Electtron Microscope
Henry Wilson DSc
best optical microscopes. This is supposedly because the 'wavelengths' of
electrons is much smaller than that of visible light.
Since nobody except myself has come up with any kind of physical model that
might explain 'wavelength', for either light OR matter, isn't it about time
somebody else started to investigate this topic more closely?
Where is the 'wave' that gives rise to this supposed 'wavelength'?
Henry Wilson...
.......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
dlzc
On Sep 1, 2:32 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> Electron microscopes can resolve objects
> thousand of times smaller than can the
> best optical microscopes.
AFM do even better.
> This is supposedly because the 'wavelengths'
> of electrons is much smaller than that of
> visible light.
That and their mass helps them to penetrate, and maintain some sort of
specular image later.
> Since nobody except myself has come up with
> any kind of physical model that might explain
> 'wavelength', for either light OR matter,
... "In My Humble Opinion" ...
> isn't it about time somebody else started
> to investigate this topic more closely?
You mean other than the entirety of quantum mechanics?
When you look for continuum behaviors, you find continuum behaviors.
> Where is the 'wave' that gives rise to
> this supposed 'wavelength'?
In the system that assigns "length" or "speed" or "energy".
David A. Smith
PD
> Electron microscopes can resolve objects thousand of times smaller than can the
> best optical microscopes. This is supposedly because the 'wavelengths' of
> electrons is much smaller than that of visible light.
>
> Since nobody except myself has come up with any kind of physical model that
> might explain 'wavelength', for either light OR matter, isn't it about time
> somebody else started to investigate this topic more closely?
>
> Where is the 'wave' that gives rise to this supposed 'wavelength'?
What are you looking for in a wave? Something that moves through space
back and forth? Why?
Androcles
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:39d881f2-0876-4d7b...@x42g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 1, 4:32 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> Electron microscopes can resolve objects thousand of times smaller than
> can the
> best optical microscopes. This is supposedly because the 'wavelengths' of
> electrons is much smaller than that of visible light.
>
> Since nobody except myself has come up with any kind of physical model
> that
> might explain 'wavelength', for either light OR matter, isn't it about
> time
> somebody else started to investigate this topic more closely?
>
> Where is the 'wave' that gives rise to this supposed 'wavelength'?
What are you looking for in a wave? Something that moves through space
back and forth? Why?
==================================================
A fuckin' duck who thinks he's a shark, like you, is just circling, waiting
for a trace of blood in the water. Henry is too old and ugly to bother with,
deranged psychotic Duck.
Try this bait, moron.
Ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Sep 1, 4:32 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> Electron microscopes can resolve objects thousand of times smaller than can the
>> best optical microscopes. This is supposedly because the 'wavelengths' of
>> electrons is much smaller than that of visible light.
>>
>> Since nobody except myself has come up with any kind of physical model that
>> might explain 'wavelength', for either light OR matter, isn't it about time
>> somebody else started to investigate this topic more closely?
>>
>> Where is the 'wave' that gives rise to this supposed 'wavelength'?
>
>What are you looking for in a wave? Something that moves through space
>back and forth? Why?
Why do you bother to answer when you have nothing intelligent to contribute?
Henry Wilson DSc
>Dear Henry Wilson DSc:
>
>On Sep 1, 2:32 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> Electron microscopes can resolve objects
>> thousand of times smaller than can the
>> best optical microscopes.
>
>AFM do even better.
I'm not sure about that.
Electron microscopes can now resolve individual atoms.
>> This is supposedly because the 'wavelengths'
>> of electrons is much smaller than that of
>> visible light.
>
>That and their mass helps them to penetrate, and maintain some sort of
>specular image later.
It is the short wavelength that allows accurate specular images. I gather their
mass reduces scattering.
>> Since nobody except myself has come up with
>> any kind of physical model that might explain
>> 'wavelength', for either light OR matter,
>
>... "In My Humble Opinion" ...
>
>> isn't it about time somebody else started
>> to investigate this topic more closely?
>
>You mean other than the entirety of quantum mechanics?
That doesn't look into the physical aspects. It achieves nothing.
>When you look for continuum behaviors, you find continuum behaviors.
>
>> Where is the 'wave' that gives rise to
>> this supposed 'wavelength'?
>
>In the system that assigns "length" or "speed" or "energy".
Don't talk nonsense smiffy...
>David A. Smith
eric gisse
> Electron microscopes can resolve objects thousand of times smaller than
> can the best optical microscopes. This is supposedly because the
> 'wavelengths' of electrons is much smaller than that of visible light.
>
> Since nobody except myself has come up with any kind of physical model
> that might explain 'wavelength', for either light OR matter, isn't it
> about time somebody else started to investigate this topic more closely?
