Magnetism is really -- WHAT?
in [Design]
|
From: The Great Attractor on 3 Mar 2010 06:22 On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:00:05 -0800, Robert Baer <robertbaer(a)localnet.com> wrote: >The Great Attractor wrote: >> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 06:27:18 -0800 (PST), George Herold >> <ggherold(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Mar 2, 7:31 am, The Great Attractor >>> <Sup...(a)ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:58:00 -0800 (PST), George Herold >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <ggher...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Mar 1, 9:38 pm, The Great Attractor >>>>> <Sup...(a)ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 06:49:35 -0800 (PST), George Herold >>>>>> <ggher...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Mar 1, 12:06 am, fitz <zeus...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Magnetism is really -- WHAT? >>>>>>>> (click link) >>>>>>>> http://www.amperefitz.com/lawrm.htm >>>>>>>> Enjoy, >>>>>>>> Fitz >>>>>>> Moving charge. No ones found any magnetic monopoles. >>>>>>> George H. >>>>>> Sure they have. What do you think the pre-bang singularity was? >>>>>> What polarity do you think that a black hole possesses? >>>>>> The really funny thing is that I wrote a paper in '72 at 12 yo on the >>>>>> field makeup of a monopole source. At 12, my favorite book was The CRC >>>>>> Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. How hard could it have been to simply >>>>>> have written "No one has..." instead of that non linguistic, >>>>>> non-grammatical "No ones..." >>>>> "> Sure they have. What do you think the pre-bang singularity was? >>>>>> What polarity do you think that a black hole possesses?" >>>>> Dang, No idea about either. But do you have any data? I'm an >>>>> experimentalist. >>>>> I have heard that if there's just one monopole in the universe, that >>>>> it would explain why charge is quantized. Was it Dirac that showed >>>>> that? >>>> What if our universe is merely a 'bubble' inside a much larger universe >>>> which is beyond our capacity to observe, much less understand?- Hide quoted text - >>>> >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> Then who cares? If we can't observe or understand something, then it >>> just doesn't much matter to me. How 'bout building an apparatus to >>> find a monopole? >>> >>> George H. >> >> >> So, this retarded puke doesn't believe in black holes, which we have >> proven. Doesn't believe in dark matter or dark energy, which we have >> proven is real. >> >> I think you claiming to be an observer only makes you not a scientist, >> but a mere bystander, and you cannot even make very good observations at >> doing that, or you would already be familiar with a whole world of things >> that have been proven to be, despite being un-observervable at present. >> >> You are in an ELECTRONics group, dipshit! >> >> Have you ever seen an electron? > Even Millikan did not see an electron, only the effects. You really didn't get it. He was saying that he did not trust anything he could not see. I essentially said that he was in the wrong group then, because we rely on many things that we cannot actually see. You really need to bone up on the language, if you missed that.
From: TheJoker on 3 Mar 2010 06:29 On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 20:35:01 -0800 (PST), George Herold <ggherold(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Mar 2, 9:33�am, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> >wrote: >> On 3/2/2010 9:27 AM, George Herold wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Mar 2, 7:31 am, The Great Attractor >> > <Sup...(a)ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> �wrote: >> >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:58:00 -0800 (PST), George Herold >> >> >> <ggher...(a)gmail.com> �wrote: >> >>> On Mar 1, 9:38 pm, The Great Attractor >> >>> <Sup...(a)ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> �wrote: >> >>>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 06:49:35 -0800 (PST), George Herold >> >> >>>> <ggher...(a)gmail.com> �wrote: >> >>>>> On Mar 1, 12:06 am, fitz<zeus...