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 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-09 17:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <msprna$7b8$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #363578 |
W dniu Wed, 09 Sep 2015 17:52:03 +0000 użytkownik Edgardo Alcantara napisał: > W dniu Wed, 09 Sep 2015 12:40:14 -0500 użytkownik Tom Roberts napisał: > >> On 9/4/15 9/4/15 - 1:07 AM, Ned Latham wrote: >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> It is a fallacy to assume that a wave requires a medium to be >>>> propagated. >>> >>> Wrong. >> >> No, he is correct. In particular, PROBABILITY WAVES, such as in Quantum >> Electrodynamics, clearly need no medium. > > Then you both are so flagrantly wrong, by willingly forgetting the > TARGET of that probability behavioural. That TARGET must be MATERIAL, to be read "probabilistic behavioural". > according to all Physics and Modern Science. > > You just can't allow yourself to spread with Probability Waves around > you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-10 13:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmv3k65.imu.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #363575 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > > > > It is a fallacy to assume that a wave requires a medium to be > > > propagated. > > > > Wrong. > > No, he is correct. In particular, PROBABILITY WAVES, such as in Quantum > Electrodynamics, clearly need no medium. No. He is wrong. The fallacy is his, and your, use of a postulate as fact. > The challenge for any particle theory of light is to accommodate the > myriad observations of wavelike behavior. They are not myriad: they are a minority of behaviours, and occur in a restricted set of circumstances. It's quite clear that you haven't yet read the article "A Particle Model of Light". When you do, you will see the definition of two properties of particles that are also properties of waves. > QED does that extremely well, > but of course it is NOT a particle theory of light, it is a QUANTUM > theory of light. It is, in fact, not a physical theory at all, because it doesn't have anything to say about what its "quantum object" is. One could, of course, read "quantum object" as an obscure way of saying "particle", and "quantum objects display wave/particle duality" as an obscure and laboured way of saying "particles can spin". > (I have not yet had time to read your threads, but hope to do so soon.) My theory might be a crock, but it's simpler than current theory, and leaves fewer questions unanswered. It also disposes of the false position of current theory that there can be no conclusive test of the two models (particle and wave): it nominates three observations already made that are such tests, and describes three experimen6ts of my own devising that also are such tests. Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-11 06:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d5f58uF70psU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #363692 |
Am 10.09.2015 20:49, schrieb Ned Latham:
>> No, he is correct. In particular, PROBABILITY WAVES, such as in Quantum
>> Electrodynamics, clearly need no medium.
>
> No. He is wrong. The fallacy is his, and your, use of a postulate as
> fact.
>
>> The challenge for any particle theory of light is to accommodate the
>> myriad observations of wavelike behavior.
>
> They are not myriad: they are a minority of behaviours, and occur in
> a restricted set of circumstances.
>
> It's quite clear that you haven't yet read the article
> "A Particle Model of Light". When you do, you will see
> the definition of two properties of particles that are
> also properties of waves.
>
>> QED does that extremely well,
>> but of course it is NOT a particle theory of light, it is a QUANTUM
>> theory of light.
>
> It is, in fact, not a physical theory at all, because it doesn't
> have anything to say about what its "quantum object" is.
>
> One could, of course, read "quantum object" as an obscure way of saying
> "particle", and "quantum objects display wave/particle duality" as an
> obscure and laboured way of saying "particles can spin".
>
>> (I have not yet had time to read your threads, but hope to do so soon.)
>
> My theory might be a crock, but it's simpler than current theory,
> and leaves fewer questions unanswered. It also disposes of the
> false position of current theory that there can be no conclusive
> test of the two models (particle and wave): it nominates three
> observations already made that are such tests, and describes
> three experimen6ts of my own devising that also are such tests.
>
Physicist use an unevaluated assumption. This is the idea, that
mathematics is the foundation of the universe.
This may be true, but most likely it's not. In either case the
mathematical terms are used to utilise the understanding of the
universe, but is not a substitute for understanding.
