Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.electromag > #18454 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-07-23 19:21 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-08-01 16:08 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 75 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.electromag
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-07-23 19:21 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-07-25 11:31 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-07-25 19:30 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-07-25 11:50 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-07-25 12:12 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-07-25 21:02 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-07-25 12:26 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-07-25 19:25 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-07-25 20:58 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-07-27 17:52 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-07-29 16:59 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-07-30 13:08 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-07-30 13:15 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-07-30 15:37 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 01:53 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-02 11:38 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 13:26 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-06 12:14 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-02 13:39 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-02 18:23 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 02:33 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-03 09:04 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 14:02 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 20:39 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-05 08:40 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 08:59 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-04 08:55 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-01 23:27 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-02 18:20 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-06 12:39 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-06 16:30 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-07 18:02 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-07 18:50 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics "Bill Miller" <kt4ye@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-09 15:55 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-11 12:11 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-11 21:22 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-11 15:02 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-12 11:29 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics shelfstackerextraordinaire@gmail.com - 2015-08-12 16:20 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-13 10:09 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-14 19:06 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 03:29 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-15 10:48 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 04:12 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-17 19:49 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 02:01 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-19 19:33 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 02:02 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-22 09:41 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 15:17 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-24 10:51 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 15:12 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-24 16:35 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-24 14:16 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics "Bill Miller" <kt4ye@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-24 21:16 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-25 08:15 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-15 10:47 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-15 19:52 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 03:51 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-17 11:10 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 02:31 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-17 15:49 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics "Bill Miller" <kt4ye@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-17 20:24 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 07:30 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 02:13 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-17 23:27 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 02:43 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-18 10:20 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-19 19:18 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 01:46 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-14 19:06 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-06 16:31 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-07 18:05 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-08 13:21 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-01 16:08 -0700
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-14 19:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <55ce200c$0$2891$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #18582 |
On 8/13/2015 4:09 PM, Bill Miller wrote: > On 8/12/2015 7:20 PM, shelfstackerextraordinaire@gmail.com wrote: .. > ... I have lost count of > the number of Parameters used by QM practitioners to get the *correct* > results. Over 80? Bill also has lost count of the number of fudge parameters used in the tables of multiplication! All those dozens of numbers just popping out of nowhere.. Those tables cannot be right. > Einstein reportedly said of QM: "This is epicycles all over again." > > I'm with the Big Guy! Crackpot index goes up with 10 points! (see rule 9) http://www.physics.smu.edu/scalise/www/misc/crackpot/crindex.html -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-15 03:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <CTBzx.33$V15.17@fx29.iad> |
| In reply to | #18583 |
On 08/14/2015 01:06 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 8/13/2015 4:09 PM, Bill Miller wrote:
>> On 8/12/2015 7:20 PM, shelfstackerextraordinaire@gmail.com wrote:
> ..
>> ... I have lost count of
>> the number of Parameters used by QM practitioners to get the *correct*
>> results. Over 80?
>
> Bill also has lost count of the number of fudge parameters used
> in the tables of multiplication! All those dozens of numbers just
> popping out of nowhere.. Those tables cannot be right.
>
>> Einstein reportedly said of QM: "This is epicycles all over again."
>>
>> I'm with the Big Guy!
>
> Crackpot index goes up with 10 points! (see rule 9)
> http://www.physics.smu.edu/scalise/www/misc/crackpot/crindex.html
Great Crackpot rules, Jos. Of course you probably haven't noticed that
if one is not to be a crackpot and ignored (and banned from Physics
Forums for life like yours truly... Oops! I think I just did #14.!)