Have you heard of quantum mechanics?
PD
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 15:55:18 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 1, 4:32 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> Electron microscopes can resolve objects thousand of times smaller than can the
> >> best optical microscopes. This is supposedly because the 'wavelengths' of
> >> electrons is much smaller than that of visible light.
>
> >> Since nobody except myself has come up with any kind of physical model that
> >> might explain 'wavelength', for either light OR matter, isn't it about time
> >> somebody else started to investigate this topic more closely?
>
> >> Where is the 'wave' that gives rise to this supposed 'wavelength'?
>
> >What are you looking for in a wave? Something that moves through space
> >back and forth? Why?
>
> Why do you bother to answer when you have nothing intelligent to contribute?
It's a straightforward question, Ralph. What are you looking for in a
wave? Something that moves back and forth through space?
dlzc
On Sep 1, 9:17 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 14:53:49 -0700 (PDT), dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> >Dear Henry Wilson DSc:
>
> >On Sep 1, 2:32 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> Electron microscopes can resolve objects
> >> thousand of times smaller than can the
> >> best optical microscopes.
>
> >AFM do even better.
>
> I'm not sure about that.
> Electron microscopes can now resolve
> individual atoms.
AFMs resolve the orbitals of the electrons on crystal structures, with
crisper resolution... only resolution of a 2D surface.
> >> This is supposedly because the 'wavelengths'
> >> of electrons is much smaller than that of
> >> visible light.
>
> >That and their mass helps them to penetrate,
> >and maintain some sort of specular image
> >later.
>
> It is the short wavelength that allows accurate
> specular images. I gather their mass reduces
> scattering.
The wavelength gets "resolution", not really accuracy or specularity.
> >> Since nobody except myself has come up with
> >> any kind of physical model that might explain
> >> 'wavelength', for either light OR matter,
>
> >... "In My Humble Opinion" ...
>
> >> isn't it about time somebody else started
> >> to investigate this topic more closely?
>
> >You mean other than the entirety of quantum
> >mechanics?
>
> That doesn't look into the physical aspects.
> It achieves nothing.
It is very successful, in its domain of applicability. And this *is*
the domain you are trying to broach.
> >When you look for continuum behaviors, you
> >find continuum behaviors.
>
> >> Where is the 'wave' that gives rise to
> >> this supposed 'wavelength'?
>
> >In the system that assigns "length" or
> >"speed" or "energy".
>
> Don't talk nonsense smiffy...
Wavelength is part-and-parcel of how that electron or other quantum
object embeds in the Universe. The butcher's thumb is on the scale,
Henry. What "waves" is *us*.
David A. Smith
Henry Wilson DSc
It is a mathematical approach. Where is the physics behind it?
>> >When you look for continuum behaviors, you
>> >find continuum behaviors.
>>
>> >> Where is the 'wave' that gives rise to
>> >> this supposed 'wavelength'?
>>
>> >In the system that assigns "length" or
>> >"speed" or "energy".
>>
>> Don't talk nonsense smiffy...
>
>Wavelength is part-and-parcel of how that electron or other quantum
>object embeds in the Universe. The butcher's thumb is on the scale,
>Henry. What "waves" is *us*.
This group deals with physics, not poetry.
Henry Wilson DSc
Most 'waves' in physics are graphical conveniences.
Some, like water waves are real and physical.
The physical nature of the 'waves' associated with matter or EM is a complete
mystery....(except for my photon theory).
If YOU know the answers, let's have them.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>> Electron microscopes can resolve objects thousand of times smaller than
>> can the best optical microscopes. This is supposedly because the
>> 'wavelengths' of electrons is much smaller than that of visible light.
>>
>> Since nobody except myself has come up with any kind of physical model
>> that might explain 'wavelength', for either light OR matter, isn't it
>> about time somebody else started to investigate this topic more closely?
>
>Have you heard of quantum mechanics?
......when are you going to say something intelligent?
dlzc
On Sep 2, 2:47 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 10:12:05 -0700 (PDT),dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> >On Sep 1, 9:17 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 14:53:49 -0700 (PDT),dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >On Sep 1, 2:32 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
...
> >> >> isn't it about time somebody else started
> >> >> to investigate this topic more closely?
>
> >> >You mean other than the entirety of quantum
> >> >mechanics?
>
> >> That doesn't look into the physical aspects.
> >> It achieves nothing.
>
> >It is very successful, in its domain of
> >applicability. And this *is* the domain you
> >are trying to broach.
>
> It is a mathematical approach. Where is the
> physics behind it?
I'm going to ask you a question...
