Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #362895 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-03 03:48 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-09-05 19:54 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 161 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-03 03:48 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 11:39 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-03 08:39 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 16:08 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-03 15:22 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-03 20:28 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-03 15:33 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-04 05:16 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-04 01:07 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-04 08:34 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-04 08:50 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-04 19:42 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-05 00:53 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-05 11:20 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-05 18:33 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-05 21:50 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-06 05:29 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-05 23:54 -0400
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-06 16:43 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-07 07:08 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-09 12:46 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-10 14:20 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-11 13:39 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Tad Winter <floyw@timedomain.au> - 2015-09-11 19:02 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-11 13:05 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-12 15:11 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-12 14:56 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-12 14:43 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-13 08:54 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-13 09:28 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-13 18:33 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-13 16:50 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-14 19:30 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-12 23:21 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-13 09:23 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 12:18 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 13:22 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-16 19:11 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-09 12:40 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-09-09 17:52 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-09-09 17:53 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-10 13:49 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-11 06:56 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-11 13:50 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-11 22:28 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-25 07:34 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-25 10:56 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-12 20:32 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-13 09:34 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 14:00 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-13 19:04 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 23:17 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-14 19:23 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 18:43 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2015-09-15 17:28 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-15 15:13 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 14:51 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-15 19:10 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 21:28 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-18 03:00 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 12:17 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-18 14:59 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 13:11 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-23 07:56 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-23 10:30 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-23 17:56 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-24 04:46 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-23 21:20 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 12:33 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-23 21:57 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-23 20:07 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-23 22:43 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-24 05:16 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-24 20:24 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-24 23:16 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-25 12:52 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-25 22:50 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 15:06 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-26 11:42 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 13:04 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-26 23:17 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 16:18 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-27 12:26 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 11:42 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-27 23:10 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 01:31 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-28 01:44 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-28 03:23 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 16:55 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-27 23:22 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-26 08:45 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-26 16:09 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-26 12:48 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 12:25 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-23 21:48 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-23 20:04 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-24 06:50 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 14:28 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-24 05:38 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 10:57 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-24 20:23 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 11:37 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-24 21:59 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-25 13:05 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 12:09 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-25 19:18 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 12:38 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-25 19:44 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-25 13:07 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-26 16:15 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-26 12:54 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-27 12:23 