You may figure out what ever you like. But whether the result is of any
use is a question of the interpretation of these results. The latter
requires some sort of understanding about what your doing.
In case of physics we have a little too little understanding. And
physicists seem to be proud about, since they can figure things out,
without understanding what they are doing.
So the question remains about the nature of light. If particle and wave
are wrong, then certainly something else is not.
Since 'Quantum object' seem to behave more like light, the question
would be, how to interpret this term 'quantum object'.
The term has no positive content unless its meaning is somehow
explained. You could give any other name ('mumble' for example) without
loosing much information.
So the question is of some importance what those 'quantum objects'
actually are. If that is not possible to say, it would better to call
them 'mumble' instead.
TH
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-11 13:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <au6dncdR2vsZv27InZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #363740 |
On 9/10/15 9/10/15 - 11:56 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Physicist use an unevaluated assumption. Wherever did you get that notion? It is blatantly wrong. We physicists evaluate all of our theories via experiments. Except some new ones that cannot (yet) be tested, such as string theory. There is an active debate about whether string theory is really science, or just a set of unsupported conjectures. > This is the idea, that mathematics is > the foundation of the universe. NOT AT ALL! The basic idea is that mathematical theories can MODEL the universe. We recognize that we don't know what the "foundation of the universe" is, and that we can never determine it. Due to the structure of human brains and minds, all we can do is MODEL the behavior of various aspects of the universe, and test those models via experiment. To date, our models have become quite sophisticated, and have been tested rather thoroughly in many different ways, but still we recognize that we have a LONG way to go before we have a complete model.... Like so many others around here, you REALLY need to learn what science ACTUALLY is. Your GUESSES are wrong. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-11 22:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d5grqmFkhhmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #363798 |
Am 11.09.2015 20:50, schrieb Tom Roberts: > On 9/10/15 9/10/15 - 11:56 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Physicist use an unevaluated assumption. > > Wherever did you get that notion? It is blatantly wrong. We physicists > evaluate all of our theories via experiments. This is not my experience. I had a lot of discussions for several years that all failed to some extent. I am a proponent of the so called 'Growing earth' theory. I spent years with this subject and found a lot of evidence, that would suggest, this assumption is in fact true. But I have gained nothing but hostile reactiosns. And I know about other proponents of that same hypothesis with similar experiences. Now there are observations and there are possible ways to interpret them. But 'growing earth' is (apparently) 'bad science' and nobody wants to discuss that. Now the question: if 'Growing Earth' is in fact true, (despite the rejection of this theory), how much of the science that rejects this idea will remain? > Except some new ones that cannot (yet) be tested, such > as string theory. There is an active debate about whether > string theory is really science, or just a set of > unsupported conjectures. > > >> This is the idea, that mathematics is >> the foundation of the universe. > > NOT AT ALL! > > The basic idea is that mathematical theories can MODEL the universe. No, since 'the universe' is equivalent to 'everything'. And you can't model everything! You could be luckky to model some parts of the world, but it's simply impossible to find a model of the universe. > We recognize that we don't know what the "foundation of the universe" > is, and that we can never determine it. No, since nature does not require to be understood. We, as human beings, are (in principle) smart enough to understand fundamental principles. This does not say, that our recent understanding is correct. But we could imagine some future scientists, that know in fact, how the universe functions. > of the universe, and test those models via experiment. To date, our > models have become quite sophisticated, and have been tested rather > thoroughly in many different ways, but still we recognize that we have a > LONG way to go before we have a complete model.... > > Like so many others around here, you REALLY need to > learn what science ACTUALLY is. Your GUESSES are wrong. > Well, I agree upon that. But currently I'm reading the book of Karl Popper, where discusses the logic of scientific discovery. So - hopefully - I will know a little more about it in the future. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-25 07:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d6k4mjFe0o4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #363798 |