Then clearly, one is never permitted to question any statement that is
widely agreed to be true (#2). That relativity (#9), QM (#8), classical
mechanics (#12) are all totally beyond ever being questioned. And
actually possessing scientific credentials means nothing if the
establishment does not give their approval (#10). On the other hand
progress in any subject on the "forbidden" list (eg. intelligent design,
suggesting sun causes climate, etc.) can safely be ignored, refused
publication, and used to deny tenure at a later date. Any complaints
about this happening are only proof of crackpottedness (#15, #16)
And speaking of logical inconsistencies. To paraphrase GBS, therefore
clearly all progress and advances in science are done by crackpots.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-15 10:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <55cefce2$0$2918$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #18585 |
On 8/15/2015 9:29 AM, benj wrote: > On 08/14/2015 01:06 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >> On 8/13/2015 4:09 PM, Bill Miller wrote: ... >>> Einstein reportedly said of QM: "This is epicycles all over again." >>> >>> I'm with the Big Guy! >> >> Crackpot index goes up with 10 points! (see rule 9) >> http://www.physics.smu.edu/scalise/www/misc/crackpot/crindex.html > > Great Crackpot rules, Jos. Of course you probably haven't noticed that > if one is not to be a crackpot and ignored (and banned from Physics > Forums for life like yours truly... Oops! I think I just did #14.!) > Then clearly, one is never permitted to question any statement that is > widely agreed to be true (#2). That relativity (#9), QM (#8), classical > mechanics (#12) are all totally beyond ever being questioned. And > actually possessing scientific credentials means nothing if the > establishment does not give their approval (#10). On the other hand > progress in any subject on the "forbidden" list (eg. intelligent design, > suggesting sun causes climate, etc.) can safely be ignored, refused > publication, and used to deny tenure at a later date. Any complaints > about this happening are only proof of crackpottedness (#15, #16) You are just trying to prove that you can get more points than Bill. But Bill has started this thread and all his other mails have given him too much head start already, I'm afraid.. You're losing your touch, benj. Ryan B left the arena for some reason, but now Bill is a formidable threat to your position! > And speaking of logical inconsistencies. To paraphrase GBS, therefore > clearly all progress and advances in science are done by crackpots. Somehow they don't want to! They are content to just be adepts to Great Leaders and then their own creativeness seems to be blocked. In this newsgroup they always discuss non-mainstream theories of *others.* The only exception was Archie, I think. So, all progress in science comes from Archimedes Pu?! Formerly called Ludwig (pronounced "Logwig") Plutonium, as you know.. -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-17 04:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <bIgAx.8237$K21.4434@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #18586 |
On 08/15/2015 04:48 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 8/15/2015 9:29 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 08/14/2015 01:06 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>> On 8/13/2015 4:09 PM, Bill Miller wrote:
> ...
>>>> Einstein reportedly said of QM: "This is epicycles all over again."
>>>>
>>>> I'm with the Big Guy!
>>>
>>> Crackpot index goes up with 10 points! (see rule 9)
>>> http://www.physics.smu.edu/scalise/www/misc/crackpot/crindex.html
>>
>> Great Crackpot rules, Jos. Of course you probably haven't noticed that
>> if one is not to be a crackpot and ignored (and banned from Physics
>> Forums for life like yours truly... Oops! I think I just did #14.!)
>> Then clearly, one is never permitted to question any statement that is
>> widely agreed to be true (#2). That relativity (#9), QM (#8), classical
>> mechanics (#12) are all totally beyond ever being questioned. And
>> actually possessing scientific credentials means nothing if the
>> establishment does not give their approval (#10). On the other hand
>> progress in any subject on the "forbidden" list (eg. intelligent design,
>> suggesting sun causes climate, etc.) can safely be ignored, refused
>> publication, and used to deny tenure at a later date. Any complaints
>> about this happening are only proof of crackpottedness (#15, #16)
>
> You are just trying to prove that you can get more points than
> Bill. But Bill has started this thread and all his other mails
> have given him too much head start already, I'm afraid..
>
> You're losing your touch, benj. Ryan B left the arena for some
> reason, but now Bill is a formidable threat to your position!
>
>> And speaking of logical inconsistencies. To paraphrase GBS, therefore
>> clearly all progress and advances in science are done by crackpots.
>
> Somehow they don't want to! They are content to just be adepts
> to Great Leaders and then their own creativeness seems to be
> blocked. In this newsgroup they always discuss non-mainstream
> theories of *others.* The only exception was Archie, I think.
>
> So, all progress in science comes from Archimedes Pu?! Formerly
> called Ludwig (pronounced "Logwig") Plutonium, as you know..
Archie as a source of new magnificent theories? Um...
The problem is your list of rules places both those with truly creative
ideas in the same boat with Archie and no way to separate the two.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-17 19:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <55d21ec0$0$26721$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #18594 |
On 8/17/2015 10:12 AM, benj wrote: > On 08/15/2015 04:48 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >> On 8/15/2015 9:29 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 08/14/2015 01:06 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>> On 8/13/2015 4:09 PM, Bill Miller wrote: >> ... >>>>> Einstein reportedly said of QM: "This is epicycles all over again." >>>>> >>>>> I'm with the Big Guy! >>>> >>>> Crackpot index goes up with 10 points! (see rule 9) >>>> http://www.physics.smu.edu/scalise/www/misc/crackpot/crindex.html >>> >>> Great Crackpot rules, Jos. Of course you probably haven't noticed that ... ... >> So, all progress in science comes from Archimedes Pu?! Formerly >> called Ludwig (pronounced "Logwig") Plutonium, as you know.. > > Archie as a source of new magnificent theories? Um... > > The problem is your list of rules places both those with truly creative > ideas in the same boat with Archie and no way to separate the two. Which one of the rules is *not* helpful in separating truly creative ideas from crackpot behavior?! Surely you can't object to the high-scoring rules above #10, I presume? And rule 10 itself is what you often wrote yourself about degrees and education! The lower rules are, as far as I can see, quite sound as well, except maybe the free starting credit? The "everybody is a star" idea.. But that's only five points, benj! -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 02:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <DSzAx.124519$Ij7.116868@fx02.iad> |
| In reply to | #18598 |
On 08/17/2015 01:49 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 8/17/2015 10:12 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 08/15/2015 04:48 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>> On 8/15/2015 9:29 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 08/14/2015 01:06 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>>>> On 8/13/2015 4:09 PM, Bill Miller wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>>> Einstein reportedly said of QM: "This is epicycles all over again."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm with the Big Guy!