(a)yahoo.com> �wrote: >> >>>>>> Magnetism is really -- WHAT? >> >> >>>>>> (click link) >> >> >>>>>>http://www.amperefitz.com/lawrm.htm >> >> >>>>>> Enjoy, >> >> >>>>>> Fitz >> >> >>>>> Moving charge. No ones found any magnetic monopoles. >> >> >>>>> George H. >> >> >>>> Sure they have. What do you think the pre-bang singularity was? >> >> >>>> What polarity do you think that a black hole possesses? >> >> >>>> The really funny thing is that I wrote a paper in '72 at 12 yo on the >> >>>> field makeup of a monopole source. At 12, my favorite book was The CRC >> >>>> Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. How hard could it have been to simply >> >>>> have written "No one has..." instead of that non linguistic, >> >>>> non-grammatical "No ones..." >> >> >>> "> � � Sure they have. �What do you think the pre-bang singularity was? >> >> >>>> � �What polarity do you think that a black hole possesses?" >> >> >>> Dang, No idea about either. �But do you have any data? �I'm an >> >>> experimentalist. >> >> >>> I have heard that if there's just one monopole in the universe, that >> >>> it would explain why charge is quantized. �Was it Dirac that showed >> >>> that? >> >> >> � �What if our universe is merely a 'bubble' inside a much larger universe >> >> which is beyond our capacity to observe, much less understand?- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> - Show quoted text - >> >> > Then who cares? �If we can't observe or understand something, then it >> > just doesn't much matter to me. �How 'bout building an apparatus to >> > find a monopole? >> >> > George H. >> >> Slartibartfast said it best: >> >> "The chances of finding out what's really going on in the universe are >> so remote, the only thing to do is hang the sense of it and keep >> yourself occupied. Look at me, I design fjords. I'd far rather be happy >> than right any day." >> "And are you?" >> "No, that's where it all falls apart I'm afraid." >> "Pity, it sounded like quite a nice lifestyle otherwise." >> >> Cheers >> >> Phil Hobbs >> >> -- >> Dr Philip C D Hobbs >> Principal >> ElectroOptical Innovations >> 55 Orchard Rd >> Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 >> 845-480-2058 >> hobbs at electrooptical dot nethttp://electrooptical.net- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >Thanks for that Phil, I like it. I feel the same way about God. (I�m >a staunch agnostic. And I attend our UU church semi-regularly.) The >fundamentalist on each side bother me. How can someone be so sure� >either way. And what does it really matter anyway. How can the >existence or non-existence of God change what is the more important >question, how to live ones life? > >George H. > >Sorry to get all religousy there�. But the thread was already >OT. Subject: THE DACHSHUND A wealthy man decided to go on a safari in Africa He took his faithful pet dachshund along for company. One day, the dachshund starts chasing butterflies and before long the dachshund discovers that he is lost. So,wandering about, he notices a leopard heading rapidly in his direction with the obvious intention of having lunch. The dachshund thinks, "OK,I'm in deep trouble now! Then he noticed some bones on the ground close by, and immediately settles down to chew on the bones with his back to the approaching cat. Just as the leopard is about to leap, the dachshund exclaims loudly, "Boy, that was one delicious leopard. I wonder if there are any more around here?" Hearing this, the leopard halts his attack in mid-stride, as a look of terror comes over him, and slinks away into the trees. "Whew," says the leopard. "That was close. That dachshund nearly had me." Meanwhile, a monkey who had been watching the whole scene from a nearby tree figures he can put this knowledge to good use and trade it for protection from the leopard. So, off he goes. But the dachshund saw him heading after the leopard with great speed, and figured that something must be up. The monkey soon catches up with the leopard, spills the beans and strikes a deal for himself with the leopard. The leopard is furious at being made a fool of and says, "Here monkey, hop on my back and see what's going to happen to that conniving canine." Now the dachshund sees the leopard coming with the monkey on his back, and thinks, "What am I going to do now?" But instead of running, the dog sits down with his back to his attackers, pretending he hasn't seen them yet... and just when they get close enough to hear the dachshund says...................... "Where's that damn monkey? I sent him off half an hour ago to bring me another leopard."