Am 11.09.2015 20:50, schrieb Tom Roberts: >> Physicist use an unevaluated assumption. > > Wherever did you get that notion? It is blatantly wrong. We physicists > evaluate all of our theories via experiments. There are several people, who claim, that 'mathematics is the language of physics' or 'shut up and calculate..'. In my eyes this is 'Platonism' of some kind. > Except some new ones that cannot (yet) be tested, such > as string theory. There is an active debate about whether > string theory is really science, or just a set of > unsupported conjectures. In my eyes 'string theory' is intentional blunder, to keep physics student in a mild state of trance (and entertain the general public a little bit with voodoo magic). >> This is the idea, that mathematics is >> the foundation of the universe. > > NOT AT ALL! > > The basic idea is that mathematical theories can MODEL the universe. You usually use computers to run simulations. Mathematics is used, to create the models, which are used in such simulations. And physics is used to justify these models. But you cannot justify the models by mathematical logic, but by consistency of model with observations. These observations are, what you usually call 'experiment' and what is in effect research into the foundations of the explored subject. Such experiment are very similar to how children play, since that's what games are for: what does happen if I do this??? TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-25 10:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <75CdnTazauNX85jLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #365210 |
On 9/25/15 9/25/15 - 12:34 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 11.09.2015 20:50, schrieb Tom Roberts: >>> Physicist use an unevaluated assumption. >> Wherever did you get that notion? It is blatantly wrong. We physicists >> evaluate all of our theories via experiments. > > There are several people, who claim, that 'mathematics is the language of > physics' or 'shut up and calculate..'. But WHAT do they calculate? -- they use theories which have been tested against experiments and been found accurate. So that's no "unevaluated assumption". CLEARLY you don't understand the provenance of 'shut up and calculate', or what it actually means. It is intended to mean "don't worry about theoretical uncertainties in the abstract foundations of the theory, because the theory has been solidly tested; go ahead and use it because we have already verified that it gives accurate results". > Except some new ones that cannot (yet) be tested, such >> as string theory. There is an active debate about whether >> string theory is really science, or just a set of >> unsupported conjectures. > > In my eyes 'string theory' is intentional blunder, to keep physics student in a > mild state of trance (and entertain the general public a little bit with voodoo > magic). You CLEARLY don't have a clue. Your FANTASY here is just plain wrong. String theory is a legitimate and serious effort to examine and consider what might underlie GR and the standard model. It's just that to date it has not produced any testable predictions (a lack that string theorists are working to correct). >>> This is the idea, that mathematics is >>> the foundation of the universe. >> NOT AT ALL! >> The basic idea is that mathematical theories can MODEL the universe. > > You usually use computers to run simulations. > Mathematics is used, to create the models, which are used in such simulations. > And physics is used to justify these models. Yes. > But you cannot justify the models by mathematical logic, but by consistency of > model with observations. RIGHT! Consistency between models and experiments is paramount. I wrote a 70-page document describing the comparison of my simulation program to experimental results. It references a much larger body of work done by others. > These observations are, what you usually call 'experiment' and what is in effect > research into the foundations of the explored subject. Yes. > Such experiment are very similar to how children play, since that's what games > are for: what does happen if I do this??? The "similarity" between the LHC and a child's game of hopscotch escapes me. The key difference is that scientific research is DIRECTED -- the basic point is to test theories, not just "play around" (though there is some of that). Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-12 20:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <WJydnfhU8NKmT2nInZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #363692 |