>>>>>
>>>>> Crackpot index goes up with 10 points! (see rule 9)
>>>>> http://www.physics.smu.edu/scalise/www/misc/crackpot/crindex.html
>>>>
>>>> Great Crackpot rules, Jos. Of course you probably haven't noticed that
> ...
> ...
>>> So, all progress in science comes from Archimedes Pu?! Formerly
>>> called Ludwig (pronounced "Logwig") Plutonium, as you know..
>>
>> Archie as a source of new magnificent theories? Um...
>>
>> The problem is your list of rules places both those with truly creative
>> ideas in the same boat with Archie and no way to separate the two.
>
> Which one of the rules is *not* helpful in separating
> truly creative ideas from crackpot behavior?!
Since you seem to be a theorist I'm sure this will have no meaning to
you, but the ONLY rule helpful in separating Kooks from creators is
comparing ideas to careful experiments. And this rule is not in the list.
> Surely you can't object to the high-scoring rules above
> #10, I presume? And rule 10 itself is what you often
> wrote yourself about degrees and education! The lower
> rules are, as far as I can see, quite sound as well,
> except maybe the free starting credit? The "everybody
> is a star" idea.. But that's only five points, benj!
Wow! All rules above #10 are valid. And there's nothing wrong with rules
below #10. And in fact number 10 itself is somehow something I said or
implied? Well, you know I've got an education and degrees from some
major schools which is certain proof of my sanity, so I can
mathematically conjecture that there is no way your rules can be wrong.
In short, your world of science as a closed cult is perfect. There are
no political actions involved. Nobody ever abused the peer-review
process for their own political ends. The worries of those in power over
the effect of certain science ideas on the general population
that Galileo ran afoul of are laughable today. In short, Global warming
is caused by man-made CO2. There is a 95% consensus that this is true
and anyone who says different is a kook and denier. We all know that the
validity of science is determined by: The number of people agreeing with
you. How many papers you have published. Your reputation based on the
institutions you are associated with. Your title and how smart you are.
The number of professional science and trade organizations supporting
your viewpoint. And especially the number of government agencies
agreeing with your views. All of these thing insure that your science is
valid and you are not a kook.
What was that missing rule again?
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-19 19:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <55d4bde9$0$23748$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #18604 |
On 8/18/2015 8:01 AM, benj wrote: > On 08/17/2015 01:49 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >> On 8/17/2015 10:12 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 08/15/2015 04:48 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>> On 8/15/2015 9:29 AM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 08/14/2015 01:06 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >>>>>> On 8/13/2015 4:09 PM, Bill Miller wrote: >>>> ... >>>>>>> Einstein reportedly said of QM: "This is epicycles all over again." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm with the Big Guy! >>>>>> >>>>>> Crackpot index goes up with 10 points! (see rule 9) >>>>>> http://www.physics.smu.edu/scalise/www/misc/crackpot/crindex.html >>>>> >>>>> Great Crackpot rules, Jos. Of course you probably haven't noticed that >> ... >> ... >>>> So, all progress in science comes from Archimedes Pu?! Formerly >>>> called Ludwig (pronounced "Logwig") Plutonium, as you know.. >>> >>> Archie as a source of new magnificent theories? Um... >>> >>> The problem is your list of rules places both those with truly creative >>> ideas in the same boat with Archie and no way to separate the two. >> >> Which one of the rules is *not* helpful in separating >> truly creative ideas from crackpot behavior?! > > Since you seem to be a theorist I'm sure this will have no meaning to > you, but the ONLY rule helpful in separating Kooks from creators is > comparing ideas to careful experiments. And this rule is not in the list. Please explain. Rule 6 already give crackpot points for neglecting results of a widely accepted real experiment. Did you actually read the rules?! (I know they are not in pdf but in html..) > Wow! All rules above #10 are valid. If you actually looked at them: which one is *not* correct? > ... And especially the number of government agencies > agreeing with your views. Sure, they even pay me to post them here (and to keep an eye on terrorists with dangerous crackpot views, of course..) > What was that missing rule again? Don't know about missing ones, but rule 40 should perhaps be clarified. Democritos' atomic theory or today's string theory don't have *directly* testable predictions, but string theorists and Democritos do not deserve crackpot points for that, so more clear would be: "40 points for claiming one has a revolutionary theory that *not even in principle* can give testable predictions." Anyway, *he* would have laughed at it, probably.. http://www.google.com/search?as_q=laughing+philosopher -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-20 02:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u3eBx.37480$7G.36670@fx26.iad> |
| In reply to | #18616 |
On 08/19/2015 01:33 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 8/18/2015 8:01 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 08/17/2015 01:49 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>> On 8/17/2015 10:12 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 08/15/2015 04:48 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>>>> On 8/15/2015 9:29 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/14/2015 01:06 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/13/2015 4:09 PM, Bill Miller wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Einstein reportedly said of QM: "This is epicycles all over again."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm with the Big Guy!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Crackpot index goes up with 10 points! (see rule 9)
>>>>>>> http://www.physics.smu.edu/scalise/www/misc/crackpot/crindex.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Great Crackpot rules, Jos. Of course you probably haven't noticed
>>>>>> that
>>> ...
