make up words,
>> say they are doing the job and call the problem solved. This is called
>> non-thinking, Odd.
>>
>>>> What are those sting
>>>> made of? aetherons? What holds them together? "fields"? And what are
>>>> those "fields" simply fantasy so now you have to theorize that the
>>>> aetheons are held together with even tinier "strings" pulling all of
>>>> them. And the argument goes on and one into nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> Listen to John, Odd, John knows a lot more about this then you do.
>>
>> This statement remains truer than ever.

Statement still true.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#725059

benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/28/2019 8:47 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/27/2019 9:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/25/2019 8:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Odd
>>>>>>> “Please note that demanding of me that I explain my position is not an
>>>>>>> explanation of your position”
>>>>>>> You always demand of others but never comply to their requests. So
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I can explain with math. You can’t explain your position ANY way.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Odd you can't explain shit with with. And even if you could math is 100%
>>>>> fantasy and means nothing in relation to reality.
>>>> 
>>>> So Maxwells equations have no bearing to reality? What about Newtonian
>>>> gravity equations? What about Keller’s laws?
>>> 
>>> No they do not. Equations are created by fantasy. An analog or parallel
>>> is ASSUMED with reality, but it's already known that this analog is
>>> WRONG, but right enough in some cases to be useful.
>> 
>> And not being COMPLETELY AND COMPREHENSIVELY right means to you that it has
>> no bearing with reality. And you think that something that is useful and
>> matches lots of high precision measurements nevertheless has nothing to do
>> with reality?
> 
> There is no conclusive evidence of that!

Conclusiveness has nothing to do with it!

> 
>> And so you are saying that the business of science is to crank out
>> fantasies?
> 
> You think so for sure. And there are a few who agree with you.

See below. YOU say this is what YOU believe. 

> 
>> Is that really what you want to say? Or are you just pot-stirring?
> 
> Of course the business of science is to crank out fantasies! And the 
> problem is people like you who want to stop at that point and declare 
> the job done!

The job is never done. 

There is ample ground between knowing everything and knowing nothing. Not
knowing everything doesn’t mean you know nothing. Nor is science a failure
at producing anything that has to do with reality until it has produced a
completely correct and fully comprehensive understanding. 

Your insatiable habit of painting everything in black and white is nothing
but pot-stirring propaganda and you know it full well. 

> 
>>> Your idea that
>>> somehow fantasy is more real than reality is simply insane.
> 
> 
> Fantasy is NOT more real than reality, Odd. Why is that so difficult for 
> you to understand? John understands it!!
> 
>>>>> You have no reasonable logical explanation (even without details) as to
>>>>> what might generate a "pull". Pushes are EASY to theorize. Look at air.
>>>>> Molecules bouncing against each other generating pushes. But what could
>>>>> possibly generate "pulls"? tiny strings of aether?
>>>> 
>>>> Why do you imagine that material contact is required for all interactions?
>>>> Explain that logic.
>>> 
>>> Why do you think contact must be material. How do you define "material"?
>>> There is no logical and reasonable way to generate a "pull" without
>>> SOMETHING transmitting the force over distance.
>> 
>> Why does there have to be a force at all?
>> How about capturing mechanics in terms of energy and then states migrate to
>> configurations of lower configuration energy? What happens to your
>> “something transmitting” then? Transmitting what in that formulation?
> 
> Why does there have to be reality at all? The entire body of mathematics 
> has been created with out any reality! So why should John and I ask you 
> to be limited by it? You has so little imagination you can't even 
> IMAGINE a non-material object creating a "pull"! In fact you can't even 
> imagine how a material object can do it! Let alone discuss any ideas in 
> words how this might happen.

Attraction can happen in an energy view without there being anything that
transmits any force. 

> 
>>> YOu just make up words,
>>> say they are doing the job and call the problem solved. This is called
>>> non-thinking, Odd.
>>> 
>>>>> What are those sting
>>>>> made of? aetherons? What holds them together? "fields"? And what are
>>>>> those "fields" simply fantasy so now you have to theorize that the
>>>>> aetheons are held together with even tinier "strings" pulling all of
>>>>> them. And the argument goes on and one into nonsense.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Listen to John, Odd, John knows a lot more about this then you do.
>>> 
>>> This statement remains truer than ever.
> 
> Statement still true.
> 
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#725089

