Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #726334 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-02-07 21:11 -0800 |
| Last post | 2019-02-11 23:49 -0800 |
| Articles | 17 on this page of 117 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Matter doesn’t suck john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-07 21:11 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-08 16:54 +1100
Re: Matter doesn’t suck john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-07 22:08 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-02-08 17:14 +1100
Re: Matter doesn’t suck poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-07 22:35 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-08 08:07 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-02-08 10:07 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-08 13:18 -0500
Re: Matter doesn’t suck James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-02-08 10:06 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-02-08 12:30 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-02-08 09:42 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-08 11:16 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-02-08 12:32 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-08 13:23 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-02-08 16:21 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-02-08 15:50 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-09 22:45 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-08 19:29 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-08 11:35 -0800
Re: Re: Matter doesn’t suck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-08 20:32 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-09 22:53 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-10 01:41 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-09 16:17 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-09 19:50 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-02-09 19:56 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-10 03:46 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-02-10 09:45 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-10 17:51 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2019-02-10 13:35 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck pnalsing@gmail.com - 2019-02-10 15:10 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-10 15:17 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-10 07:45 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-10 16:06 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-10 15:40 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-11 00:59 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-10 17:30 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-11 01:47 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-10 18:44 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-11 12:54 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-11 00:01 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-11 08:59 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-11 17:24 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-11 20:39 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-12 12:13 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-11 23:45 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-12 13:20 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-12 08:42 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-12 19:23 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-12 12:30 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-12 14:59 -0600
Re: Matter doesn’t suck mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-02-12 13:07 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-12 13:23 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-02-12 13:35 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-02-12 14:41 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-12 23:12 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-12 15:41 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-12 16:19 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 03:04 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-12 20:01 -0800
Re: Re: Matter doesn’t suck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-13 06:14 +0000
Re: Re: Matter doesn’t suck poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-13 08:49 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 22:46 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-13 17:18 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 03:12 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 02:52 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 19:02 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 12:12 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 22:24 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-17 11:40 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-17 19:42 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-17 13:03 -0700
Re: Matter doesn’t suck poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-17 17:48 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-18 02:15 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-18 21:13 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-19 13:52 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-19 10:08 -0500
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-19 15:15 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-19 16:07 -0500
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-02-19 13:54 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-02-13 17:26 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 11:22 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 03:04 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-12 20:11 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-02-12 20:57 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 11:22 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 04:30 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 05:16 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 14:41 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 14:30 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 14:41 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 14:41 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 14:41 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 14:41 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 14:44 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 07:09 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 15:58 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 16:06 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 09:14 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 22:46 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 15:03 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 23:15 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 15:23 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 14:04 +0000
Re: Re: Matter doesn’t suck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-14 22:46 +0000
Re: Re: Matter doesn’t suck john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 15:23 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 23:52 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-15 05:39 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-13 15:34 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-13 08:54 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-12 23:11 +0000
Re: Matter doesn’t suck poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-12 21:37 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-10 15:39 -0600
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-09 10:51 -0600
Re: Matter doesn’t suck mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-02-09 12:49 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-10 15:20 -0600
Re: Matter doesn’t suck mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-02-10 18:32 -0800
Re: Matter doesn’t suck Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-02-11 23:49 -0800