>>> ...
>>>>> So, all progress in science comes from Archimedes Pu?! Formerly
>>>>> called Ludwig (pronounced "Logwig") Plutonium, as you know..
>>>>
>>>> Archie as a source of new magnificent theories? Um...
>>>>
>>>> The problem is your list of rules places both those with truly creative
>>>> ideas in the same boat with Archie and no way to separate the two.
>>>
>>> Which one of the rules is *not* helpful in separating
>>> truly creative ideas from crackpot behavior?!
>>
>> Since you seem to be a theorist I'm sure this will have no meaning to
>> you, but the ONLY rule helpful in separating Kooks from creators is
>> comparing ideas to careful experiments. And this rule is not in the list.
>
> Please explain. Rule 6 already give crackpot points for
> neglecting results of a widely accepted real experiment.
>
> Did you actually read the rules?! (I know they are not in
> pdf but in html..)
Of course I read them even though your lazy ass made me go look them up
on line. Yes I speak HTML, do you? Didn't think so.
>> Wow! All rules above #10 are valid.
>
> If you actually looked at them: which one is *not* correct?
Already went through this. That noise was the point zipping right over
your head. Remember the GBS quote?
>> ... And especially the number of government agencies
>> agreeing with your views.
>
> Sure, they even pay me to post them here (and to keep an eye
> on terrorists with dangerous crackpot views, of course..)
No doubt. I have little doubt you are paid directly or indirectly by
some level of government. Virtually everyone is these days. And to coin
a phrase one quickly learns not to bite the hand that feeds him.
>> What was that missing rule again?
>
> Don't know about missing ones, but rule 40 should perhaps
> be clarified. Democritos' atomic theory or today's string
> theory don't have *directly* testable predictions, but
> string theorists and Democritos do not deserve crackpot
> points for that, so more clear would be:
> "40 points for claiming one has a revolutionary theory that
> *not even in principle* can give testable predictions."
So in short, these rules aren't rules at all. They just convenient hooks
upon which to hang establishment opinion. The REAL determination of who
is a "kook" is made by YOU and not the rules. The rules are only used to
justify your personal choices. Got it.
> Anyway, *he* would have laughed at it, probably..
> http://www.google.com/search?as_q=laughing+philosopher
Well that sure explains why you are a million yuks! You are just an
atomist!
Speaking of atom, in spite of the total pollution and misrepresentation
of the term "atom" and it's meaning by science, the idea still is
philosophically valid. The idea being the subdivision of nature. Is
nature infinitely sub-dividable? Well the word "infinite" in there
gives one the clue that such an idea is pure fantasy.
So if things are not sub-dividable, then where does it stop. Clearly it
must stop when there is only ONE thing left... like say the aetheron!
People imagined that what might be called "subatomic molecules" were
"atoms", but the fact that they were discovered to be built of several
things squashed that idea, only it didn't, natch, as the name "atom"
stuck even though it was totally wrong. You know, Jos, same as in MANY
physics theories.
Just trying to be cheerful here!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 09:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <55d827c3$0$23769$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #18619 |
On 8/20/2015 8:02 AM, benj wrote:
> On 08/19/2015 01:33 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>> On 8/18/2015 8:01 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 08/17/2015 01:49 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>>> On 8/17/2015 10:12 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>> On 08/15/2015 04:48 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/15/2015 9:29 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>> On 08/14/2015 01:06 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2015 4:09 PM, Bill Miller wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> Einstein reportedly said of QM: "This is epicycles all over
...