On 1/29/2019 8:48 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/28/2019 8:47 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/27/2019 9:27 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/25/2019 8:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Odd
>>>>>>>> “Please note that demanding of me that I explain my position is not an
>>>>>>>> explanation of your position”
>>>>>>>> You always demand of others but never comply to their requests. So
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can explain with math. You can’t explain your position ANY way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Odd you can't explain shit with with. And even if you could math is 100%
>>>>>> fantasy and means nothing in relation to reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> So Maxwells equations have no bearing to reality? What about Newtonian
>>>>> gravity equations? What about Keller’s laws?
>>>>
>>>> No they do not. Equations are created by fantasy. An analog or parallel
>>>> is ASSUMED with reality, but it's already known that this analog is
>>>> WRONG, but right enough in some cases to be useful.
>>>
>>> And not being COMPLETELY AND COMPREHENSIVELY right means to you that it has
>>> no bearing with reality. And you think that something that is useful and
>>> matches lots of high precision measurements nevertheless has nothing to do
>>> with reality?
>>
>> There is no conclusive evidence of that!
> 
> Conclusiveness has nothing to do with it!
> 
>>
>>> And so you are saying that the business of science is to crank out
>>> fantasies?
>>
>> You think so for sure. And there are a few who agree with you.
> 
> See below. YOU say this is what YOU believe.
> 
>>
>>> Is that really what you want to say? Or are you just pot-stirring?
>>
>> Of course the business of science is to crank out fantasies! And the
>> problem is people like you who want to stop at that point and declare
>> the job done!
> 
> The job is never done.
> 
> There is ample ground between knowing everything and knowing nothing. Not
> knowing everything doesn’t mean you know nothing. Nor is science a failure
> at producing anything that has to do with reality until it has produced a
> completely correct and fully comprehensive understanding.

Your problem, Odd is not what you don't know but what you think you know 
that is wrong.

> Your insatiable habit of painting everything in black and white is nothing
> but pot-stirring propaganda and you know it full well.

The dividing line between reality and fantasy is black and white. Where 
you libs got the crazy idea that you can make reality anything you can 
imagine just by thinking it I'll never know.

>>
>>>> Your idea that
>>>> somehow fantasy is more real than reality is simply insane.
>>
>>
>> Fantasy is NOT more real than reality, Odd. Why is that so difficult for
>> you to understand? John understands it!!
>>
>>>>>> You have no reasonable logical explanation (even without details) as to
>>>>>> what might generate a "pull". Pushes are EASY to theorize. Look at air.
>>>>>> Molecules bouncing against each other generating pushes. But what could
>>>>>> possibly generate "pulls"? tiny strings of aether?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you imagine that material contact is required for all interactions?
>>>>> Explain that logic.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think contact must be material. How do you define "material"?
>>>> There is no logical and reasonable way to generate a "pull" without
>>>> SOMETHING transmitting the force over distance.
>>>
>>> Why does there have to be a force at all?
>>> How about capturing mechanics in terms of energy and then states migrate to
>>> configurations of lower configuration energy? What happens to your
>>> “something transmitting” then? Transmitting what in that formulation?
>>
>> Why does there have to be reality at all? The entire body of mathematics
>> has been created with out any reality! So why should John and I ask you
>> to be limited by it? You has so little imagination you can't even
>> IMAGINE a non-material object creating a "pull"! In fact you can't even
>> imagine how a material object can do it! Let alone discuss any ideas in
>> words how this might happen.
> 
> Attraction can happen in an energy view without there being anything that
> transmits any force.

Babbling drool. What is energy? What is force? How is there 
'transmission"? Your only answer is that it all makes sense in your 
fantasies and that's real enough for you. Saying that "magic" explains 
it all isn't very scientific, Odd.

>>
>>>> YOu just make up words,
>>>> say they are doing the job and call the problem solved. This is called
>>>> non-thinking, Odd.
>>>>
>>>>>> What are those sting
>>>>>> made of? aetherons? What holds them together? "fields"? And what are
>>>>>> those "fields" simply fantasy so now you have to theorize that the
>>>>>> aetheons are held together with even tinier "strings" pulling all of
>>>>>> them. And the argument goes on and one into nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Listen to John, Odd, John knows a lot more about this then you do.
>>>>
>>>> This statement remains truer than ever.
>>
>> Statement still true.
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#725118

benj
“Attraction can happen in an energy view without there being anything that 
> transmits any force. 

Babbling drool.”
Not even babbling drool. Mitch-level drool.
How has Odd sink so low?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#725124

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> benj
> “Attraction can happen in an energy view without there being anything that 
>> transmits any force. 
> 
> Babbling drool.”
> Not even babbling drool. Mitch-level drool.
> How has Odd sink so low?
> 

So you don’t know anything about configuration energy, John? 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#725151

Odd
“So you don’t know anything about configuration energy, John? ”
Tell me another fantasy. I can hardly wait.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web