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-16 19:32 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-15 15:04 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 15:05 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-15 19:02 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 21:40 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-18 03:53 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-09-18 09:40 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 13:18 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-18 23:33 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 13:17 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-16 19:30 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-17 20:56 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-17 04:25 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-09-18 15:19 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-18 05:43 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-19 07:05 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-18 15:29 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-09-20 08:04 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-19 17:10 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-21 06:13 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-20 13:41 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-25 03:03 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-24 13:51 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-18 02:45 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-19 08:04 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-19 00:11 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-09-20 08:32 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-19 23:56 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-21 06:17 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-20 18:11 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-21 19:36 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-21 06:08 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-21 16:31 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-23 20:03 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-23 04:57 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-24 06:33 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-23 14:05 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-24 19:22 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-24 04:51 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-28 10:41 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-18 19:17 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-18 21:17 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-09-20 08:34 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-19 00:16 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-25 08:06 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 00:20 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-25 00:35 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-26 07:07 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-05 19:54 -0700
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-26 23:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mu721u$8vs$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #365363 |
Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:7e5b8a91-70b6-41fc-b09f-4275b82a5e67@googlegroups.com... |Most of the stuff you, and your other lover polish moron troll, use to write nonsense in here, have their basis in physics developed by trained physicists and mathematicians and engineers, throughout the 20th century. So is the computer, its display, mouse, the wireless network that connects |the PC to the Internet and the whole Internet. As one of these engineers, I assure you, that no black holes, wormholes, white holes or parallel universes were involved.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-26 16:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4a3a771b-32f7-4331-b037-f92479e40816@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365369 |
El sábado, 26 de septiembre de 2015, 18:17:52 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak escribió: > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:7e5b8a91-70b6-41fc-b09f-4275b82a5e67@googlegroups.com... > > |Most of the stuff you, and your other lover polish moron troll, use to > write nonsense in here, have their basis in physics developed by trained > physicists and mathematicians and engineers, throughout the 20th century. So > is the computer, its display, mouse, the wireless network that connects |the > PC to the Internet and the whole Internet. > > As one of these engineers, I assure you, that no black holes, wormholes, > white holes or parallel universes were involved. Nor fried eggs, starbuck coffee or a baseball team were involved. As always you do not have a clue about how science and scientists work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-27 12:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mu8g86$6cb$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #365379 |
Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:4a3a771b-32f7-4331-b037-f92479e40816@googlegroups.com... > |Most of the stuff you, and your other lover polish moron troll, use to > write nonsense in here, have their basis in physics developed by trained > physicists and mathematicians and engineers, throughout the 20th century. > So > is the computer, its display, mouse, the wireless network that connects > |the > PC to the Internet and the whole Internet. > > As one of these engineers, I assure you, that no black holes, wormholes, > white holes or parallel universes were involved. |Nor fried eggs, starbuck coffee or a baseball team were involved. As always you do not have a clue about how science and scientists work. Unfortunately, science is an informational construct, not a physical object, and dealing with information and knowing, how it works, is my job. Not yours, poor idiot. So, it's actually you who does not have a clue about how science and scientists work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-27 11:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cb2a702f-9d85-4442-9074-0a75af97d520@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365424 |
On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 3:26:16 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:4a3a771b-32f7-4331-b037-f92479e40816@googlegroups.com... > > > > |Most of the stuff you, and your other lover polish moron troll, use to > > write nonsense in here, have their basis in physics developed by trained > > physicists and mathematicians and engineers, throughout the 20th century. > > So > > is the computer, its display, mouse, the wireless network that connects > > |the > > PC to the Internet and the whole Internet. > > > > As one of these engineers, I assure you, that no black holes, wormholes, > > white holes or parallel universes were involved. > > |Nor fried eggs, starbuck coffee or a baseball team were involved. As always > you do not have a clue about how science and scientists work. > > Unfortunately, science is an informational construct, not a physical > object, and dealing with information and knowing, how it works, is > my job. Nonsense. What you describe is cheating. In real life OTOH one learns X by studying X, not some "information and knowing how it works". If this was that simple, nobody would bother going to universities, one would just study "information". > Not yours, poor idiot. > So, it's actually you who does not have a clue about how science > and scientists work. You don't understand the subject, so there is nothing really to discuss with you. You can ask questions and learn from our answers if you are interested, but something tells me that your interests lie elsewhere: yelling obscenities at people and calling them idiots. This is fine for entertainment but you won't get anywhere with it otherwise. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-27 23:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59f06fce-c99b-4f96-988b-64179402cf0d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365463 |