> >> >When you look for continuum behaviors, you
> >> >find continuum behaviors.
>
> >> >> Where is the 'wave' that gives rise to
> >> >> this supposed 'wavelength'?
>
> >> >In the system that assigns "length" or
> >> >"speed" or "energy".
>
> >> Don't talk nonsense smiffy...
>
> >Wavelength is part-and-parcel of how that
> >electron or other quantum object embeds in
> >the Universe. The butcher's thumb is on the
> >scale, Henry. What "waves" is *us*.
>
> This group deals with physics, not poetry.
Please define a "physics", as you expect it.
The rest of us are satisfied that we can never know what is "really"
happening, and survive making correct predictions with the models over
limited domains, which you seem to find unsatisfying.
David A. Smith
Inertial
news:fp6086199a8ms7qdb...@4ax.com...
> It is a mathematical approach. Where is the physics behind it?
You do realise that math becomes physics when it is applied to (i.e. used to
model) physical reality and our measurements of it. There doesn't need to
be physics BEHIND the math .. the math IS the physics.
Androcles
"Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote in message
news:4c804d38$0$11108$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
You do realise that tit becomes milk when it is applied to (i.e. used to
model) physical nutrient and our measurements of it. There doesn't
need to be tit BEHIND the milk .. the milk IS the tit.
Get back to your padded cell and rant there, shithead.
PD
> On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:24:58 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 1, 11:13 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 15:55:18 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Sep 1, 4:32 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> >> Electron microscopes can resolve objects thousand of times smaller than can the
> >> >> best optical microscopes. This is supposedly because the 'wavelengths' of
> >> >> electrons is much smaller than that of visible light.
>
> >> >> Since nobody except myself has come up with any kind of physical model that
> >> >> might explain 'wavelength', for either light OR matter, isn't it about time
> >> >> somebody else started to investigate this topic more closely?
>
> >> >> Where is the 'wave' that gives rise to this supposed 'wavelength'?
>
> >> >What are you looking for in a wave? Something that moves through space
> >> >back and forth? Why?
>
> >> Why do you bother to answer when you have nothing intelligent to contribute?
>
> >It's a straightforward question, Ralph. What are you looking for in a
> >wave? Something that moves back and forth through space?
>
> Most 'waves' in physics are graphical conveniences.
>
> Some, like water waves are real and physical.
No sir. Waves are a broader class of phenomena than water waves or
waves on a string or pressure waves through air, and broader class of
phenomena than a spatial displacement back and forth.
Waves are *any* phenomena where there is transport of energy from one
place to another and where the laws of physics that govern that
transport take a particular mathematical form called a wave equation.
*ANY* such phenomenon is a physical, real wave.
This includes quantum mechanical waves, electromagnetic waves,
chromodynamic waves, gravitational waves, water waves, sonic waves,
and so on.
>
> The physical nature of the 'waves' associated with matter or EM is a complete
> mystery....(except for my photon theory).
It's only a mystery to you, because you think physical waves must
involve something they do not.
xxein
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
xxein: It's not a 'physics' that concerns him or me. It is the
'physic' behind it. I do quite well (although nobody can bevieve
this) thank you. It is always amusing to read puny arguements
involving a math and the physics.
So you are satisfied not having a clue to the physic, huh? That makes
you just a pedestrian user of physics trying to make it look like you
are more of an expert in bicycle wheels. Nothing more?
xxein
> "Henry Wilson DSc" wrote in messagenews:fp6086199a8ms7qdb...@4ax.com...
>
> > It is a mathematical approach. Where is the physics behind it?
>
> You do realise that math becomes physics when it is applied to (i.e. used to
> model) physical reality and our measurements of it. There doesn't need to
> be physics BEHIND the math .. the math IS the physics.
xxein: You are just as ignorant as Henry and Smith put together. I
can create a math. Does a physics or physic have to follow?
xxein
have.
Now explain the 'wave feature' of this transference of energy.
xxein
> On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 01:31:29 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
> >> Electron microscopes can resolve objects thousand of times smaller than
> >> can the best optical microscopes. This is supposedly because the
> >> 'wavelengths' of electrons is much smaller than that of visible light.
>
> >> Since nobody except myself has come up with any kind of physical model
> >> that might explain 'wavelength', for either light OR matter, isn't it
> >> about time somebody else started to investigate this topic more closely?
>
> >Have you heard of quantum mechanics?
>
> ......when are you going to say something intelligent?
>
> Henry Wilson...
xxein: He never does. Why do you ever expect it?
dlzc
On Sep 3, 1:28 pm, xxein <xx...@att.net> wrote:
...
> xxein: It's not a 'physics' that concerns
> him or me.