..
>> Did you actually read the rules?! (I know they are not in
>> pdf but in html..)
>
> Of course I read them even though your lazy ass made me go look
> them up on line. Yes I speak HTML, do you?
Ehh, well.. yes, about up to HTML 3.0 I'd think. And of course
not the javascript junk around it. But HTML I can even write,
with nothing more than an ASCII editor (and a web full of
examples).
>>> Wow! All rules above #10 are valid.
>>
>> If you actually looked at them: which one is *not* correct?
>
> Already went through this.
OK, so you didn't find any that's incorrect apparently!
...
> So if things are not sub-dividable, then where does it stop.
If they all *are* sub-dividable then it doesn't stop, like
when space is infinite you never reach the boundary. If
eventually they are no longer sub-dividable then it stops
there, like when space stops at a boundary. But that begs
the question what is beyound the boundary!
Perhaps the sub-division could cycle back, just like space
can be a 3-sphere and cycles back! But the idea seems strange.
There should at some point be complete solar systems and
planets at some small scale particle level. I'm mentioning
it because we were talking about Archie and his central theme
is of course the universe as one atom.
> .. Clearly it must stop
> when there is only ONE thing left... like say the aetheron!
It is all explained. You should read what Archie wrote!
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
Please start at the beginning! (Or Bill and I will have to
keep harassing you about it.)
Matter, big-bang, superconductivity, unification of forces,
it is all in on his science website. Look at it. Clearly,
what Mills does is pure plagiarism!
--
Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-22 15:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <UU3Cx.38878$Kz4.1640@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #18622 |
On 08/22/2015 03:41 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 8/20/2015 8:02 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 08/19/2015 01:33 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>> On 8/18/2015 8:01 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 08/17/2015 01:49 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>>>> On 8/17/2015 10:12 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/15/2015 04:48 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/15/2015 9:29 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 08/14/2015 01:06 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2015 4:09 PM, Bill Miller wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Einstein reportedly said of QM: "This is epicycles all over
> ...
> ..
>>> Did you actually read the rules?! (I know they are not in
>>> pdf but in html..)
>>
>> Of course I read them even though your lazy ass made me go look
>> them up on line. Yes I speak HTML, do you?
>
> Ehh, well.. yes, about up to HTML 3.0 I'd think. And of course
> not the javascript junk around it. But HTML I can even write,
> with nothing more than an ASCII editor (and a web full of
> examples).
>
>>>> Wow! All rules above #10 are valid.
>>>
>>> If you actually looked at them: which one is *not* correct?
>>
>> Already went through this.
>
> OK, so you didn't find any that's incorrect apparently!
>
> ...
>> So if things are not sub-dividable, then where does it stop.
>
> If they all *are* sub-dividable then it doesn't stop, like
> when space is infinite you never reach the boundary. If
> eventually they are no longer sub-dividable then it stops
> there, like when space stops at a boundary. But that begs
> the question what is beyound the boundary!
Of course the problem with fantasies like "infinite" and "subdividable
forever" is that this makes the entire universe a fantasy. Not that such
is impossible, but general evidence is that mathematics fantasy models
the universe and not the other way round.
> Perhaps the sub-division could cycle back, just like space
> can be a 3-sphere and cycles back! But the idea seems strange.
> There should at some point be complete solar systems and
> planets at some small scale particle level. I'm mentioning
> it because we were talking about Archie and his central theme
> is of course the universe as one atom.
There are obviously two ideas here. One is the old "sailing off the edge
of the flat earth". Of course that problem was solve by discovering the
earth is a sphere so you never "sail off" the edge. One can make the
same argument (I have) for the universe. Namely that the universe is a
gigantic hypersphere. Hence if one has a space ship and "sails" in a
"straight line" in a given direction, the theory says eventually you end
up back where you started, in a larger analogy to the flat earth
problem. This hyperdimensionality also solves some other questions as
well, but is not the same kind of thing as the dimensions in string theory.
As for the universe as an atom, we have the axiom of Hermes
Trismegistus: "As above, so below". Interesting thought, and some
justification for it is found in Fractal musings. However, the atomic
model of electrons whizzing about the nucleus as the planets in the
solar system takes a bit of stretching to actually fit the axiom.
>> .. Clearly it must stop
>> when there is only ONE thing left... like say the aetheron!
>
> It is all explained. You should read what Archie wrote!
> http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
Yikes! I think I've already read TOO MUCH of what Archie wrote.
Hey! You didn't say Archie rejects the fabulous "Big Bang".
