Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #724806 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-27 04:28 -0800 |
| Last post | 2019-01-30 13:24 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 96 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 04:28 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 08:55 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-27 17:33 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 09:46 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 19:09 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-27 19:41 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 12:10 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 20:20 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 20:50 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 21:06 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-27 23:17 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Sergi o <invaliid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-28 11:36 -0600
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 14:50 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 07:00 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 15:43 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 10:41 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 19:36 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 11:56 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 20:26 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 12:37 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 20:47 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 13:12 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 21:53 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 15:04 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 23:28 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 15:32 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 23:35 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 15:52 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 00:19 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 17:02 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 17:25 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 17:57 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-28 19:10 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 19:19 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 13:00 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 07:56 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 16:55 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 09:00 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 17:23 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 09:35 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 09:43 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 18:04 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 18:04 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 09:05 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 17:23 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 01:47 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 17:54 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 02:27 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 20:11 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 13:27 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 07:53 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 16:55 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 09:15 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 17:23 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 09:32 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 20:32 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 13:30 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 13:35 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-29 21:46 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 21:46 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 14:05 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 22:58 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 21:30 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 14:30 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 08:22 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 17:19 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 09:31 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 17:50 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-30 15:36 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 16:46 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-30 20:35 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 02:27 -0800
Re: Re: Black holes don’t merge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-31 16:52 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 13:10 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-31 16:41 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 13:48 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 22:09 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 16:37 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 19:04 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 19:18 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 03:45 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-01-31 20:29 -0800
Re: Re: Black holes don’t merge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-01 16:15 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-31 21:37 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-31 16:17 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 08:40 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-01-31 17:33 +0000
Re: Re: Black holes don’t merge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-28 20:50 +0000
Re: Re: Black holes don’t merge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-28 20:43 +0000
Re: Re: Black holes don’t merge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-28 16:39 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-28 16:32 +0000
Re: Black holes don’t merge Sergi o <invaliid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-27 22:58 -0600
Re: Black holes don’t merge mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-27 13:44 -0800
Re: Black holes don’t merge Sergi o <invaliid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-29 10:33 -0600
Re: Black holes don’t merge benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 13:51 -0500
Re: Black holes don’t merge "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-30 13:24 -0800
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-29 14:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <324a11fb-a984-482c-a173-cbea175bce03@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #725111 |