On 9/10/15 9/10/15 1:49 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> It is a fallacy to assume that a wave requires a medium to be >>>> propagated. >>> Wrong. >> No, he is correct. In particular, PROBABILITY WAVES, such as in Quantum >> Electrodynamics, clearly need no medium. > > No. He is wrong. The fallacy is his, and your, use of a postulate as > fact. You are confused, and clearly don't know the meaning of "postulate" and "fact". >> The challenge for any particle theory of light is to accommodate the >> myriad observations of wavelike behavior. > > They are not myriad: they are a minority of behaviours, and occur in > a restricted set of circumstances. You also don't know the meaning of "myriad". There are MANY, MANY, MANY observations of wavelike behavior of light. Indeed in our everyday lives essentially ALL observations of light are of its wavelike behavior. > It's quite clear that you haven't yet read the article > "A Particle Model of Light". When you do, you will see > the definition of two properties of particles that are > also properties of waves. I have since read it and found it wanting. GROSSLY SO. >> QED does that extremely well, >> but of course it is NOT a particle theory of light, it is a QUANTUM >> theory of light. > > It is, in fact, not a physical theory at all, because it doesn't > have anything to say about what its "quantum object" is. You OBVIOUSLY don't know what a physical theory is, either. > One could, of course, read "quantum object" as an obscure way of saying > "particle", And one would be WRONG. > My theory might be a crock, but it's simpler than current theory, It is a crock, and being "simpler" is not an advantage if your "model" does not accurately model light; it doesn't. > and leaves fewer questions unanswered. You CLEARLY don't know what questions need to be asked. Your naivete' is quite apparent.... Had you studied and understood QED, you would know what a real model of light looks like, and the "questions" you have in mind would all be "answered". Of course there would surely be many new questions.... Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 09:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmvb2bl.1pl.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #363947 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Tom Roberts wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It is a fallacy to assume that a wave requires a medium to be > > > > > propagated. > > > > > > > > Wrong. > > > > > > No, he is correct. In particular, PROBABILITY WAVES, such as in > > > Quantum Electrodynamics, clearly need no medium. > > > > No. He is wrong. The fallacy is his, and your, use of a postulate as > > fact. > > You are confused, and clearly don't know the meaning of "postulate" > and "fact". You are an abusive, pretentious fraud. > > > The challenge for any particle theory of light is to accommodate the > > > myriad observations of wavelike behavior. > > > > They are not myriad: they are a minority of behaviours, and occur in > > a restricted set of circumstances. > > You also don't know the meaning of "myriad". 10,000. Look it up, you ignorant clown. > There are MANY, MANY, MANY observations of wavelike behavior of > light. Indeed in our everyday lives essentially ALL observations > of light are of its wavelike behavior. That's true if you count colour as a wave-like behaviour. *That*, however, is not what was under discussion. ----further abusive claptrap snipped----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 14:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9c739e30-59f6-4e3e-a210-610f96de0c69@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #363983 |
On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 7:34:32 AM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a fallacy to assume that a wave requires a medium to be > > > > > > propagated. > > > > > > > > > > Wrong. > > > > > > > > No, he is correct. In particular, PROBABILITY WAVES, such as in > > > > Quantum Electrodynamics, clearly need no medium. > > > > > > No. He is wrong. The fallacy is his, and your, use of a postulate as > > > fact. > > > > You are confused, and clearly don't know the meaning of "postulate" > > and "fact". > > You are an abusive, pretentious fraud. Well, it's really very simple. Do you know QED (say)? If not, then what are you talking about? It's simply impossible to improve upon QED without understanding QED in the first place. A quick question: can you tell us how you would evaluate the amplitude of a simple Feynman diagram, say electron-muon scattering of order two? If you don't know this, then you simply cannot say "fraud" to anyone. Look at the mirror first. Really, whatever happened to simple intellectual honesty? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 19:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmvc3o0.lqd.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #364015 |
JanPB wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Tom Roberts wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a fallacy to assume that a wave requires a medium to be > > > > > > > propagated. > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong. > > > > > > > > > > No, he is correct. In particular, PROBABILITY WAVES, such as in > > > > > Quantum Electrodynamics, clearly need no medium. > > > > > > > > No. He is wrong. The fallacy is his, and your, use of a postulate as > > > > fact. > > > > > > You are confused, and clearly don't know the meaning of "postulate" > > > and "fact". > > > > You are an abusive, pretentious fraud. > > Well, it's really very simple. No. Physics now consists of a large number of postulates piled on top of each other (like a multitude of Pelions on a whole *range* of Ossa) and procedures of cherry-picking among the edifice thus obtained for mathematical approximations to the results obtained from experiment and observation. That's not simple