On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 8:42:27 PM UTC+2, JanPB wrote: > On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 3:26:16 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:4a3a771b-32f7-4331-b037-f92479e40816@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > |Most of the stuff you, and your other lover polish moron troll, use to > > > write nonsense in here, have their basis in physics developed by trained > > > physicists and mathematicians and engineers, throughout the 20th century. > > > So > > > is the computer, its display, mouse, the wireless network that connects > > > |the > > > PC to the Internet and the whole Internet. > > > > > > As one of these engineers, I assure you, that no black holes, wormholes, > > > white holes or parallel universes were involved. > > > > |Nor fried eggs, starbuck coffee or a baseball team were involved. As always > > you do not have a clue about how science and scientists work. > > > > Unfortunately, science is an informational construct, not a physical > > object, and dealing with information and knowing, how it works, is > > my job. > > Nonsense. What you describe is cheating. So, science is not an informational construct? Is it a physical object? >, not some "information and knowing how it works". If this was > that simple, nobody would bother going to universities, To know theology you study theology, to know your insane shit you study your insane shit, and to know how science works, you study about information generally and its interactions with human brain specifically. Because that's exactly, what science is - information interacting with human brains. > You don't understand the subject, so there is nothing really to discuss No. it's you who don't understand the subject. > with you. You can ask questions and learn from Not quite. Rather, I can ask questions and in return hear yellings "UUUU!!!! THAT"S NO QUESTION!!!!! THAT"S A RANT!!!" from a brainwashed fanatic idiots like you. And I do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-28 01:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <363ed4d6-73d4-42ee-a1a7-64fa2618ca4c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365506 |
On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 11:10:40 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 8:42:27 PM UTC+2, JanPB wrote: > > On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 3:26:16 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > dyskusyjnych:4a3a771b-32f7-4331-b037-f92479e40816@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > |Most of the stuff you, and your other lover polish moron troll, use to > > > > write nonsense in here, have their basis in physics developed by trained > > > > physicists and mathematicians and engineers, throughout the 20th century. > > > > So > > > > is the computer, its display, mouse, the wireless network that connects > > > > |the > > > > PC to the Internet and the whole Internet. > > > > > > > > As one of these engineers, I assure you, that no black holes, wormholes, > > > > white holes or parallel universes were involved. > > > > > > |Nor fried eggs, starbuck coffee or a baseball team were involved. As always > > > you do not have a clue about how science and scientists work. > > > > > > Unfortunately, science is an informational construct, not a physical > > > object, and dealing with information and knowing, how it works, is > > > my job. > > > > Nonsense. What you describe is cheating. > > So, science is not an informational construct? > Is it a physical object? > > > >, not some "information and knowing how it works". If this was > > that simple, nobody would bother going to universities, > > To know theology you study theology, to know your insane > shit you study your insane shit, and to know how science > works, you study about information generally and its > interactions with human brain specifically. Because that's > exactly, what science is - information interacting with > human brains. Nonsense. If you want to write critiques of physics, you must learn it. There are no shortcuts or substitutes. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-28 01:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a9051c9d-9446-4604-b614-442d0e89649e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365512 |
On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 10:31:39 AM UTC+2, JanPB wrote: > > To know theology you study theology, to know your insane > > shit you study your insane shit, and to know how science > > works, you study about information generally and its > > interactions with human brain specifically. Because that's > > exactly, what science is - information interacting with > > human brains. > > Nonsense. Of course, if I ask, which exactly of the statements above you mean, there will be no answer. As usually. > If you want to write critiques of physics, you must learn it. There > are no shortcuts or substitutes. Nonsense, and, exactly as I said, you know nothing about the subject. You're just a yellling, brainwashed fanatic nothing. Of course, still, I've learnt quite a lot of your idiocies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-28 03:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f5c81779-b9bb-4da6-9d32-42fa04bde7f0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365512 |
On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 10:31:39 AM UTC+2, JanPB wrote: > Nonsense. If you want to write critiques of physics, you must learn it. There > are no shortcuts or substitutes. Of course, I understand your devotion to your position of self-appointed holy cow. Of course, I understand, that to keep this position you like so much, you have to yell "I'm a holy cow, worms!!!!" as often, as you can. Your bunch of morons is not the first to use this technique.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-27 16:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <83b22a5d-dc83-4862-b82b-888eed70fd5c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365424 |
