> On 8 Jun 2020, at 15:56, John Clark wrote:
>
> Alan Grayson aka Mr.Carl Sagan co-author wrote:
>
> > you seem to deliberately ignore the fact that in physics we use idealized
> > cases to reach important insights.
>
> Far from ignoring it for years I've been trying to convince Bruno that
On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 10:24:18 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 7:57:33 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> Alan Grayson aka Mr.Carl Sagan co-author wrote:
>>
>> *> you seem to deliberately ignore the fact that in physics we use
>>> idealized cases to reach
On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 7:57:33 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> Alan Grayson aka Mr.Carl Sagan co-author wrote:
>
> *> you seem to deliberately ignore the fact that in physics we use
>> idealized cases to reach important insights.*
>
>
> Far from ignoring it for years I've been trying to
On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 9:40:46 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 7:57:33 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> Alan Grayson aka Mr.Carl Sagan co-author wrote:
>>
>> *> you seem to deliberately ignore the fact that in physics we use
>>> idealized cases to reach
On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 7:57:33 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> Alan Grayson aka Mr.Carl Sagan co-author wrote:
>
> *> you seem to deliberately ignore the fact that in physics we use
>> idealized cases to reach important insights.*
>
>
> Far from ignoring it for years I've been trying to
Alan Grayson aka Mr.Carl Sagan co-author wrote:
*> you seem to deliberately ignore the fact that in physics we use
> idealized cases to reach important insights.*
Far from ignoring it for years I've been trying to convince Bruno that
mathematical approximations help us understand physical
On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 4:27:10 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> Alan Grayson aka Mr.Carl Sagan co-author wrote:
>
>
>> > *John Clark **refuses to admit that MATHEMATICS is often applied to
>> the POSTULATES of physics, *
>>
>
> Postulates yields results that are exact and that's why
Alan Grayson aka Mr.Carl Sagan co-author wrote:
> > *John Clark **refuses to admit that MATHEMATICS is often applied to the
> POSTULATES of physics, *
>
Postulates yields results that are exact and that's why physics doesn't
have any, only mathematics does.
> *to give important new insights.*
On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 11:31:39 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 11:15:12 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 1:08 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> *>No point in arguing with bias and stupidity.*
>>
>>
>> You're right again Mr.Carl Sagan
On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 11:15:12 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 1:08 PM Alan Grayson > wrote:
>
> *>No point in arguing with bias and stupidity.*
>
>
> You're right again Mr.Carl Sagan co-author.
>
> John K Clark
>
You mean no perfect conic sections as orbits?
On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 1:08 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
*>No point in arguing with bias and stupidity.*
You're right again Mr.Carl Sagan co-author.
John K Clark
>
> On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 8:09:14 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 9:43 AM Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 8:09:14 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 9:43 AM Alan Grayson > wrote:
>
> > *Kepler deduced from measurements that Mars has an elliptical orbit,
>> whereas Newton's law of gravitation implies much more; namely, that they
>> can move in
On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 9:43 AM Alan Grayson wrote:
> *Kepler deduced from measurements that Mars has an elliptical orbit,
> whereas Newton's law of gravitation implies much more; namely, that they
> can move in conic sections.*
If gravity is an inverse square law that follows Newton's rules
On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 7:31:44 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 9:21 AM Alan Grayson > wrote:
>
>
>> >> Oh and you forgot IHA.
>>>
>>
>
> > IHA =? AG
>>
>
> Mr.Carl Sagan co-author, it means I Hate Acronyms.
>
> John K Clark
>
Is "HUP" beyond your pay grade?
On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 9:21 AM Alan Grayson wrote:
> >> Oh and you forgot IHA.
>>
>
> IHA =? AG
>
Mr.Carl Sagan co-author, it means I Hate Acronyms.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this
On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 7:03:02 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 8:44 AM Alan Grayson > wrote:
>
> > *There's a simple choice in this matter. Someone who denies that QM has
>> postulates from which the HUP is implied, either knows little or nothing
>> about QM, or
On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 8:44 AM Alan Grayson wrote:
> *There's a simple choice in this matter. Someone who denies that QM has
> postulates from which the HUP is implied, either knows little or nothing
> about QM, or won't acknowledge it due to dishonesty. AG *
>
Mr.Carl Sagan co-author, you can
On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 4:23:54 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 10:33 AM Alan Grayson > wrote:
>
> > *No point in arguing with a dishonest person. AG *
>
>
> I agree, Mr.Carl Sagan co-author.