Did I ever tell you about my BBB theory? (Big Bang is Bullshit)
(Used to be on one of my websites until I found a problem with my
Cepheid calculations. It's still not fixed.)
> Please start at the beginning! (Or Bill and I will have to
> keep harassing you about it.)
>
> Matter, big-bang, superconductivity, unification of forces,
> it is all in on his science website. Look at it. Clearly,
> what Mills does is pure plagiarism!
Plagiarism? You looking for a lawsuit?
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-24 10:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d40pb7FjgmdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #18625 |
On 8/22/2015 3:17 PM, benj wrote: <SNIP> > > Hey! You didn't say Archie rejects the fabulous "Big Bang". > Did I ever tell you about my BBB theory? (Big Bang is Bullshit) Don't worry, Benj... Mills has the Universe all sorted out, and he agrees with you. Have you found the 1-paragraph refutation of HUP yet? All the best, Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-24 15:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <01KCx.89220$FV7.47534@fx28.iad> |
| In reply to | #18627 |
On 08/24/2015 10:51 AM, Bill Miller wrote:
> On 8/22/2015 3:17 PM, benj wrote:
> <SNIP>
>>
>> Hey! You didn't say Archie rejects the fabulous "Big Bang".
>> Did I ever tell you about my BBB theory? (Big Bang is Bullshit)
>
> Don't worry, Benj... Mills has the Universe all sorted out, and he
> agrees with you.
>
> Have you found the 1-paragraph refutation of HUP yet?
>
> All the best, Bill
Actually, no. But in rooting through there looking for it I found:
====
QM: In the double slit experiment, single electrons break into pieces,
go through both slits at once, and interfere with
themselves over all space.
CP: Electrons are not divisible and comprise an extended current
distribution with ¥ of angular momentum that is conserved
with the electrodynamic interaction of the charged propagating electron
with the conducting electrons of the material of
the slits such that an angular momentum vector change corresponds to a
translational displacement. In the far field, the
transverse momentum pattern is given by the Fourier transform of the
slit aperture pattern, and the characteristic
inference pattern is observed even with single electrons over time.
QM: In photon diffraction through slits, light wave crests and troughs
superimpose to cancel to give dark spots; whereas,
superposition of crest with crest and trough with trough reinforces the
intensity and gives bright spots.
CP: Photons are not destroyed by other photons. They interact with the
electrons of the slit material, and the electrodynamic
currents reradiate the light to give the characteristic inference
pattern as by the Fourier transform of the slit aperture
pattern.
====
While I am a bit skeptical of his descriptions of interactions at
"slits" because all that is needed is "modulation" of intensities which
may or may not involve the material interactions he proposes. Most think
of binary modulation (slits) but in fact the Fourier transform giving
"diffraction" patterns does not require such binary variations and ANY
variation produces a transform.
I find this "debunking" of QM "explanations" and the noting of far
fields energy patterns as "Fourier" transforms to be essentially correct.
Of course things are more complex than this. The transform is actually
only a Fourier transform in Cartesian coordinates and a Hankel transform
is a more generalized form.
And left unexplained is Huygen's principle that every "point" in space
can become a new "source" of "waves".
And of course these Transforms relate to HUP. Where if one tries to
determine a variation in position by using a slit as a restriction, one
then finds (as is the nature of the transform) that the narrower the
slit the wider the pattern produced hence one assumes that now
"momentum" has become more uncertain as a result of narrowing
determination of position. But viewed from a transform viewpoint things
are not as "uncertain" as they seem.
But enough.