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-13 23:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q428do$1jac$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #727180 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “Remember the charge to you was to explain “real stuff” in plain language > that anyone can understand. Did you do that, hypocrite? > “ > Yes I did, liar. Bullshit John. The everyday person is not going to see a boulder as a manifestation of energy trapped in a standing wave. Nor will they see a living room sunbeam as that. You are dreaming. So your complaint is that physics models are expressed in language that only SOME people understand and you want it in language that everyone can understand. When pressed to do the same thing for something simple like “real stuff”, your answer is kookbabble that NO ONE but you understands. You’re a hypocrite. You demand things you can’t provide yourself. > This is a request that has been made of you re your ‘model’ (nonsense > that it is), and you have consistently refused- because you simply CAN’T. > > I’ll do it again- real stuff is EVERYTHING. > But- in a Fractal Universe- only what we can see and measure is real > stuff- the rest is Space or ‘fields’. > > As far as your fields are everything bullshit: a calm lake does not have > a boatwake lurking in it waiting for the boat- the boat is REAL STUFF > making a wake in the lake. And the lake/field is also REAL STUFF i.e. > moving water, just like all fields are smaller REAL STUFF in motion. > > You’re STILL an idiot. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-13 15:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fd9653b9-b0fa-4ede-a80a-b55932f03630@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #727181 |
Odd “The everyday person is not going to see a boulder as a manifestation of energy trapped in a standing wave. Nor will they see a living room sunbeam as that. ” I guess- as a woodworker- you don’t understand that a boulder is a large collection of atoms? You retreat into this ‘I WILL not understand ANYTHING mode, where you appear to forget even that. Maybe you should just quit asking questions- you DON’T want hear the answer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 14:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q43sh8$qnf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #727182 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “The everyday person is not going to see a boulder as a > manifestation of energy trapped in a standing wave. Nor will they see a > living room sunbeam as that. > ” > I guess- as a woodworker- you don’t understand that a boulder is a large > collection of atoms? Well, now that’s different. Had you said that “real stuff” means made of atoms, we could have talked about that. At least it would have been plain language that everyone understands, unlike this “manifestation of energy trapped in a standing wave” kookbabble. Now, if you’re going to say, “But atoms are just manifestations of energy trapped in a standing wave,” then we’re right back to the kookbabble that nobody understands. So let’s just stick to plain, everyday language that you think everyone is owed. But, see, there’s still a problem. Because a living room sunbeam is not made of atoms, nor is it a manifestation of energy trapped in a standing wave. And a lightning bolt, which is plasma, is not made of atoms, nor is it a manifestation of energy trapped in a standing wave. And muons that come flying down very second on your head from cosmic rays are not made from atoms, nor are they manifestations of energy trapped in a standing wave. So I guess you’re still lacking a plain language explanation of “real stuff” that everyone will understand. > You retreat into this ‘I WILL not understand ANYTHING mode, where you > appear to forget even that. > Maybe you should just quit asking questions- you DON’T want hear the answer > Part of the problem, of course, is that you don’t know the meanings of the words you use, like “precess” and “standing-wave”. Which I could make plain in a simple illustration or two where I ask you to explain either of those things in common examples. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 22:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q44r4j$mhh$6@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #727180 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >As far as your fields are everything bullshit: a calm lake does not have a >boatwake lurking in it waiting for the boat- the boat is REAL STUFF making >a wake in the lake. And the lake/field is also REAL STUFF i.e. moving water, >just like all fields are smaller REAL STUFF in motion. No, John. The surface of the lake is the field. The height of the waves is the value of the field at that point. (A field has a value of some sort everywhere within it. The value can be a scalar, vector or tensor. Spinors, too). If the lake is calm, the value of the field is zero everywhere. Like empty space with no charges or electromagnetic radiation will have its electromagnetic field zero. Along comes a boat and it creates a disturbance in the field, called a wake. And, interestingly, the disturbance propagates, just like electromagnetic radiation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 15:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0f6a2aaa-5986-44e8-83c5-f94caf24d273@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #727379 |
MM “interestingly, “ Haha. You’re not interested in anything. It’s settled Science for you
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-14 23:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q44v02$1qne$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #727392 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > MM > “interestingly, “ > Haha. > You’re not interested in anything. > It’s settled Science for you > Not settled. Just not All Wrong in the way you think. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-15 05:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dbb6ab35-8134-4447-97f4-77ceed1eeecc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #727403 |
Odd “Not settled. Just not All Wrong in the way you think. “ I don’t think it’s all wrong. The detail in most places is good, but since they have the large picture backwards, they can’t get the pieces to fit together right.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-13 15:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q41df1$asp$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #727011 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >A magnetic field is composed of charged subatomic radiations that follow >curving pathways. A gravitational field is caused by uncharged subatomic >radiations that follow straight pathways. No John. Gravitational fields are just as curved if there are more than one gravitating body. I suspect you are confused by the fact that magnetic poles always come in pairs (no such thing as a magnetic monopole) so you'll nearly always see them curved. and your "[un]charged subatomic radiation" is nothing but word salad. >Saying that a field 'is always there' is just as stupid as saying that the >waves on a lake made by a boat passing are always there but only manifest >when the boat passes. No John. The field is the lake, or more specifically the height of waves on the lake. If the lake is calm, the height of the nonexistent waves is zero everywhere so your "boat wake field" is zero everywhere. If there are no waves, they cannot always be there. >When are you going to provide a picture of your atomic model, or a simple >explanation that an ordinary person can understand? (Answer: never) Odd has repeatedly directed you to books about the standard model which you refuse to read. So your question has already been answered. When are YOU going to come up with a model of your "physics" rather than just disjointed comments on fractal radiation, OCD-fueled babbling about precessing spinny things and animated GIFS of more precessing spinny things? You make so many mistakes in one short post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty6@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-13 08:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <307e0aa4-0581-4329-8f99-fee55af415e0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #727004 |
On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 1:22:43 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Odd
> > “So what does “real stuff” mean? Explain in plain language without your made
> > up mumbo jumbo. Just something a regular person would understand and agree
> > with. ”
> > So now you’re a ‘regular person’ and you ‘understand and agree’ with things?