> the
> John K Clark
>
There's a simple choice in this matter. Someone
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 10:33 AM Alan Grayson wrote:
> *No point in arguing with a dishonest person. AG *
I agree, Mr.Carl Sagan co-author.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and
On Friday, June 5, 2020 at 4:25:01 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 6:58 PM Alan Grayson > wrote:
>
> *> Some other examples: using Newton's law of gravitation, one can
>> mathematically DERIVE the result that planet trajectories are conic
>> sections; using mathematics
On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 6:58 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
*> Some other examples: using Newton's law of gravitation, one can
> mathematically DERIVE the result that planet trajectories are conic
> sections; using mathematics one can show that Newton's equations of motion,
> Hamilton's equations of
On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 at 11:03:17 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 2:45:42 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> These are questions that can be looked up in something such as Wikipedia.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> Here, presumably, is the derivation of Planck's
On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 2:45:42 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> These are questions that can be looked up in something such as Wikipedia.
>
> LC
>
Here, presumably, is the derivation of Planck's blackbody radiation
formula. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law#Derivation .
On Saturday, May 30, 2020 at 6:41:35 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, May 29, 2020 at 9:31:19 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, May 29, 2020 at 9:07:12 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 10:46 AM Alan Grayson
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> *>
On Friday, May 29, 2020 at 9:31:19 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, May 29, 2020 at 9:07:12 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 10:46 AM Alan Grayson
>> wrote:
>>
>> *> Clark, since you claim implicitly to having a serious understanding of
>>> E, can you
On 5/29/2020 8:51 AM, smitra wrote:
On 29-05-2020 16:11, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Friday, May 29, 2020 at 6:26:20 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 6:28 PM Alan Grayson
wrote:
_> Wiki has a good article on this. Oddly, when I took E
courses, undergraduate and graduate, I
On 29-05-2020 16:11, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Friday, May 29, 2020 at 6:26:20 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 6:28 PM Alan Grayson
wrote:
_> Wiki has a good article on this. Oddly, when I took E
courses, undergraduate and graduate, I don't recall this issue
ever being
On Friday, May 29, 2020 at 9:07:12 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 10:46 AM Alan Grayson > wrote:
>
> *> Clark, since you claim implicitly to having a serious understanding of
>> E, can you give a proof of Planck's BB radiation law? AG *
>>
>
> Of course I can't!
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 10:46 AM Alan Grayson
wrote:
*> Clark, since you claim implicitly to having a serious understanding of
> E, can you give a proof of Planck's BB radiation law? AG *
>
Of course I can't! Mathematicians prove things, physicists don't.
Physicists propose theories and if it
On Friday, May 29, 2020 at 8:39:43 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, May 29, 2020 at 8:11:12 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, May 29, 2020 at 6:26:20 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 6:28 PM Alan Grayson
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> *> Wiki
On Friday, May 29, 2020 at 8:11:12 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, May 29, 2020 at 6:26:20 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 6:28 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> *> Wiki has a good article on this. Oddly, when I took E courses,
>>> undergraduate and
On Friday, May 29, 2020 at 6:26:20 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 6:28 PM Alan Grayson > wrote:
>
> *> Wiki has a good article on this. Oddly, when I took E courses,
>> undergraduate and graduate, I don't recall this issue ever being discussed,
>> at least not in
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 6:28 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
*> Wiki has a good article on this. Oddly, when I took E courses,
> undergraduate and graduate, I don't recall this issue ever being discussed,
> at least not in detail. I don't recall any detailed discussion of Planck's
> radiation law; that
On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 2:45:42 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> These are questions that can be looked up in something such as Wikipedia.
>
> LC
>
Wiki has a good article on this. Oddly, when I took E courses,
undergraduate and graduate, I don't recall this issue ever being
These are questions that can be looked up in something such as Wikipedia.
LC
On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 4:16:47 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> When one solves ME's, one gets continuous wave solutions. But somehow they
> give the wrong prediction for BB radiation. The correct solution
On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 3:16:47 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> When one solves ME's, one gets continuous wave solutions. But somehow they
> give the wrong prediction for BB radiation. The correct solution requires
> quantizing the energy packets into discrete packets of energy. But
When one solves ME's, one gets continuous wave solutions. But somehow they
give the wrong prediction for BB radiation. The correct solution requires
quantizing the energy packets into discrete packets of energy. But prior to
the advent of QED, in 1900, how did Planck incorporate this
37 matches
Mail list logo