You guys just never give up and keep poking us kooks!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-24 16:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d41dh2Foq9fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #18628 |
On 8/24/2015 3:12 PM, benj wrote: > On 08/24/2015 10:51 AM, Bill Miller wrote: >> On 8/22/2015 3:17 PM, benj wrote: >> <SNIP> >>> >>> Hey! You didn't say Archie rejects the fabulous "Big Bang". >>> Did I ever tell you about my BBB theory? (Big Bang is Bullshit) >> >> Don't worry, Benj... Mills has the Universe all sorted out, and he >> agrees with you. >> >> Have you found the 1-paragraph refutation of HUP yet? >> >> All the best, Bill > > Actually, no. But in rooting through there looking for it I found: > > ==== > > QM: In the double slit experiment, single electrons break into pieces, > go through both slits at once, and interfere with > themselves over all space. > > CP: Electrons are not divisible and comprise an extended current > distribution with ¥ of angular momentum that is conserved > with the electrodynamic interaction of the charged propagating electron > with the conducting electrons of the material of > the slits such that an angular momentum vector change corresponds to a > translational displacement. In the far field, the > transverse momentum pattern is given by the Fourier transform of the > slit aperture pattern, and the characteristic > inference pattern is observed even with single electrons over time. > > QM: In photon diffraction through slits, light wave crests and troughs > superimpose to cancel to give dark spots; whereas, > superposition of crest with crest and trough with trough reinforces the > intensity and gives bright spots. > > CP: Photons are not destroyed by other photons. They interact with the > electrons of the slit material, and the electrodynamic > currents reradiate the light to give the characteristic inference > pattern as by the Fourier transform of the slit aperture > pattern. > ==== You may recall that during the halcyon "Jefimenko time," I suggested that there was a strong similarity between the pattern formed by the interaction of two identical -- but widely spaced -- radio antennas. It looks like I wasn't *quite* as "kooky" as most folks thought! > While I am a bit skeptical of his descriptions of interactions at > "slits" because all that is needed is "modulation" of intensities which > may or may not involve the material interactions he proposes. Most think > of binary modulation (slits) but in fact the Fourier transform giving > "diffraction" patterns does not require such binary variations and ANY > variation produces a transform. > > I find this "debunking" of QM "explanations" and the noting of far > fields energy patterns as "Fourier" transforms to be essentially correct. > > Of course things are more complex than this. The transform is actually > only a Fourier transform in Cartesian coordinates and a Hankel transform > is a more generalized form. > > And left unexplained is Huygen's principle that every "point" in space > can become a new "source" of "waves". That concept violates the basic idea of causality. But it's OK with me if you want to have a magic show! > > And of course these Transforms relate to HUP. Where if one tries to > determine a variation in position by using a slit as a restriction, one > then finds (as is the nature of the transform) that the narrower the > slit the wider the pattern produced hence one assumes that now > "momentum" has become more uncertain as a result of narrowing > determination of position. But viewed from a transform viewpoint things > are not as "uncertain" as they seem. > > But enough. Ready for a hint? Look up Cauchy-Schwarz. (Mills has his name mis-spelled in the book.) > > You guys just never give up and keep poking us kooks! *Kooks arise!* All the best, Bill >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-24 14:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aabd75fd-49cf-41f0-a063-298f03324c6c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #18629 |
On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 5:13:02 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > > I find this "debunking" of QM "explanations" and the noting of far > fields energy patterns as "Fourier" transforms to be essentially correct. Far field energy patterns as Fourier transforms is the QM explanation (or, at least, the QM mathematical model). On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 6:35:50 AM UTC+10, Bill Miller wrote: > On 8/24/2015 3:12 PM, benj wrote: > > You may recall that during the halcyon "Jefimenko time," I suggested > that there was a strong similarity between the pattern formed by the > interaction of two identical -- but widely spaced -- radio antennas. > > It looks like I wasn't *quite* as "kooky" as most folks thought! > > And left unexplained is Huygen's principle that every "point" in space > > can become a new "source" of "waves". > > That concept violates the basic idea of causality. But it's OK with me > if you want to have a magic show! Mills appear content to use Huygens' Principle (e.g., "Equations of classical diffraction", ch 8).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bill Miller" <kt4ye@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-24 21:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d41u02FsinmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #18630 |
"Timo Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:aabd75fd-49cf-41f0-a063-298f03324c6c@googlegroups.com... > On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 5:13:02 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >> < el snippo > >> That concept violates the basic idea of causality. But it's OK with me >> if you want to have a magic show! > > Mills appear content to use Huygens' Principle (e.g., "Equations of > classical diffraction", ch 8). Hello Timo and thanks for checking back in. I know you appreciate that scientists like Huygens were exceptional folks in their time, and would doubtless still be intellects in today's physics community. But that does not mean that *every* concept that they espoused was correct (or wrong.) Example: Schroedinger's Cat. AFAIK he meant this as a jest toshow how ridiculous was the QM concept that, since we didn't know the state of an item until we looked at it, a cat in a box was neither alive nor dead until we opened the lid. (Unless, perhaps, *if* we heard a "miaou".) All the best, and still wauting for the prize-winning revelation of how Heisenberg kinda "blew it." Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-25 08:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <55dc07ff$0$23790$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #18631 |