Odd “He showed you a coffee cup. With an arm. Take away the arm. Now you just rotate the cup on the table, spinning it with your fingers. After 360 degrees, it’s back to where it was. Now add the arm holding it. Now it takes 720 degrees. ” Yes. Did you watch it? I’ve been showing you this since forever. It’s NOT just spin in one plane. It’s a LINKED 1 to 2 spin in TWO orthogonal planes. That’s how ALL my ‘spinny things’ like Michael calls the work. You guys are dumb as a bag of hammers
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-29 22:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q2qlqk$19vo$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #725113 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “He showed you a coffee cup. With an arm. Take away the arm. Now you just > rotate the cup on the table, spinning it with your fingers. After 360 > degrees, it’s back to where it was. Now add the arm holding it. Now it > takes 720 degrees. ” > > Yes. Did you watch it? Yes of course. I did the same demo to my wife years ago. > I’ve been showing you this since forever. > It’s NOT just spin in one plane. > It’s a LINKED 1 to 2 spin in TWO orthogonal planes. No it’s not. Both rotations are about a vertical axis. There was no rotation about any horizontal axis. I guess you didn’t understand what you were looking at. Note that the vertical displacement with the arm is simply a function of how our three joint system works (wrist, elbow, shoulder). Replace the arm and shoulder with a garden hose between a hose bib and the coffee cup and the same demonstration can be done in one plane, two turns with no vertical displacement at all. I’ve done that one with my wife too. And on top of that, you can leave the coffee cup sitting IN ONE PLACE, just spinning it, and you’ll see the very same behavior. So you see, it has actually nothing to do with the cup base traversing a circular path or moving up and down. And on top of it, you still haven’t answered the question of what serves the role of the tethered arm of the tethered hose in the case of the electron. Remember that it doesn’t have to do with the path of the cup. Remove the arm or the hose and you can turn the cup ONCE in a circle and return it to original state. So again John: what serves the function of the arm or the hose in the case of the electron to give it the spinor behavior? > That’s how ALL my ‘spinny things’ like Michael calls the work. > > You guys are dumb as a bag of hammers > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-29 21:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <377050bb-f071-4789-b09e-c9abe143ffe0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #725123 |
Odd “So again John: what serves the function of the arm or the hose in the case of the electron to give it the spinor behavior? ” The double precession, you more-than-dolt. http://users.accesscomm.ca/sefton/2electronorbital.GIF
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-30 14:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q2scda$qp1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #725150 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “So again John: what serves the function of the > arm or the hose in the case of the electron to give it the spinor behavior? ” > The double precession, you more-than-dolt. Again, I will remind you that the coffee cup WITHOUT THE MECHANICAL CONNECTION of the arm or the hose does not exhibit the 720 degree rotation symmetry. You are saying the 720 degree rotation is what serves as the mechanical connection that produces the 720 degree precession symmetry. This is a little like observing something accelerating, asking what force is responsible for the acceleration, and then replying that the observed acceleration is responsible. > http://users.accesscomm.ca/sefton/2electronorbital.GIF > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-30 08:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e85dc02c-3597-4350-9dd5-32a81fcebd88@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #725184 |
Odd “ This is a little like observing something accelerating, asking what force is responsible for the acceleration, and then replying that the observed acceleration is responsible. > http://users.accesscomm.ca/sefton/2electronorbital.GIF “ You can draw this on a sphere. It’s one of Seifferts spirals. It’s a linked rotation/precession. The cycle takes two precessions to finish. The orbit must ‘turn two times to finish turning once’. I don’t know what blocks your tiny mind from comprehending this, but it’s not turn ‘as you know it’- in a single plane. It’s turn in two orthogonal planes where the frequencies are linked. I know, you say something can’t rotate in two planes at once, but simple observation shows you to be wrong
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-30 17:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q2smas$gmn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #725200 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “ > This is a little like observing something accelerating, asking what force > is responsible for the acceleration, and then replying that the observed > acceleration is responsible. > >> http://users.accesscomm.ca/sefton/2electronorbital.GIF > “ > You can draw this on a sphere. > It’s one of Seifferts spirals. > It’s a linked rotation/precession. > > The cycle takes two precessions to finish. > > The orbit must ‘turn two times to finish turning once’. > > I don’t know what blocks your tiny mind from comprehending this, but it’s > not turn ‘as you know it’- in a single plane. It’s turn in two orthogonal > planes where the frequencies are linked. Yes I know that’s what YOUR diagram is. My comment is that the coffee cup illustration of spinor behavior is NOT that, as can be shown by running the same coffee cup demonstration in a single plane, or in fact by running the coffee cup illustration while just spinning the cup in place with a tethered hose attached. This proves that the behavior is NOT the same as what your GIF depicts. Your response is, “But the motion in the demo LOOKS the same, so it must have the same root cause.” And that’s a mistake, as I’ve tried to explain to you. The spinor symmetry is NOT tied to the motion, but to you, how it moves is everything. This is where you make a very pervasive and basic mistake. As another illustration of this, you keep talking about torqueless precessions, under the premise that if you can DRAW such a precession, then it surely must be physically possible. And you completely ignore the LAWS of physics that say this will never happen, even if you draw it. You don’t know what’s CAUSING or constraining the motion or the behavior. All you care about is what motions you can draw. > > I know, you say something can’t rotate in two planes at once, but simple > observation shows you to be wrong > A drawn trajectory does not mean that trajectory is exhibited by real things in the real world, because real things in the real world are bound by laws of physics. They don’t do all the things you can just draw. Get it? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-30 09:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3f9cc13f-fd56-4daa-b113-a03280ac3b96@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #725206 |