So you can read his mind? How nice for you to speak for him.
> It is the 'physic' behind it. I do quite
> well (although nobody can bevieve this)
> thank you.
I didn't ask how you were, but glad to know you are OK.
> It is always amusing to read puny arguements
> involving a math and the physics.
You are, then, easily amused.
> So you are satisfied not having a clue to
> the physic, huh? That makes you just a
> pedestrian user of physics trying to make
> it look like you are more of an expert in
> bicycle wheels. Nothing more?
Unlike the terminally mentally disabled, I know we cannot how how
things really work. I know we cannot have direct sex with Nature, to
see Her thighs writhing with passion as we touch those special
places. So we are left with shadows, and scent. And we will always
seek more, until She strips us of our shadow existence...
David A. Smith
Androcles
"dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:0d3bd0b3-3f31-45ba...@v35g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Unlike the terminally mentally disabled,
==================================
Mental disability results in premature death? That must be
news to the medical profession. Have you published your
thesis on this phenomenon, Smiffy?
Henry Wilson DSc
I take it you still believe in the gods of thunder and lightning, then.
Henry Wilson DSc
Gawd! ...more poetry....
Henry Wilson DSc
The Physics can either precede or follow the maths. Maths is a tool for either
predicting more physics or manipulating physical models.
Henry Wilson DSc
He can't. He doesn't even understand the question.
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Sep 2, 4:51 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:24:58 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Sep 1, 11:13 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 15:55:18 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Most 'waves' in physics are graphical conveniences.
>>
>> Some, like water waves are real and physical.
>
>No sir.
Are you ranting again. Are you denying that water waves are real, physical
waves?
>Waves are a broader class of phenomena than water waves or
>waves on a string or pressure waves through air, and broader class of
>phenomena than a spatial displacement back and forth.
>
>Waves are *any* phenomena where there is transport of energy from one
>place to another and where the laws of physics that govern that
>transport take a particular mathematical form called a wave equation.
>*ANY* such phenomenon is a physical, real wave.
Equations aren't physical. You don't seem to know what 'physical' means..
>This includes quantum mechanical waves, electromagnetic waves,
>chromodynamic waves, gravitational waves, water waves, sonic waves,
>and so on.
yes....equations involving periodicities...Nothing physical.
>> The physical nature of the 'waves' associated with matter or EM is a complete
>> mystery....(except for my photon theory).
>
>It's only a mystery to you, because you think physical waves must
>involve something they do not.
An even bigger mystery is why YOU can never understand simple questions...
Henry Wilson DSc
Saddly, I don't...but I like to encourage him to try...
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
news:6ku286d7v23j02d2g...@4ax.com...
disability leads to premature death (it is terminal) and he has not
yet published his findings in "The Lancet". Both of you should
seek psychiatric help, you could die young.
http://www.thelancet.com/
dlzc
OK, so you are not willing to actually participate in a conversation.
Good to know you intend only snipe at others.
David A. Smith
PD
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 05:31:58 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 2, 4:51 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 05:24:58 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Sep 1, 11:13 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 15:55:18 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Most 'waves' in physics are graphical conveniences.
>
> >> Some, like water waves are real and physical.
>
> >No sir.
>
> Are you ranting again. Are you denying that water waves are real, physical
> waves?
No, I'm not denying that. I'm denying that the others AREN'T physical.
>
> >Waves are a broader class of phenomena than water waves or
> >waves on a string or pressure waves through air, and broader class of
> >phenomena than a spatial displacement back and forth.
>
> >Waves are *any* phenomena where there is transport of energy from one
> >place to another and where the laws of physics that govern that
> >transport take a particular mathematical form called a wave equation.
> >*ANY* such phenomenon is a physical, real wave.
>
> Equations aren't physical. You don't seem to know what 'physical' means..
Solutions of equations, exhibited in physical systems, are physical.
What do YOU think "physical" means? Material?
>
> >This includes quantum mechanical waves, electromagnetic waves,
> >chromodynamic waves, gravitational waves, water waves, sonic waves,
> >and so on.
>
> yes....equations involving periodicities...Nothing physical.
What do you think "physical" means?
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
How old were you when your dementia set in?
Henry Wilson DSc
Don't get nasty smiffy. I'm one of the few here you does attempt to converse
constructively.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
A hundred and thirty-five, but I've controlled it for the last sixty-five
years with vodka and coke so it never became more serious than
the case of Glenlivet you've owed me for 6 years. You?
Your dementia seems to be chronically advanced, as indicated by
your pathetic one-liners and inability to pay up.
Take care, it may be terminal according to Smiffy (dlzc).