> > You’re a bot and I’ve never heard you agree with anything.
> > A field is math- NOT real stuff.
>
> This does not answer my question. I asked you what “real stuff” means.
>
> Instead you go in with your rant about what things are not real stuff.
>
> If you cannot say in plain language what you mean by “real stuff” then none
> of these sentences are meaningful.
> ============================
crocky
what are the physical dimensions
of your fields??
====
TIA
Y.P
==================
>
> > A ‘point particle’ is math - NOT real stuff.
> > A singularity is math- NOT real stuff.
> > Dark Matter is a mathematical fix- NOT real stuff.
> > Quantum Spin is mumbo jumbo- DEFINITELY not real stuff.
> > Curved Space or Spacetime is math- NOT real stuff.
> > Your model- which you cannot explain, draw or visualize- is NOT real stuff.
> >
> > There- that will narrow it down for you
s
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-12 23:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q3vjru$1ebk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #726914 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “You mean, like what kind of material? > What makes you think fields have to be made of some material stuff? ” > Your fields are made of pure magic, Odd. > Nothing magic about them. What do you find about their properties and traits that seems impossible to you? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty6@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-12 21:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3ffea087-fd92-4297-9abe-809aad383e67@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #726914 |
On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 10:30:52 PM UTC+2, john wrote: > Odd > “You mean, like what kind of material? > What makes you think fields have to be made of some material stuff? ” > Your fields are made of pure magic, Odd. ================== thank you John see my new thread === are fields the most basic physical entity?!! TIA Y.P ======================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-10 15:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <q3q5n3$fmv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #726626 |
On 2/10/2019 9:45 AM, john wrote: > Odd > “What charged > radiations that travel in circles are you imagining going between them? ” > You have apparently never seen flux lines. > I’m not surprised. > Let me compare them to something you HAVE seen: tree rings. Perhaps you’ve noticed those lines in the wood when you’re sanding? I’ll bet you’ve never wondered about them. See how they go round and round? That’s like how charge works, Odd! > Try to pay attention next time you’re making a wooden block. > flux lines => tree rings => lines in wood when sanding => wooden block actually, flux lines have nothing to do with wooden blocks. However, a wooden block can cause static field lines to change some, if you through the block in there, hard to measure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-09 10:51 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <q3n0ee$9se$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #726334 |
On 2/7/2019 11:11 PM, john wrote: > Why larger planets and stars appear ‘gaseous’: > > Matter does not autonomously ‘suck’. > > All matter gives off energy as its electrons accelerate around their nucleus at a large fraction of lightspeed. > This energy ‘pushes’ them away from their own proton, even though their opposite charge (spin) tries to pull them against their proton. It’s a balance. > > All electrons are emitting this energy that resonates with and is absorbed by protons- so there is a pressure coming towards a body of matter from all directions in Space that is absorbed by the protons in that body. > > At the same time, the electrons in that body are putting out this same ‘push’. > > So, when a body is small, the incoming push is much larger than the outgoing push, and the absorption exactly reflects how many protons are there. But as the body gets larger, it can only absorb ALL of the incoming push from any one direction, and more and more of the matter is unseen, gravitationally. Also, it is emitting more and more of its OWN push. > > So larger planets and stars APPEAR to be much less massive than they are. > you should keep all these thoughts, posts, and put together a book. what would the title be ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-09 12:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e0873246-3273-446e-902b-d96447ed0a2c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #726516 |
On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 8:51:31 AM UTC-8, Serg Io wrote: > On 2/7/2019 11:11 PM, john wrote: > > Why larger planets and stars appear ‘gaseous’: > > > > Matter does not autonomously ‘suck’. > > > > All matter gives off energy as its electrons accelerate around their nucleus at a large fraction of lightspeed. > > This energy ‘pushes’ them away from their own proton, even though their opposite charge (spin) tries to pull them against their proton. It’s a balance. > > > > All electrons are emitting this energy that resonates with and is absorbed by protons- so there is a pressure coming towards a body of matter from all directions in Space that is absorbed by the protons in that body. > > > > At the same time, the electrons in that body are putting out this same ‘push’. > > > > So, when a body is small, the incoming push is much larger than the outgoing push, and the absorption exactly reflects how many protons are there. But as the body gets larger, it can only absorb ALL of the incoming push from any one direction, and more and more of the matter is unseen, gravitationally. Also, it is emitting more and more of its OWN push. > > > > So larger planets and stars APPEAR to be much less massive than they are. > > > > > you should keep all these thoughts, posts, and put together a book. > > what would the title be ? "No books for anyone" By Roy Masters... God creates gravity. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg Io <invvalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-10 15:20 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <q3q4iv$bcb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #726547 |