at all. It's not science, either. > Do you know QED (say)? Somewhat. Do you know logic and reason? > If not, then what are you talking about? It's simply impossible to > improve upon QED without understanding QED in the first place. Oops. Clearly, you *don't* know logic and reason. See if you can understand this. Jimmy Masskill wanted to improve on the war bow as a combat weapon, so he invented the gun. And that despite the fact that he knew absolutely fuck all about bows or the forces acting in the string and the arms of a bow. But then Jimmy wasn't hampered by the idiotic notion that it's impossible to improve upon the war bow without inderstanding the war bow in the first place. ----further fuckwittery snipped----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-13 23:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <361247a0-3c77-4e2a-aa07-3d6f520cfa65@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364028 |
On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 5:04:19 PM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a fallacy to assume that a wave requires a medium to be > > > > > > > > propagated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > No, he is correct. In particular, PROBABILITY WAVES, such as in > > > > > > Quantum Electrodynamics, clearly need no medium. > > > > > > > > > > No. He is wrong. The fallacy is his, and your, use of a postulate as > > > > > fact. > > > > > > > > You are confused, and clearly don't know the meaning of "postulate" > > > > and "fact". > > > > > > You are an abusive, pretentious fraud. > > > > Well, it's really very simple. > > No. Physics now consists of a large number of postulates piled on top > of each other (like a multitude of Pelions on a whole *range* of Ossa) > and procedures of cherry-picking among the edifice thus obtained for > mathematical approximations to the results obtained from experiment > and observation. That's not simple at all. > > It's not science, either. > > > Do you know QED (say)? > > Somewhat. Do you know logic and reason? > > > If not, then what are you talking about? It's simply impossible to > > improve upon QED without understanding QED in the first place. > > Oops. Clearly, you *don't* know logic and reason. > > See if you can understand this. > > Jimmy Masskill wanted to improve on the war bow as a combat > weapon, so he invented the gun. > > And that despite the fact that he knew absolutely fuck all about > bows or the forces acting in the string and the arms of a bow. > > But then Jimmy wasn't hampered by the idiotic notion that it's > impossible to improve upon the war bow without inderstanding > the war bow in the first place. > > ----further fuckwittery snipped---- The above was the _standard_ crank response. Whenever their back is pushed against the wall they _always_ switch to an irrelevant subject. I lost count how many people here did that whenever I asked them a real (but simple) physics question. So, stop talking nonsense and answer the following: how can anyone even THINK of improving on QED without knowing QED? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 19:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmvep8m.shg.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #364050 |
JanPB wrote in <361247a0-3c77-4e2a-aa07-3d6f520cfa65@googlegroups.com>: > On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 5:04:19 PM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote: > > JanPB wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Tom Roberts wrote: ----sbip---- > > > > > You are confused, and clearly don't know the meaning of > > > > > "postulate" and "fact". > > > > > > > > You are an abusive, pretentious fraud. > > > > > > Well, it's really very simple. > > > > No. Physics now consists of a large number of postulates piled on top > > of each other (like a multitude of Pelions on a whole *range* of Ossa) > > and procedures of cherry-picking among the edifice thus obtained for > > mathematical approximations to the results obtained from experiment > > and observation. That's not simple at all. > > > > It's not science, either. No comment on that description of some of the flaws in your "science"? > > > Do you know QED (say)? > > > > Somewhat. Do you know logic and reason? > > > > > If not, then what are you talking about? It's simply impossible to > > > improve upon QED without understanding QED in the first place. > > > > Oops. Clearly, you *don't* know logic and reason. > > > > See if you can understand this. > > > > Jimmy Masskill wanted to improve on the war bow as a combat > > weapon, so he invented the gun. > > > > And that despite the fact that he knew absolutely fuck all about > > bows or the forces acting in the string and the arms of a bow. > > > > But then Jimmy wasn't hampered by the idiotic notion that it's > > impossible to improve upon the war bow without inderstanding > > the war bow in the first place. > > > > ----further fuckwittery snipped---- > > The above was the _standard_ crank response. Wrong. It's a simple, straightforward hypothetical that proves your assertion false. If you honestly didn't understand it, you're retarded. ----self-aggrandising idiocy snipped---- > So, stop talking nonsense and answer the following: how can anyone > even THINK of improving on QED without knowing QED? The same way Jimmy Masskill could think of improving on *his* target "without knowing" it. It's a simple matter of "that's defective: let's try something else".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-14 18:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <adc86aca-774c-4a21-9192-7bffbe509f2e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364136 |