What kind of fuckwit calls himself "dlzc" anyway? He can't be
getting any pussy with that poetry.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
| Don't get nasty smiffy. I'm one of the few here you does attempt to
converse
| constructively.
"Don't get nasty smiffy. I'm one of the few here *you* does attempt to
converse
constructively."
Switching "who" with "you" clearly shows how advanced your dementia is.
How old were who when who forgot to pay me a case of Glenlivet?
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
....too broke to buy your own, eh?
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Sep 3, 6:16 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 05:31:58 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Sep 2, 4:51 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>
>> >No sir.
>>
>> Are you ranting again. Are you denying that water waves are real, physical
>> waves?
>
>No, I'm not denying that. I'm denying that the others AREN'T physical.
Diaper, anyone can draw a squiggly line and call it a wave.
...but it is a graphic and not a physical thing.
>> >Waves are a broader class of phenomena than water waves or
>> >waves on a string or pressure waves through air, and broader class of
>> >phenomena than a spatial displacement back and forth.
>>
>> >Waves are *any* phenomena where there is transport of energy from one
>> >place to another and where the laws of physics that govern that
>> >transport take a particular mathematical form called a wave equation.
>> >*ANY* such phenomenon is a physical, real wave.
>>
>> Equations aren't physical. You don't seem to know what 'physical' means..
>
>Solutions of equations, exhibited in physical systems, are physical.
>
>What do YOU think "physical" means? Material?
Probably....please define 'material'.
>> >This includes quantum mechanical waves, electromagnetic waves,
>> >chromodynamic waves, gravitational waves, water waves, sonic waves,
>> >and so on.
>>
>> yes....equations involving periodicities...Nothing physical.
>
>What do you think "physical" means?
Something that reacts with matter. Fields are physical yet we have no physical
model for them.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
| On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 07:46:38 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedrap...@gmail.com>
wrote:
|
| >On Sep 3, 6:16 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
| >> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 05:31:58 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com>
wrote:
| >> >On Sep 2, 4:51 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
|
| >>
| >> >No sir.
| >>
| >> Are you ranting again. Are you denying that water waves are real,
physical
| >> waves?
| >
| >No, I'm not denying that. I'm denying that the others AREN'T physical.
|
| Diaper, anyone can draw a squiggly line and call it a wave.
| ...but it is a graphic and not a physical thing.
Wilson, anyone can animate a squiggly line and call it a photon.
... but it is not even a descriptive graphic.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
| On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 22:45:42 +0100, "Androcles"
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
| >news:gtd586hsv9pc25c1b...@4ax.com...
| >| Don't get nasty smiffy. I'm one of the few here you does attempt to
| >converse
| >| constructively.
| >
| >"Don't get nasty smiffy. I'm one of the few here *you* does attempt to
| >converse
| >constructively."
| >
| >Switching "who" with "you" clearly shows how advanced your dementia is.
| >How old were who when who forgot to pay me a case of Glenlivet?
|
| ....too broke to buy your own, eh?
|
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:ob18865lqm7mo2sua...@4ax.com...
>| On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 22:45:42 +0100, "Androcles"
><Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>
>| wrote:
>|
>| >
>| >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>| >news:gtd586hsv9pc25c1b...@4ax.com...
>| >| Don't get nasty smiffy. I'm one of the few here you does attempt to
>| >converse
>| >| constructively.
>| >
>| >"Don't get nasty smiffy. I'm one of the few here *you* does attempt to
>| >converse
>| >constructively."
>| >
>| >Switching "who" with "you" clearly shows how advanced your dementia is.
>| >How old were who when who forgot to pay me a case of Glenlivet?
>|
>| ....too broke to buy your own, eh?
>|
>I've never owned a VW camper van, either.
I owned two of them...one was OK, the other wouldn't start when hot ....they
had that lousy 6v electrical system, remember....
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
fuck off you pissed old pom...
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
There you are, proof of your stupidity. Imagine anyone owning TWO!
Bwahahahahahaha!
PD
> On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 07:46:38 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 3, 6:16 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 05:31:58 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Sep 2, 4:51 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
> >> >No sir.
>
> >> Are you ranting again. Are you denying that water waves are real, physical
> >> waves?
>
> >No, I'm not denying that. I'm denying that the others AREN'T physical.
>
> Diaper, anyone can draw a squiggly line and call it a wave.
> ...but it is a graphic and not a physical thing.
I didn't say a wave is a drawing or a graphic. Please reread the two
paragraphs below.
>
> >> >Waves are a broader class of phenomena than water waves or
> >> >waves on a string or pressure waves through air, and broader class of
> >> >phenomena than a spatial displacement back and forth.