On 2/9/2019 2:49 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 8:51:31 AM UTC-8, Serg Io wrote: >> On 2/7/2019 11:11 PM, john wrote: >>> Why larger planets and stars appear ‘gaseous’: >>> >>> Matter does not autonomously ‘suck’. >>> >>> All matter gives off energy as its electrons accelerate around their nucleus at a large fraction of lightspeed. >>> This energy ‘pushes’ them away from their own proton, even though their opposite charge (spin) tries to pull them against their proton. It’s a balance. >>> >>> All electrons are emitting this energy that resonates with and is absorbed by protons- so there is a pressure coming towards a body of matter from all directions in Space that is absorbed by the protons in that body. >>> >>> At the same time, the electrons in that body are putting out this same ‘push’. >>> >>> So, when a body is small, the incoming push is much larger than the outgoing push, and the absorption exactly reflects how many protons are there. But as the body gets larger, it can only absorb ALL of the incoming push from any one direction, and more and more of the matter is unseen, gravitationally. Also, it is emitting more and more of its OWN push. >>> >>> So larger planets and stars APPEAR to be much less massive than they are. >>> >> >> >> you should keep all these thoughts, posts, and put together a book. >> >> what would the title be ? > > "No books for anyone" By Roy Masters... > > God creates gravity. > > Mitchell Raemsch > it could be a best seller
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-10 18:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a2194bc4-1aa9-4b08-8078-235aa88468e2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #726648 |
On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 1:20:37 PM UTC-8, Serg Io wrote: > On 2/9/2019 2:49 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 8:51:31 AM UTC-8, Serg Io wrote: > >> On 2/7/2019 11:11 PM, john wrote: > >>> Why larger planets and stars appear ‘gaseous’: > >>> > >>> Matter does not autonomously ‘suck’. > >>> > >>> All matter gives off energy as its electrons accelerate around their nucleus at a large fraction of lightspeed. > >>> This energy ‘pushes’ them away from their own proton, even though their opposite charge (spin) tries to pull them against their proton. It’s a balance. > >>> > >>> All electrons are emitting this energy that resonates with and is absorbed by protons- so there is a pressure coming towards a body of matter from all directions in Space that is absorbed by the protons in that body. > >>> > >>> At the same time, the electrons in that body are putting out this same ‘push’. > >>> > >>> So, when a body is small, the incoming push is much larger than the outgoing push, and the absorption exactly reflects how many protons are there. But as the body gets larger, it can only absorb ALL of the incoming push from any one direction, and more and more of the matter is unseen, gravitationally. Also, it is emitting more and more of its OWN push. > >>> > >>> So larger planets and stars APPEAR to be much less massive than they are. > >>> > >> > >> > >> you should keep all these thoughts, posts, and put together a book. > >> > >> what would the title be ? > > > > "No books for anyone" By Roy Masters... > > > > God creates gravity. > > > > Mitchell Raemsch > > > > it could be a best seller only you would be sold on your own book Roy Masters... Go back to reading them... God creates gravity. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-11 23:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <294f6003-1176-48e6-ad9a-ea2399890228@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #726334 |
On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 4:12:00 PM UTC+11, john wrote: > Why larger planets and stars appear ‘gaseous’: Gas is light so stays on the surface. If there is no gas we have dark matter. > > Matter does not autonomously ‘suck’. Actually saying that gravity sucks, is not wrong in the force sense. Matter does automaticaly suck each other as per the law of gravitation, the most fundamental law in the universe. > > All matter gives off energy as its electrons accelerate around their nucleus at a large fraction of lightspeed. Matter does give out energy, when disturbed by another matter particle or aetheric vibration. The atoms briefly become a dipole, emitting a brief burst of what appears to be energy, but is actually aetheric vibration. > This energy ‘pushes’ them away from their own proton, even though their opposite charge (spin) tries to pull them against their proton. It’s a balance. > > All electrons are emitting this energy that resonates with and is absorbed by protons- so there is a pressure coming towards a body of matter from all directions in Space that is absorbed by the protons in that body. > > At the same time, the electrons in that body are putting out this same ‘push’. > > So, when a body is small, the incoming push is much larger than the outgoing push, and the absorption exactly reflects how many protons are there. But as the body gets larger, it can only absorb ALL of the incoming push from any one direction, and more and more of the matter is unseen, gravitationally. Also, it is emitting more and more of its OWN push. > > So larger planets and stars APPEAR to be much less massive than they are.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web