On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 5:23:53 PM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote: > JanPB wrote in <361247a0-3c77-4e2a-aa07-3d6f520cfa65@googlegroups.com>: > > On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 5:04:19 PM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote: > > > JanPB wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > Tom Roberts wrote: > > ----sbip---- > > > > > > > You are confused, and clearly don't know the meaning of > > > > > > "postulate" and "fact". > > > > > > > > > > You are an abusive, pretentious fraud. > > > > > > > > Well, it's really very simple. > > > > > > No. Physics now consists of a large number of postulates piled on top > > > of each other (like a multitude of Pelions on a whole *range* of Ossa) > > > and procedures of cherry-picking among the edifice thus obtained for > > > mathematical approximations to the results obtained from experiment > > > and observation. That's not simple at all. > > > > > > It's not science, either. > > No comment on that description of some of the flaws in your "science"? > > > > > Do you know QED (say)? > > > > > > Somewhat. Do you know logic and reason? > > > > > > > If not, then what are you talking about? It's simply impossible to > > > > improve upon QED without understanding QED in the first place. > > > > > > Oops. Clearly, you *don't* know logic and reason. > > > > > > See if you can understand this. > > > > > > Jimmy Masskill wanted to improve on the war bow as a combat > > > weapon, so he invented the gun. > > > > > > And that despite the fact that he knew absolutely fuck all about > > > bows or the forces acting in the string and the arms of a bow. > > > > > > But then Jimmy wasn't hampered by the idiotic notion that it's > > > impossible to improve upon the war bow without inderstanding > > > the war bow in the first place. > > > > > > ----further fuckwittery snipped---- > > > > The above was the _standard_ crank response. > > Wrong. It's a simple, straightforward hypothetical that proves > your assertion false. > > If you honestly didn't understand it, you're retarded. You talk complete nonsense. Here is what I wrote: >> can you tell us how you would evaluate the amplitude of a simple >> Feynman diagram, say electron-muon scattering of order two? Your answer was a standard crank non-sequitur, here it is in its entirety, I'll let the others to judge, quote: "Oops. Clearly, you *don't* know logic and reason. See if you can understand this. Jimmy Masskill wanted to improve on the war bow as a combat weapon, so he invented the gun. And that despite the fact that he knew absolutely fuck all about bows or the forces acting in the string and the arms of a bow. But then Jimmy wasn't hampered by the idiotic notion that it's impossible to improve upon the war bow without inderstanding the war bow in the first place. ----further fuckwittery snipped----", unquote. If you cannot do QED, you cannot improve on it, it's that simple. Deal with it like an adult. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 17:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mt9dep$60k$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #364143 |
JanPB schreef op 15-sep-2015 om 03:43: > On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 5:23:53 PM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote: >> JanPB wrote in <361247a0-3c77-4e2a-aa07-3d6f520cfa65@googlegroups.com>: [snip] > Your answer was a standard crank non-sequitur, here it is in its entirety, > I'll let the others to judge, quote: > > "Oops. Clearly, you *don't* know logic and reason. > > See if you can understand this. > > Jimmy Masskill wanted to improve on the war bow as a combat > weapon, so he invented the gun. > > And that despite the fact that he knew absolutely fuck all about > bows or the forces acting in the string and the arms of a bow. > > But then Jimmy wasn't hampered by the idiotic notion that it's > impossible to improve upon the war bow without inderstanding > the war bow in the first place. > > ----further fuckwittery snipped----", > > unquote. > > If you cannot do QED, you cannot improve on it, it's that simple. Deal with it like > an adult. Perhaps "Ned Latham" should be dealt with like an annoying kid is most effectively dealt with, i.e. by actively ignoring it :-) Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 15:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmvguvi.vgr.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #364184 |
Dirk Van de moortel wrote: ----snip---- > Perhaps "Ned Latham" should be dealt with like an annoying kid > is most effectively dealt with, ie by actively ignoring it :-) Given a choice between being trolled by retards and being ignored by retards, I'd take the latter. Do please feel free to ignore me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 14:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <38c25a06-3520-4e2e-90e0-366ffcc322a2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364214 |