>
> >> >Waves are *any* phenomena where there is transport of energy from one
> >> >place to another and where the laws of physics that govern that
> >> >transport take a particular mathematical form called a wave equation.
> >> >*ANY* such phenomenon is a physical, real wave.
>
> >> Equations aren't physical. You don't seem to know what 'physical' means..
>
> >Solutions of equations, exhibited in physical systems, are physical.
>
> >What do YOU think "physical" means? Material?
>
> Probably....please define 'material'.
Material: composed of matter.
Is it your contention that everything that is physical, and is
therefore the subject of physics, is composed of matter?
>
> >> >This includes quantum mechanical waves, electromagnetic waves,
> >> >chromodynamic waves, gravitational waves, water waves, sonic waves,
> >> >and so on.
>
> >> yes....equations involving periodicities...Nothing physical.
>
> >What do you think "physical" means?
>
> Something that reacts with matter. Fields are physical yet we have no physical
> model for them.
In our model of fields, fields certainly react with matter. Since this
*your definition* of "physical", then our models of fields are
certainly physical. Perhaps your definition of "physical" is not what
you mean after all. Please reconsider and redefine "physical" to be at
least internally consistent to the things you say.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:7sg9861hg2ms910oo...@4ax.com...
>| On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 22:24:36 +0100, "Androcles"
><Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>
rly shows how advanced your dementia
>is.
>| >| >How old were who when who forgot to pay me a case of Glenlivet?
>| >|
>| >| ....too broke to buy your own, eh?
>| >|
>| >I've never owned a VW camper van, either.
>|
>| I owned two of them...one was OK, the other wouldn't start when hot
>....they
>| had that lousy 6v electrical system, remember....
>
>There you are, proof of your stupidity. Imagine anyone owning TWO!
>Bwahahahahahaha!
The only alternative then was the English Bedford...a real heap of shit...
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Sep 5, 4:09 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 07:46:38 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Sep 3, 6:16 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 05:31:58 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >No, I'm not denying that. I'm denying that the others AREN'T physical.
>>
>> Diaper, anyone can draw a squiggly line and call it a wave.
>> ...but it is a graphic and not a physical thing.
>
>I didn't say a wave is a drawing or a graphic. Please reread the two
>paragraphs below.
Once was more than enough
>> >> >Waves are a broader class of phenomena than water waves or
>> >> >waves on a string or pressure waves through air, and broader class of
>> >> >phenomena than a spatial displacement back and forth.
>>
>> >> >Waves are *any* phenomena where there is transport of energy from one
>> >> >place to another and where the laws of physics that govern that
>> >> >transport take a particular mathematical form called a wave equation.
>> >> >*ANY* such phenomenon is a physical, real wave.
>>
>> >> Equations aren't physical. You don't seem to know what 'physical' means..
>>
>> >Solutions of equations, exhibited in physical systems, are physical.
>>
>> >What do YOU think "physical" means? Material?
>>
>> Probably....please define 'material'.
>
>Material: composed of matter.
>
>Is it your contention that everything that is physical, and is
>therefore the subject of physics, is composed of matter?
Define matter...
>> >> >This includes quantum mechanical waves, electromagnetic waves,
>> >> >chromodynamic waves, gravitational waves, water waves, sonic waves,
>> >> >and so on.
>>
>> >> yes....equations involving periodicities...Nothing physical.
>>
>> >What do you think "physical" means?
>>
>> Something that reacts with matter. Fields are physical yet we have no physical
>> model for them.
>
>In our model of fields, fields certainly react with matter. Since this
>*your definition* of "physical", then our models of fields are
>certainly physical. Perhaps your definition of "physical" is not what
>you mean after all. Please reconsider and redefine "physical" to be at
>least internally consistent to the things you say.
If matter is physically affected by something, then the connection between that
'something' and matter must be capable of being modelled physically (in the
mechanical sense).
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
| On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 12:48:06 +0100, "Androcles"
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
| >news:7sg9861hg2ms910oo...@4ax.com...
| >| On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 22:24:36 +0100, "Androcles"
| ><Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>
| rly shows how advanced your dementia
| >is.
| >| >| >How old were who when who forgot to pay me a case of Glenlivet?
| >| >|
| >| >| ....too broke to buy your own, eh?
| >| >|
| >| >I've never owned a VW camper van, either.
| >|
| >| I owned two of them...one was OK, the other wouldn't start when hot
| >....they
| >| had that lousy 6v electrical system, remember....
| >
| >There you are, proof of your stupidity. Imagine anyone owning TWO!
| >Bwahahahahahaha!
|
| The only alternative then was the English Bedford...a real heap of shit...
http://www.carwer.com/ford-transit-photos-pictures.html
... the most successful van there ever was. More flavours than
you can shake a stick at. Still in production.