El domingo, 27 de septiembre de 2015, 7:26:16 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak escribió: > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:4a3a771b-32f7-4331-b037-f92479e40816@googlegroups.com... > > > > |Most of the stuff you, and your other lover polish moron troll, use to > > write nonsense in here, have their basis in physics developed by trained > > physicists and mathematicians and engineers, throughout the 20th century. > > So > > is the computer, its display, mouse, the wireless network that connects > > |the > > PC to the Internet and the whole Internet. > > > > As one of these engineers, I assure you, that no black holes, wormholes, > > white holes or parallel universes were involved. > > |Nor fried eggs, starbuck coffee or a baseball team were involved. As always > you do not have a clue about how science and scientists work. > > Unfortunately, science is an informational construct, not a physical > object, and dealing with information and knowing, how it works, is > my job. > Not yours, poor idiot. > So, it's actually you who does not have a clue about how science > and scientists work. I do research and teach information theory, specifically on error coding theory and, for sure, error coding has nothing to do with black hole formation and evolution, while it has some relevance in the black hole information paradox. All my scientific papers have nothing to do with black hole formation and evolution, but they have everything to do with my line of research and knowledge. I do have some colleagues doing research in the standard model, specifically in the FCAL, which is a worldwide detector Research & Development collaboration. About 70 physicists join their effort to develop the technologies of special calorimeters in the very forward region of future detectors at an e+e- collider. These calorimeters must be compact, precisely positioned and read out very fast. Since the radiation load in the very forward region is large sensors of unprecedented radiation hardness are needed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-27 23:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7211f529-2287-41c1-b0f5-4b550db88c5f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365472 |
On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 1:55:07 AM UTC+2, paparios wrote: > El domingo, 27 de septiembre de 2015, 7:26:16 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak escribió: > > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:4a3a771b-32f7-4331-b037-f92479e40816@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > |Most of the stuff you, and your other lover polish moron troll, use to > > > write nonsense in here, have their basis in physics developed by trained > > > physicists and mathematicians and engineers, throughout the 20th century. > > > So > > > is the computer, its display, mouse, the wireless network that connects > > > |the > > > PC to the Internet and the whole Internet. > > > > > > As one of these engineers, I assure you, that no black holes, wormholes, > > > white holes or parallel universes were involved. > > > > |Nor fried eggs, starbuck coffee or a baseball team were involved. As always > > you do not have a clue about how science and scientists work. > > > > Unfortunately, science is an informational construct, not a physical > > object, and dealing with information and knowing, how it works, is > > my job. > > Not yours, poor idiot. > > So, it's actually you who does not have a clue about how science > > and scientists work. > > I do research and teach information theory, specifically on error coding theory and, Of course, you can do some little things on edges of my field, but it is still my field, not yours. You don't have a clue about how science and scientist work. Thus, you're unable to discuss about the subject, though, of course, you can do a loud yelling. As expected from a relativistic moron. for sure, error coding has nothing to do with black hole formation and evolution, while it has some relevance in the black hole information paradox. > > All my scientific papers have nothing to do with black hole formation and evolution, but they have everything to do with my line of research and knowledge. > > I do have some colleagues doing research in the standard model, specifically in the FCAL, which is a worldwide detector Research & Development collaboration. About 70 physicists join their effort to develop the technologies of special calorimeters in the very forward region of future detectors at an e+e- collider. These calorimeters must be compact, precisely positioned and read out very fast. Since the radiation load in the very forward region is large sensors of unprecedented radiation hardness are needed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-26 08:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn0d8b8.qjq.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #365285 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: ----snip---- > > In real English (and in this sort of context), it means "monomaniac". > > I am afraid you are severely undereducated in several fields, including > physics (both the history and subjects of it) and the English language. > For example, it is a mistake to assume that only British English were > real English. I didn't assume it, Pointy Head. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-26 16:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5606A713.9000901@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #365329 |
Ned Latham wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >> > In real English (and in this sort of context), it means "monomaniac". >> >> […] it is a mistake to assume that only British English were real >> English. > > I didn't assume it, You claimed there were something like “real English”, though. But all references show that there is no “real English”, only the English language, with a lot of variants and dialects, like almost any other natural language. And in those variants of English where “crank” has approximately the meaning you think it has, it also has the meaning in which I/we use the term here, with the mentioned synonyms. <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/crank> > Pointy Head. You should have that treated. PointedEars -- Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop. The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?" Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am." (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-26 12:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn0dmir.d0.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #365333 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > In real English (and in this sort of context), it means "monomaniac". > > > > > > [?] it is a mistake to assume that only British English were real > > > English. > > > > I didn't assume it, > > You claimed there were something like "real English", though. Yep. Your so-called definition of "crank" applies to every innovator who ever lived. That's not English. ----weaselling snipped----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-23 12:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6683f222-1912-4cea-94d5-2b160aec6479@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365045 |