From: Keith on 3 Mar 2010 19:27 On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 20:35:01 -0800 (PST), George Herold <ggherold(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Mar 2, 9:33�am, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSensel...(a)electrooptical.net> >wrote: >> On 3/2/2010 9:27 AM, George Herold wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Mar 2, 7:31 am, The Great Attractor >> > <Sup...(a)ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> �wrote: >> >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:58:00 -0800 (PST), George Herold >> >> >> <ggher...(a)gmail.com> �wrote: >> >>> On Mar 1, 9:38 pm, The Great Attractor >> >>> <Sup...(a)ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> �wrote: >> >>>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 06:49:35 -0800 (PST), George Herold >> >> >>>> <ggher...(a)gmail.com> �wrote: >> >>>>> On Mar 1, 12:06 am, fitz<zeus...(a)yahoo.com> �wrote: >> >>>>>> Magnetism is really -- WHAT? >> >> >>>>>> (click link) >> >> >>>>>>http://www.amperefitz.com/lawrm.htm >> >> >>>>>> Enjoy, >> >> >>>>>> Fitz >> >> >>>>> Moving charge. No ones found any magnetic monopoles. >> >> >>>>> George H. >> >> >>>> Sure they have. What do you think the pre-bang singularity was? >> >> >>>> What polarity do you think that a black hole possesses? >> >> >>>> The really funny thing is that I wrote a paper in '72 at 12 yo on the >> >>>> field makeup of a monopole source. At 12, my favorite book was The CRC >> >>>> Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. How hard could it have been to simply >> >>>> have written "No one has..." instead of that non linguistic, >> >>>> non-grammatical "No ones..." >> >> >>> "> � � Sure they have. �What do you think the pre-bang singularity was? >> >> >>>> � �What polarity do you think that a black hole possesses?" >> >> >>> Dang, No idea about either. �But do you have any data? �I'm an >> >>> experimentalist. >> >> >>> I have heard that if there's just one monopole in the universe, that >> >>> it would explain why charge is quantized. �Was it Dirac that showed >> >>> that? >> >> >> � �What if our universe is merely a 'bubble' inside a much larger universe >> >> which is beyond our capacity to observe, much less understand?- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> - Show quoted text - >> >> > Then who cares? �If we can't observe or understand something, then it >> > just doesn't much matter to me. �How 'bout building an apparatus to >> > find a monopole? >> >> > George H. >> >> Slartibartfast said it best: >> >> "The chances of finding out what's really going on in the universe are >> so remote, the only thing to do is hang the sense of it and keep >> yourself occupied. Look at me, I design fjords. I'd far rather be happy >> than right any day." >> "And are you?" >> "No, that's where it all falls apart I'm afraid." >> "Pity, it sounded like quite a nice lifestyle otherwise." >> >> Cheers >> >> Phil Hobbs >> >> -- >> Dr Philip C D Hobbs >> Principal >> ElectroOptical Innovations >> 55 Orchard Rd >> Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 >> 845-480-2058 >> hobbs at electrooptical dot nethttp://electrooptical.net- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >Thanks for that Phil, I like it. I feel the same way about God. (I�m >a staunch agnostic. And I attend our UU church semi-regularly.) The >fundamentalist on each side bother me. How can someone be so sure� >either way. Sounds like you're not in the middle at all. Though we were married in a UU church, I don't attend. SWMBO currently attends a SB church - I sleep. Fundies don't bother me at all, unless they're in my face. Currently, that would be those in the religion of atheism. >And what does it really matter anyway. How can the >existence or non-existence of God change what is the more important >question, how to live ones life? Pretty much the way I see things. Most religions are good at teaching this; atheism isn't. >Sorry to get all religousy there�. But the thread was already >OT. Of course this is a first, here.
From: Sylvia Else on 4 Mar 2010 20:07 On 2/03/2010 1:47 AM, MooseFET wrote: > On Feb 28, 11:50 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: >> On 1/03/2010 4:06 PM, fitz wrote: >> >>> Magnetism is really -- WHAT? >> >> Something that appears in the mathematical description of the Universe. >> >> Sylvia. > > Or perhaps our common word for a part of the electromagnetic theory > at low frequencies. He to wants to explain what it really is in terms of other things, apparently oblivious of the fact that those other things are also no more than elements of the mathematical theory, whose real nature is just as unspecified as that of magnetism. We should expunge the word "real" and its derivatives from the lexicon of science. Sylvia.
From: MooseFET on 4 Mar 2010 22:04
On Mar 4, 5:07 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: > On 2/03/2010 1:47 AM, MooseFET wrote: > > > On Feb 28, 11:50 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: > >> On 1/03/2010 4:06 PM, fitz wrote: > > >>> Magnetism is really -- WHAT? > > >> Something that appears in the mathematical description of the Universe.. > > >> Sylvia. > > > Or perhaps our common word for a part of the electromagnetic theory > > at low frequencies. > > He to wants to explain what it really is in terms of other things, > apparently oblivious of the fact that those other things are also no > more than elements of the mathematical theory, whose real nature is just > as unspecified as that of magnetism. No, those other things are well specified. They are pink magical invisible unicorns. We know a great deal about them. For one thing, we know that much like a boat, the pointy part is up in front. > We should expunge the word "real" and its derivatives from the lexicon > of science. > > Sylvia. |