Odd “And you completely ignore the LAWS of physics that say this will never happen, ” Those laws are wrong. Galaxies are clearly precessing. So are Quasars. There are none so blind....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-30 17:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q2so5j$pbp$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #725211 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “And you completely ignore the LAWS > of physics that say this will never happen, ” > Those laws are wrong. > Galaxies are clearly precessing. > So are Quasars. > There are none so blind.... > Think about this for a second. The laws of physics are pillars of the subject, tested in experiment out the wazoo. Now you come along, completely unread and uneducated in the subject and you don’t even understand the language of the subject, and you say you can explain something you find interesting as long as those laws of physics are just disregarded or taken to be wrong. And so you say that they just should then be declared wrong, to suit your uneducated proposal. Think that’s gonna fly? Why don’t you try that in macroeconomics or chemistry? Just say you have an idea and everyone’s standard beliefs that would rule out your idea are just wrong. How about in biology or meteorology. Long live the uneducated oddball who declares everyone wrong!! -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-30 15:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fe0af436-f556-4861-8af8-0154dbf434ac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #725211 |
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 9:31:43 AM UTC-8, john wrote: Odd > “And you completely ignore the LAWS > of physics that say this will never happen, ” John > Those laws are wrong. This is an extraordinary claim, John, which therefore requires extraordinary evidence. Show us the evidence, John, or crawl away... again... > Galaxies are clearly precessing. Another extraordinary claim, completely unsupported by evidence. > So are Quasars. Yet another extraordinary claim, completely unsupported by evidence. > There are none so blind... ... as John! Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-30 16:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7fd1c1af-9fc8-453f-be24-66b206fea8ee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #725264 |
Pnal “Those laws are wrong. This is an extraordinary claim, John, which therefore requires extraord” All it requires is to reject all the ‘extraordinary escuses’ for why Suck Gravity isn’t wrong. DE, DM, singularities etc etc. We are required to believe TOTAL SHIT so suck gravity won’t be wrong? Fuck off. Suck gravity is OBVIOUSLY wrong. Don’t be an idiot for the rest of your life
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-30 20:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b3ac2c24-5e61-466f-a79d-2c7ec6027ed0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #725270 |
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 4:46:35 PM UTC-8, john wrote: > Pnal > “Those laws are wrong. > > This is an extraordinary claim, John, which therefore requires extraordinary evidence” > All it requires is to reject all the ‘extraordinary escuses’ for why Suck Gravity isn’t wrong. DE, DM, singularities etc etc. We are required to believe TOTAL SHIT so suck gravity won’t be wrong? Evidence, John, evidence... if you want the world at large to believe what you say, you must have evidence to support your position, it is pretty much that simple... > Fuck off. I understand completely, John, your frustration with reality drives you to express yourself with vulgarities that cannot be explained by 'normal' folks. You've started out with nothing to offer here, John, and, my goodness, you still have most of it left! > Suck gravity is OBVIOUSLY wrong. Well, John, if it is so obvious, then you should have no problem providing the freaking EVIDENCE to support your own VERY tenuous position! Again, you've started with nothing and you still have nothing. Talk is cheap! Let's see the math! Let's see your "drawings"! > Don’t be an idiot for the rest of your life. ... says the guy who has been an idiot since the very beginning. John, I've forgotten more physics than you will EVER know, and you are looking, to me, like the biggest clown of all time. Why would you want to be thought of like that? Like a whole lot of others here, you don't have a clue now, John, and you've never had a clue. Basic reality. You wanna play with the Big Boys, you better have your facts straight, or you're gonna eat a lot of shit. A battle of wits with you is like having a battle with an unarmed person, it is just a slaughter. "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - - Thomas Sowell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 02:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1c74a792-9b01-46db-aa28-a81dc429a288@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #725293 |
pnal “.........” Still no DM demonstrated, but pnal the sheep still believes in suck gravity. Still no gravitons or any other means for Suck Gravity to work ever demonstrated but pnal, Odd, and Michael (are they different people, even?) STILL say “Baaaa!”. Poor sheep. Then pnal wants ME to show evidence? Hahaha