PD
OK. Matter is that which has mass and occupies volume, according to
most introductory textbooks. Matter consists of interacting fermions.
>
>
>
> >> >> >This includes quantum mechanical waves, electromagnetic waves,
> >> >> >chromodynamic waves, gravitational waves, water waves, sonic waves,
> >> >> >and so on.
>
> >> >> yes....equations involving periodicities...Nothing physical.
>
> >> >What do you think "physical" means?
>
> >> Something that reacts with matter. Fields are physical yet we have no physical
> >> model for them.
>
> >In our model of fields, fields certainly react with matter. Since this
> >*your definition* of "physical", then our models of fields are
> >certainly physical. Perhaps your definition of "physical" is not what
> >you mean after all. Please reconsider and redefine "physical" to be at
> >least internally consistent to the things you say.
>
> If matter is physically affected by something, then the connection between that
> 'something' and matter must be capable of being modelled physically (in the
> mechanical sense).
What does "modeled physically in the mechanical sense" mean?
I'm guessing at your meaning, but is it all matter-based cogs and
wheels to you?
Is it your contention that unless we understand an electromagnetic
field as some material thing that impinges by direct impact on other
material things, then we do not have a physical understanding of
electromagnetism?
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:gvoa86pakn4b4dfed...@4ax.com...
>| On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 12:48:06 +0100, "Androcles"
><Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>
>| wrote:
>|
>| >
>| >"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>| >news:7sg9861hg2ms910oo...@4ax.com...
>| >| On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 22:24:36 +0100, "Androcles"
>| ><Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>
>| rly shows how advanced your dementia
>| >is.
>| >| >| >How old were who when who forgot to pay me a case of Glenlivet?
>| >| >|
>| >| >| ....too broke to buy your own, eh?
>| >| >|
>| >| >I've never owned a VW camper van, either.
>| >|
>| >| I owned two of them...one was OK, the other wouldn't start when hot
>| >....they
>| >| had that lousy 6v electrical system, remember....
>| >
>| >There you are, proof of your stupidity. Imagine anyone owning TWO!
>| >Bwahahahahahaha!
>|
>| The only alternative then was the English Bedford...a real heap of shit...
>
> http://www.carwer.com/ford-transit-photos-pictures.html
>... the most successful van there ever was. More flavours than
>you can shake a stick at. Still in production.
...heap of shit...
Henry Wilson DSc
Basically yes....but our understanding of 'direct impact' is very primitive.
Until we can PHYSICALLY explain attraction-at-a-distance, there will remain a
big black hole in physics' knowledge.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
of trying to sell two of. Imagine anyone owning TWO!
Bwahahahahahaha!
PD
>
> >> >> >What do you think "physical" means?
>
> >> >> Something that reacts with matter. Fields are physical yet we have no physical
> >> >> model for them.
>
> >> >In our model of fields, fields certainly react with matter. Since this
> >> >*your definition* of "physical", then our models of fields are
> >> >certainly physical. Perhaps your definition of "physical" is not what
> >> >you mean after all. Please reconsider and redefine "physical" to be at
> >> >least internally consistent to the things you say.
>
> >> If matter is physically affected by something, then the connection between that
> >> 'something' and matter must be capable of being modelled physically (in the
> >> mechanical sense).
>
> >What does "modeled physically in the mechanical sense" mean?
> >I'm guessing at your meaning, but is it all matter-based cogs and
> >wheels to you?
> >Is it your contention that unless we understand an electromagnetic
> >field as some material thing that impinges by direct impact on other
> >material things, then we do not have a physical understanding of
> >electromagnetism?
>
> Basically yes....but our understanding of 'direct impact' is very primitive.
Alright, then welcome to the 18th century, which held your world
view.'
I'd be curious, though, what you believe "direct impact" means. More
specifically, what would be the interaction explanation that would
have to be a feature of a model before you would consider it to be a
physical model?
>
> Until we can PHYSICALLY explain attraction-at-a-distance, there will remain a
> big black hole in physics' knowledge.
You and physicists have remarkably disparate views on the meaning of
"physical".
harald
> Dear Henry Wilson DSc:
>
> On Sep 2, 2:47 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 10:12:05 -0700 (PDT),dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 14:53:49 -0700 (PDT),dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >> >On Sep 1, 2:32 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> ...
> > >> >> isn't it about time somebody else started
> > >> >> to investigate this topic more closely?
>
> > >> >You mean other than the entirety of quantum
> > >> >mechanics?
>
> > >> That doesn't look into the physical aspects.
> > >> It achieves nothing.