On 8/25/2015 3:16 AM, Bill Miller wrote: > "Timo Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message > I know you appreciate that scientists like Huygens were exceptional folks in > their time, Bill may waive this for now as an acceptable aberration, Timo. But please consider this as a first warning! .. > Example: Schroedinger's Cat. AFAIK he meant this as a jest toshow how > ridiculous was the QM concept that, since we didn't know the state of an > item until we looked at it, a cat in a box was neither alive nor dead until > we opened the lid. At this point (and conceivably without knowing it) Bill actually does mention a ridiculous aspect of this famous example: the fact that it overlooks the possibility that after the box is opened the cat still is alive and dead simultaneously. A clear case of not realizing the full consequences of a theory, more or less like the Lorentz transform which was not fully extended to all physical laws until Einstein did this. -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-15 10:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d391ndFlg5tU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #18585 |
On 8/15/2015 3:29 AM, benj wrote: > > And speaking of logical inconsistencies. To paraphrase GBS, therefore > clearly all progress and advances in science are done by crackpots. > GBS... Good for a chuckle. Here's another quote from the 19th C. German Philosopher Schopenhauer: "There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is generally adopted." QM & Anthropogenic Climate Change come to mind. Have you cracked open Mills' book yet, or do I have to harass you unmercifully, like I did with Jefimenko's "Causality" book? P.S. start Mills' book at the beginning. All the best, Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-15 19:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <55cf7c4b$0$2827$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #18588 |
On 8/15/2015 4:47 PM, Bill Miller wrote: > On 8/15/2015 3:29 AM, benj wrote: .. > Have you cracked open Mills' book yet, or do I have to harass you > unmercifully, like I did with Jefimenko's "Causality" book? Yes, benj, you should really give your homework a bit more attention! Complaints about you have been piling up lately.. > P.S. start Mills' book at the beginning. Please carefully follow orders! As I predicted: It's not you who is crackpot master any more.. You're the assistant now. -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-17 03:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <gogAx.140000$yI3.29993@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #18589 |
On 08/15/2015 01:52 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 8/15/2015 4:47 PM, Bill Miller wrote:
>> On 8/15/2015 3:29 AM, benj wrote:
> ..
>> Have you cracked open Mills' book yet, or do I have to harass you
>> unmercifully, like I did with Jefimenko's "Causality" book?
>
> Yes, benj, you should really give your homework a bit more
> attention! Complaints about you have been piling up lately..
>
>> P.S. start Mills' book at the beginning.
>
> Please carefully follow orders! As I predicted: It's not you
> who is crackpot master any more.. You're the assistant now.
Well excuuuuse me! I'm sorry but when someone writes a huge tome, it
just irks me to be put through a bunch of "Simon Says" flash and website
folderol. If the book is that damn important then put a pdf online so
people can download the whole thing instead of pretending it's so
precious that it only can be let out slowly and with careful
supervision. This kind of crap to me, is a sign the book is crackpot
from the start. Note that Jefimenko's books were "vanity press". And
they are cheap! The goal was clearly to encourage people to consider his
ideas rather than obfuscate them. Unlike most of the establishment
priests (Jos) I have no problem with autodidacts or self-published
books. University degrees are ZERO proof of ability and we all know how
political the journal "peer review" process is. Hell. proof is that *I*
have "peer reviewed" papers. Isn't that frightening!
But since you guys are so insistent I did pull up the website told my
browser to ignore that all the flash readers are out of date and took a
peer inside Mill's tome.
And what do I see? well on page 2 (And this irritates the hell out of me
too! I can't just copy the line of text to put it here! No! It's way the
hell too precious for that! I have to type the damn thing in by hand!
...am I getting sued yet?)
He said: "QM has never dealt with the nature of fundamental particles".
Well that certainly is true. Kervran has pointed out over and over that
the structure of the atomic nucleus is virtually unknown, yet everyone
assumes that this makes no difference in understanding or stop them for
asserting his models (based on data) are crackpot.
And then he says:"Rather it postulates the impossible situation that
they occupy no volume, yet are everywhere at once." Well that certainly
sums up QM as I know it. People are always talking about "point
particles" and of course the minute you use the word "point" you have
transitioned from reality to fantasy. Points have zero dimensions. They
are total fantasy. They do not exist. Period. In the same fantasy class
as anything termed "infinite".
And then we talk about my favorite topic of "probability waves in
nothing at all". Even the name doesn't make sense, yet we are told these
so-called waves are "everywhere at once". Filling the entire universe
(forget the limitations of the speed of information) and encompassing
all possible outcomes. And this is gravely pronounced as
the ultimate nature of reality. And Mills is called a kook?
Well I am beginning to think this guy may have something worthwhile to
say, but I'm NOT going to jump through a bunch of flash reader hoops
just to get sued. Screw that. I'll read his tome if and when I can
either buy it or download it.
Just call me Junior.
PS. Note all my crackpot papers have PDF files online.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-17 11:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d3ebrnF1h2uU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #18592 |
On 8/17/2015 3:51 AM, benj wrote: > If the book is that damn important then put a pdf online so people can > download the whole thing... balance of harangue snipped I understand, Benj and will pass your comments on to Mills. Remember, in order to read Jefimenko, not only did I *force* you to *buy* a copy, but you couldn't highlight and copy excerpts from his work either. All the best, Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.electromag
csiph-web