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 1:13:40 PM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote: > Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > > ----snip---- > > > Perhaps "Ned Latham" should be dealt with like an annoying kid > > is most effectively dealt with, ie by actively ignoring it :-) > > Given a choice between being trolled by retards and being ignored > by retards, I'd take the latter. > > Do please feel free to ignore me. That's a nice piece of rhetoric but you still haven't told us how does one improve upon theory X without understanding X first? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-15 19:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmvhcqq.63v.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #364230 |
JanPB wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > Perhaps "Ned Latham" should be dealt with like an annoying kid > > > is most effectively dealt with, ie by actively ignoring it :-) > > > > Given a choice between being trolled by retards and being ignored > > by retards, I'd take the latter. > > > > Do please feel free to ignore me. > > That's a nice piece of rhetoric but you still haven't told us how > does one improve upon theory X without understanding X first? Oh, but I have: that hypothetcal I gave you explains it quite well. But since you're too thivk to understand analogy, perhaps you can get to grips with one of the most frequently applied methods. You improve on theory X by replacing it with theory Y. Sorry about the multi-syllable words.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-16 21:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5db96645-a784-4945-b9c0-873d9d06ca17@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364245 |
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 5:10:04 PM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > > > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > Perhaps "Ned Latham" should be dealt with like an annoying kid > > > > is most effectively dealt with, ie by actively ignoring it :-) > > > > > > Given a choice between being trolled by retards and being ignored > > > by retards, I'd take the latter. > > > > > > Do please feel free to ignore me. > > > > That's a nice piece of rhetoric but you still haven't told us how > > does one improve upon theory X without understanding X first? > > Oh, but I have: that hypothetcal I gave you explains it quite well. You haven't answered my question. > But since you're too thivk to understand analogy, perhaps you can > get to grips with one of the most frequently applied methods. I didn't ask about analogy, I asked a specific question to make you understand something. > You improve on theory X by replacing it with theory Y. Sure, that was never under discussion. What I said was your chances of discovering theory Y without understanding theory X first were zero. Simply a friendly advice: don't waste your life away like that. Learn the real thing first. > Sorry about the multi-syllable words. No problem. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-18 03:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmvnh4d.tnv.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #364342 |
JanPB wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > JanPB wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > > > > > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > > > Perhaps "Ned Latham" should be dealt with like an annoying kid > > > > > is most effectively dealt with, ie by actively ignoring it :-) > > > > > > > > Given a choice between being trolled by retards and being ignored > > > > by retards, I'd take the latter. > > > > > > > > Do please feel free to ignore me. > > > > > > That's a nice piece of rhetoric but you still haven't told us how > > > does one improve upon theory X without understanding X first? > > > > Oh, but I have: that hypothetcal I gave you explains it quite well. > > You haven't answered my question. Oh, but I have: that hypothetcal I gave you answers it quite well. > > But since you're too thivk to understand analogy, perhaps you can > > get to grips with one of the most frequently applied methods. > > I didn't ask about analogy, I asked a specific question to make > you understand something. Liar. You asked a question you thought might trip me up. > > You improve on theory X by replacing it with theory Y. > > Sure, that was never under discussion. Liar. That is *exactly* what was under discussion. > 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. See your own message <9c739e30-59f6-4e3e-a210-610f96de0c69@googlegroups.com>, you lying maggot. > Simply a friendly advice: Liar. Your intent was, and remains, malicious. ` > don't waste your > life away like that. Learn the real thing first. Learn some English, you cretin. Or some honesty. > > Sorry about the multi-syllable words. > > No problem. You wish.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 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