>
> > >It is very successful, in its domain of
> > >applicability. And this *is* the domain you
> > >are trying to broach.
>
> > It is a mathematical approach. Where is the
> > physics behind it?
>
> I'm going to ask you a question...
> > This group deals with physics, not poetry.
>
> Please define a "physics", as you expect it.
>
> The rest of us are satisfied that we can never know what is "really"
> happening, and survive making correct predictions with the models over
> limited domains, which you seem to find unsatisfying.
>
"The rest of us" obviously did not include Newton or Lorentz. It even
did not include Feynman, despite similar claims by himself: he could
not resist wondering if magnetic fields "really" exist, and presenting
arguments on that issue.
Admittedly we can never be 100% certain of what "really" is, but then,
we can be 100% certain of very few things. Most of us are now for
example pretty sure of the reality of atoms - those microscopes do
help, but evidence existed before they could be seen.
Cheers,
Harald
Androcles
"harald" <hv...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
news:885cd986-2ef0-4d15...@j5g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
I'd ask you a question but I already know the reply.
Henry Wilson DSc
Diaper, explaining the physical action of a force mathematically is just a
beginning of the physics behind the phenomenon. In this case, the maths is the
easy part.
Your attitude equivalent to saying that 'a person is six feet tall' is the end
of the matter. You are a primitive thinker without any aptitude for scientific
enquiry.
A geneticist would delve into reasons why that person is six feet tall and come
upwith a much more intricate theory.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
webbed feet, his volume must be the volume of a cone =
1/3 * 1^2 * 6 = 2 cubic feet.
This stops him toppling over when he's not diving for wormleys.
http://www.yellowduckcreative.co.uk/images/diving-duck.jpg
Henry Wilson DSc
This is correct. Science is all about pushing the limits of defined truth to
new levels.
Relativists like smiffy believe everything is already known because Einstein
discovered it.
>Cheers,
>Harald
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:skmi861cdgbjluog8...@4ax.com...
>| On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 06:56:46 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedrap...@gmail.com>
>| easy part.
>| Your attitude equivalent to saying that 'a person is six feet tall' is the
>end
>| of the matter. You are a primitive thinker without any aptitude for
>scientific
>| enquiry.
>|
>| A geneticist would delve into reasons why that person is six feet tall and
>come
>| upwith a much more intricate theory.
>|
>Since the height is 6 times the base, Phuckwit Duck has a pointy head and
>webbed feet, his volume must be the volume of a cone =
>1/3 * 1^2 * 6 = 2 cubic feet.
>This stops him toppling over when he's not diving for wormleys.
> http://www.yellowduckcreative.co.uk/images/diving-duck.jpg
(:
PD
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 07:43:24 -0700 (PDT), harald <h...@swissonline.ch> wrote:
> >On Sep 3, 3:02 am, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> Dear Henry Wilson DSc:
>
> >> On Sep 2, 2:47 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
> >> I'm going to ask you a question...
> >[..]
> >> > This group deals with physics, not poetry.
>
> >> Please define a "physics", as you expect it.
>
> >> The rest of us are satisfied that we can never know what is "really"
> >> happening, and survive making correct predictions with the models over
> >> limited domains, which you seem to find unsatisfying.
>
> >> David A. Smith
>
> >"The rest of us" obviously did not include Newton or Lorentz. It even
> >did not include Feynman, despite similar claims by himself: he could
> >not resist wondering if magnetic fields "really" exist, and presenting
> >arguments on that issue.
> >Admittedly we can never be 100% certain of what "really" is, but then,
> >we can be 100% certain of very few things. Most of us are now for
> >example pretty sure of the reality of atoms - those microscopes do
> >help, but evidence existed before they could be seen.
>
> This is correct. Science is all about pushing the limits of defined truth to
> new levels.
>
> Relativists like smiffy believe everything is already known because Einstein
> discovered it.
That is CERTAINLY not right.
The problem is, you confuse "not knowing everything" with "not knowing
anything," and so you dismiss (without careful inspection) the things
that we DO know.
Part of the art of doing useful science is working in the areas were
we really don't know, and not to waste time diddling around in areas
where we do.
PD
You didn't answer this.
>
> >> Until we can PHYSICALLY explain attraction-at-a-distance, there will remain a
> >> big black hole in physics' knowledge.
>
> >You and physicists have remarkably disparate views on the meaning of
> >"physical".
>
> Diaper, explaining the physical action of a force mathematically is just a
> beginning of the physics behind the phenomenon. In this case, the maths is the
> easy part.
This is why I'm asking you for details about what you truly consider
to be physical. Do me the honor of providing a truthful and thoughtful
answer.