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 16:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q2v946$rl5$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #725323 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >pnal >"........." >Still no DM demonstrated, but pnal the sheep still believes in suck gravity. 1950: "Still no neutrinos demonstrated, but the sheep still believes in neutrinos." 2010: "Still no Higgs boson demonstrated, but the sheep still believes in Higgs." >Still no gravitons or any other means for Suck Gravity to work ever demonstrated >but pnal, Odd, and Michael (are they different people, even?) Are we going back to the "Everyone is a PD sock!!!" claim? >Poor sheep. >Then pnal wants ME to show evidence? >Hahaha This is a response to a different crank, but it applies to you here, John. >> "The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is >> incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an >> experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." So where is your "experimental test that can clearly evidence your claims." ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 13:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q2us53$9j5$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #725270 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Pnal > “Those laws are wrong. > > This is an extraordinary claim, John, which therefore requires extraord” > All it requires is to reject all the ‘extraordinary escuses’ for why Suck > Gravity isn’t wrong. DE, DM, singularities etc etc. We are required to > believe TOTAL SHIT so suck gravity won’t be wrong? > Fuck off. > Suck gravity is OBVIOUSLY wrong. Show why it is obviously wrong. Note, asking a bunch of questions that come from the fact that you don’t understand how it is possible, does not constitute a proof that it is wrong. That would be assuming that everything that is correct is understood by you, which is of course nonsense. So SHOW that “suck gravity” is wrong. While you’re at it, show that the attraction of static cling is wrong. And that “suck magnetism” is wrong. > Don’t be an idiot for the rest of your life > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 16:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q2v8gl$rl5$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #725270 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Pnal >"Those laws are wrong. >This is an extraordinary claim, John, which therefore requires extraord" >All it requires is to reject all the 'extraordinary escuses' >for why Suck Gravity isn't wrong. What 'extraordinary excuses'? Newtonian gravity is about 400 years old. Einstein's GR is 100+ years old. Theories that have been used for that long successfully all the time cannot be extraordinary. But someone showing up shouting "Look! Precessing spinny things explain everything!!!" Now, THAT's extraordinary! You may as well claim electricity doesn't exist, and any claim that it does is extraordinary. I mean tiny particles that produce such forces that can travel through solid metal, and can make a wire get so hot that it glows? Extraordinary! Umm, no, we've been using electricity for close to 150 years now. > DE, DM, singularities etc etc. "Invisible heavy stuff" is hardly extraordinary. Singularities usually mean that there are details we just don't know yet. >We are required to believe TOTAL SHIT so suck gravity won't be wrong? Nobody is 'required' to believe anything. I believe in Canada you can have whatever religion you want, go pray to the Holy Precessing Disk if you want. Just don't confuse your unsupported faith with science, and don't think that people should abandon good astronomy to start bowing to the Holy Precessing Galaxy. >Fuck off. THAT is the best you can do?? >Suck gravity is OBVIOUSLY wrong. How can it be "OBVIOUSLY" wrong, if it has been predicting orbits of planets and comets for 400 years, NASA can send space probes to the outer planets and beyond using gravity boosts from other planets and can send them from Jupiter to Saturn to Uranus to Neptune, all using Newtonian gravity? What is so "OBVIOUSLY" wrong about that? Especially when your alternate has already been shown that it just CANNOT work? >Don't be an idiot for the rest of your life Take your own advice, John.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 13:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4929fd97-c3d3-4d1b-a538-ede3d82270dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #725353 |
Michael “How can it be "OBVIOUSLY" wrong, if it has been predicting orbits of planets and comets for 400 years, NASA can send space probes to the outer planets and beyond using gravity boosts from other planets and ” Epicycles worked better than solar-centric for awhile, too. Depends on how much money you can throw at something. Obviously, if you never spend a dime making gasoline engines, horse-drawn buggies will continue to rule, Sheep#3 (Sorry, MM- Odd and Penile are Sheep#1 and Sheep#2- sorry...)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 22:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q2vrnf$vvj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #725403 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Michael > “How can it be "OBVIOUSLY" wrong, if it has been predicting orbits of > planets and comets for 400 years, NASA can send space probes to the > outer planets and beyond using gravity boosts from other planets and ” > Epicycles worked better than solar-centric for awhile, too. > Depends on how much money you can throw at something. > Obviously, if you never spend a dime making gasoline engines, horse-drawn > buggies will continue to rule, Sheep#3 (Sorry, MM- Odd and Penile are > Sheep#1 and Sheep#2- sorry...) > I love the notion that if people throw enough money at your idea, then it will end up doing a better job than current science. I have a thought: let’s pour a ton of money into Professor Harold Hill’s “Think Method” for curing stage 4 cancer. Waddya say, yah bunch of SHEEP? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 16:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d832dde7-5a16-4e84-9775-3f046921460b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #725406 |
Odd “. Waddya say, yah bunch of SHEEP? “ Sheep #1 is talking to you guys, Penile and MMoron: sheep’s # 2 and 3. What do you say? Never mind- I know- baaa!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 19:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7ae2b03b-f69b-464f-9e9b-94bbe28b5b85@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #725423 |
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 4:37:09 PM UTC-8, john wrote: > Odd > “. Waddya say, yah bunch of SHEEP? “ > Sheep #1 is talking to you guys, Penile and MMoron: > sheep’s # 2 and 3. What do you say? > Never mind- I know- baaa!! Talk is cheap, John, but evidence can be very compelling. Got Evidence?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-31 19:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b4f6a47e-f438-473a-a8c5-e1e719066b1b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #725442 |
pnal “Talk is cheap, John, but evidence can be very compelling. Got Evidence?” Are observations evidence? Does it matter if others made them? Yes? No? Okay, then: for the umpteenth time, the only explanation for asymmetrical galactic rotation curves (if galaxies don’t precess) is dark matter. However, it’s looking more and more like nobody can prove that dark matter exists. Therefore, galaxies must precess.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web