On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 5:56:53 AM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > JanPB wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > JanPB wrote: > > > > > > What I said was your > > > > > > chances of discovering theory Y without understanding theory > > > > > > X first were zero. > > > > > > > > > > Liar. You said nothing about "discovering" a theory: you alleged > > > > > that it's impossible to "improve upon" a theory without first > > > > > understanding it. > > > > > > > > Splitting hairs. > > > > > > You're trying to weasel out of your idiocy. Forget it. Your attempts > > > to shift the meaning of what you *did* say are convincing only of your > > > mendacity. > > > > What I said was simply that in order to contribute to a physics field, > > one must understand that field first. > > False. What you said was that in order to "improve upon" something, one > must understand it. > > > The rest of your post is splitting hairs. > > Bullshit. It's contesting your evasions. Yes, you still keep splitting hairs. The point I'm making is a very simple one, you keep diverting from it and there is no need to focus so strongly on the OED(*) here: if you want to introduce a new theory, you must understand the domain you are working with. As I said earlier, it works the same for physics, literature, music, etc. (*) I am a subscriber through the San Francisco Public Library :-) > > Why do you find such an obvious concept so exotic? > > Not exotic. Idiotically irrelevant. Knowing the domain you are trying to work with is irrelevant? What? Excuse me, can I become a concert pianist without any piano practice? Do you think John Cage before composing his "4:33" didn't know what "E-flat major" meant? > > Do you think Schoenberg didn't know Bach and Rameau before > > writing "Harmonielehre"? > > Joyce knew nothing about Dickens before "Finnegans Wake"? > > Picasso couldn't paint in the best realistic manner? > > So it's irrelevant if I illustrate a point analogously, but not > if you do it? You haven't answered the question. (Remember the burden is on you.) > Even if the point itself is an evasion and an irrelevancy? It's very relevant, it's the central issue in fact: the necessity to know X before accomplishing something in it (X = physics in this case). I simply provided some obvious analogies from other domains as evidence that this principle is completely general. > > Everywhere you look there are clear signs of the impossibility > > of the task you are facing (unless it's just an entertainment/ego > > trip thing that is). > > The task was completed when my articles appeared in Usenet and > the public archive. Does your theory calculate that electron-muon scattering correctly then? I mean _numbers_ now, will your theory predict the correct track curvatures seen in an accelerator? If you cannot reproduce that sort of stuff, you have nothing to report. > > > > What's so dishonest about insisting on competence? > > > > > > Your question is dishonest, because "insist upon competence" > > > isn't what you've done even in yourself. > > > > Whether I'm "competent" is a different issue. > > You brought it up. Now that it's backfired you want it to go away. It's the question itself that matters, not who asked it. I thought this would be obvious? Must I state every single common sense rule of sane discourse before engaging you in a dialogue? So, again: What's so dishonest about insisting on competence? > > The point is you have > > zero chance of getting anywhere with your physics theory until you > > learn physics. > > Wrong. The problem lies in academic territoriality. Academics display > great hostility to lay "intrusions" into their domains: No. This is the standard line around here but real life happens to intrude upon this idyllic Hollywood script. The truth is simply that no such "territoriality" exists (exceptions at the noise level of course do exist, as in every human activity there are imperfections). In fact the opposite is true: real life physicists would be very HAPPY to see an experiment disproving the Standard Model or relativity or any other firmly entrenched theory. Far from being shunned, the first physicist to produce an experimental denial of relativity (say) would in no time: 1. get a Nobel prize + a veritable shower of other awards and honorary doctorates, 2. get more ultra-comfortable job offers from all over the world that he could sneeze at, with no obligation to produce any more results, ever, 3. would to the end of his life be invited as a consultant by all the usual industrial majors paying the consulting fees to match, etc. etc. etc. All this silly pettiness and "win-loose" approach is strictly the bush league (excuse an American phrase). That's one reason why universities maintain such immensely strong job security policies, researchers and their families simply feel safe on a purely material level regardless of the status of Einstein or Schroedinger. > they show signs > of having the opinion that laymen have no right to an opinion. You can have an opinion, sure. But it looks to me you are claiming much more than that? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-23 21:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mtuvn4$b5q$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #365084 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:6683f222-1912-4cea-94d5-2b160aec6479@googlegroups.com... |Yes, you still keep splitting hairs. The point I'm making is a very simple |one, you keep diverting from it and there is no need to focus so strongly on |the OED(*) here: if you want to introduce a new theory, you must understand |the domain you are working with. As I said earlier, it works the same for |physics, literature, music, etc. Just an imagination of a relativistic moron. > > Why do you find such an obvious concept so exotic? > > Not exotic. Idiotically irrelevant. |Knowing the domain you are trying to work with is irrelevant? What? |Excuse me, can I become a concert pianist without any piano practice? Well, you're claiming yourself a guru of model building with no practice. Aren't you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-23 20:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mtv0ju$eij$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #365084 |
JanPB wrote: > Excuse me, can I become a concert pianist without any piano practice? Sure, but you will perform deplorable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-24 06:50 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <1s360b991b7j1fju8cd3002ormg2q7k6fm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #365084 |
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:25:56 -0700 (PDT), JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Wrong. The problem lies in academic territoriality. Academics display
>> great hostility to lay "intrusions" into their domains:
>
>No. This is the standard line around here but real life happens to
>intrude upon this idyllic Hollywood script. The truth is simply that
>no such "territoriality" exists (exceptions at the noise level of course do
>exist, as in every human activity there are imperfections). In fact the
>opposite is true: real life physicists would be very HAPPY to see an
>experiment disproving the Standard Model or relativity or any other firmly
>entrenched theory. Far from being shunned, the first physicist to produce an
>experimental denial of relativity (say) would in no time:
>
>1. get a Nobel prize + a veritable shower of other awards and honorary
>doctorates,
Wrong logic!
Einstein's silly theory is wrong by default and will remain so until just one
piece of experimental evidence is produced to support it.
The Dingleberry Motto:
"The best way to cure stupidity is to keep on preaching it"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-23 14:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <05e2261c-5f80-4355-a7c0-52b3bfe4eff0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365100 |
On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 1:51:35 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:25:56 -0700 (PDT), JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> Wrong. The problem lies in academic territoriality. Academics display > >> great hostility to lay "intrusions" into their domains: > > > >No. This is the standard line around here but real life happens to > >intrude upon this idyllic Hollywood script. The truth is simply that > >no such "territoriality" exists (exceptions at the noise level of course do > >exist, as in every human activity there are imperfections). In fact the > >opposite is true: real life physicists would be very HAPPY to see an > >experiment disproving the Standard Model or relativity or any other firmly > >entrenched theory. Far from being shunned, the first physicist to produce an > >experimental denial of relativity (say) would in no time: > > > >1. get a Nobel prize + a veritable shower of other awards and honorary > >doctorates, > > Wrong logic! > > Einstein's silly theory is wrong by default and will remain so until just one > piece of experimental evidence is produced to support it. > > The Dingleberry Motto: > "The best way to cure stupidity is to keep on preaching it" Not even wrong, sorry. Try alt.tv.soaps. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-24 05:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn07kl8.96v.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #365084 |
JanPB wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > JanPB wrote: ----evasions snipped---- > > > The point is you have zero chance of getting anywhere with > > > your physics theory until you learn physics. > > > > Wrong. The problem lies in academic territoriality. Academics > > display great hostility to lay "intrusions" into their domains: > > No. This is the standard line around here but real life happens to > intrude upon this idyllic Hollywood script. You're in denial. Try reading a little of the history of the Sciences. And the "Sciences". And the Arts. ---idiot falsehoods snipped---- > real life physicists would be very HAPPY to see an > experiment disproving the Standard Model or relativity or any other > firmly entrenched theory. Of course. But only if it came from a physicist. > Far from being shunned, the first physicist to produce an > experimental denial of relativity (say) Yair. The first *physicist*. ----expansion snopped---- > > they show signs > > of having the opinion that laymen have no right to an opinion. > > You can have an opinion, sure. Your arrogance is offensive. > But it looks to me you are claiming > much more than that? That's a straw man.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-24 10:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4053ec37-c814-4745-8c50-664c5172f9df@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365133 |
On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 3:38:34 AM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > JanPB wrote: > > ----evasions snipped---- > > > > > The point is you have zero chance of getting anywhere with > > > > your physics theory until you learn physics. > > > > > > Wrong. The problem lies in academic territoriality. Academics > > > display great hostility to lay "intrusions" into their domains: > > > > No. This is the standard line around here but real life happens to > > intrude upon this idyllic Hollywood script. > > You're in denial. I'm not. Remember I worked in the academia myself and I know the milieu like the back of my hand. The stories of researchers being hostile to "intrusions" are just that - stories. (Obviously microscopic islands of exceptions exist, they do not affect the field.) -- Jan -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web