Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #370593 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-22 06:44 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-11-22 12:42 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 77 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-22 06:44 +0100
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-22 06:15 +0000
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-22 09:24 +0100
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-22 09:36 +0000
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-23 20:33 +0100
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-22 05:06 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-22 05:18 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Walter Ilinois <walin@wej98j5q.org> - 2015-11-22 14:22 +0000
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-22 09:05 -0500
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-22 19:56 +0000
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Walter Ilinois <walin@wej98j5q.org> - 2015-11-22 20:28 +0000
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Walter Ilinois <walin@wej98j5q.org> - 2015-11-22 20:45 +0000
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-22 23:01 -0500
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Walter Ilinois <walin@wej98j5q.org> - 2015-11-23 15:31 +0000
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-22 17:26 -0500
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-23 20:38 +0100
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-23 17:05 -0500
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-24 02:55 +0000
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 19:23 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-24 05:23 +0100
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-24 10:53 +0000
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-24 07:28 -0500
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-24 04:57 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-25 07:54 +0100
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-25 08:29 +0000
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 10:17 -0600
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 08:54 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-25 19:42 +0100
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 13:21 -0600
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-26 05:06 +0100
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-26 04:17 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-26 04:25 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-26 04:48 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-26 05:25 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-26 07:07 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-26 20:56 +0100
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-27 06:34 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-28 08:02 +0100
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-29 22:47 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-30 18:57 +0100
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-27 12:43 -0600
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-28 07:55 +0100
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-07 17:53 +0100
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-29 03:57 +0100
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-28 20:11 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-29 07:45 +0100
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-29 04:31 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-29 21:35 +0100
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-29 13:57 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-30 04:02 +0100
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-29 19:38 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-30 05:24 +0100
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-29 21:09 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-09 07:40 +0100
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-09 04:26 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-24 19:37 +0100
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-24 12:06 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-24 21:03 +0000
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-30 05:14 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 16:53 -0600
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-11-29 12:42 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-29 22:49 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 16:51 -0600
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-02 16:34 +0100
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-02 15:57 +0000
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 14:47 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-12 17:21 +0000
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 10:02 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 10:10 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 22:07 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-24 23:29 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-25 01:39 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-25 02:04 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-25 06:04 -0500
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-27 06:27 -0800
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 11:22 +0100
Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 12:42 -0800
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | shuba <tim@sh.uba> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-24 10:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n31fiq$ok$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #370766 |
Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 24.11.2015 03:55, schrieb shuba:
>> Plus, it's already understood quite well how the interaction of
>> sunlight with the atmosphere produces the blue sky.
>>
>
> Obviously it is not well understood by the participants of this
> discussion.
True enough. But the failure of ignorant buffoons like 'kefischer'
or 'yanarchi' to understand it doesn't negate the fact that it is
not only well understood, but the underlying concepts involved are
backed by extensive observations and precision experiments.
> I asked this question several times, but found none of the common
> explanations very convincing.
Yes, I know you reject all of rational, workable physics. That is
neither here nor there. It's easy to find material to learn the
real stuff, and I'll leave it to interested people to do just that.
---Tim Shuba---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-24 07:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kpl85bpr790r8hbatmg63q02o0232uihel@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #370784 |
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 10:53:14 +0000 (UTC), shuba <tim@sh.uba> wrote:
>Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> Am 24.11.2015 03:55, schrieb shuba:
>
>>> Plus, it's already understood quite well how the interaction of
>>> sunlight with the atmosphere produces the blue sky.
>>>
>>
>> Obviously it is not well understood by the participants of this
>> discussion.
>
>True enough. But the failure of ignorant buffoons like 'kefischer'
>or 'yanarchi' to understand it doesn't negate the fact that it is
>not only well understood, but the underlying concepts involved are
>backed by extensive observations and precision experiments.
Except for the claim that some light arriving
at the eye was reflected by the electrons, as if
only one molecule or atom was in the way,
when in reality, the light is absorbed and
re-emitted many, many times.
>> I asked this question several times, but found none of the common
>> explanations very convincing.
>
>Yes, I know you reject all of rational, workable physics. That is
>neither here nor there. It's easy to find material to learn the
>real stuff, and I'll leave it to interested people to do just that.
>
>
> ---Tim Shuba---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-24 04:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <355b8fbd-c7a0-4740-bafe-81586c57ea3f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370789 |
On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 5:28:59 AM UTC-7, kefischer wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 10:53:14 +0000 (UTC), shuba <tim@sh.uba> wrote: > > > > True enough. But the failure of ignorant buffoons like 'kefischer' > > or 'yanarchi' to understand it doesn't negate the fact that it is > > not only well understood, but the underlying concepts involved are > > backed by extensive observations and precision experiments. > > Except for the claim that some light arriving > at the eye was reflected by the electrons, as if > only one molecule or atom was in the way, > when in reality, the light is absorbed and > re-emitted many, many times. Wow!. Tim was right on target about you :-))
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-25 07:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dbl48iF9gqcU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #370784 |
Am 24.11.2015 11:53, schrieb shuba: >>> Plus, it's already understood quite well how the interaction of >>> sunlight with the atmosphere produces the blue sky. >>> >> >> Obviously it is not well understood by the participants of this >> discussion. > > True enough. But the failure of ignorant buffoons like 'kefischer' > or 'yanarchi' to understand it doesn't negate the fact that it is > not only well understood, but the underlying concepts involved are > backed by extensive observations and precision experiments. > >> I asked this question several times, but found none of the common >> explanations very convincing. > > Yes, I know you reject all of rational, workable physics. That is > neither here nor there. It's easy to find material to learn the > real stuff, and I'll leave it to interested people to do just that. I have presented an alternative explanation, which is actually my own invention. So it is obvious, this is not "....rational, workable physics" (someone could possibly learn from a book), but a proposal, made by me. You reject this idea without even a faint try to disprove it, but by assumed authority, (which you don't posses). This behaviour is actually a disease, (which I call 'Academia'). We find it all over the place and this is what makes me think, physics is a complete waste of time. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shuba <tim@sh.uba> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-25 08:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n33rgp$t30$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #370842 |
Thomas Heger wrote:
> I have presented an alternative explanation, which is actually my
> own invention.
>
> So it is obvious, this is not "....rational, workable physics"
> (someone could possibly learn from a book), but a proposal, made
> by me.
>
> You reject this idea without even a faint try to disprove it, but
> by assumed authority, (which you don't posses).
I don't claim any authority. There is nothing to disprove, and
actually nothing even worth discussing about your "invention".
---Tim Shuba---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-25 10:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n34mu7$7ul$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #370842 |
On 11/25/2015 12:54 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 24.11.2015 11:53, schrieb shuba: > >>>> Plus, it's already understood quite well how the interaction of >>>> sunlight with the atmosphere produces the blue sky. >>>> >>> >>> Obviously it is not well understood by the participants of this >>> discussion. >> >> True enough. But the failure of ignorant buffoons like 'kefischer' >> or 'yanarchi' to understand it doesn't negate the fact that it is >> not only well understood, but the underlying concepts involved are >> backed by extensive observations and precision experiments. >> >>> I asked this question several times, but found none of the common >>> explanations very convincing. >> >> Yes, I know you reject all of rational, workable physics. That is >> neither here nor there. It's easy to find material to learn the >> real stuff, and I'll leave it to interested people to do just that. > > I have presented an alternative explanation, which is actually my own > invention. > > So it is obvious, this is not "....rational, workable physics" (someone > could possibly learn from a book), but a proposal, made by me. > > You reject this idea without even a faint try to disprove it, but by > assumed authority, (which you don't posses). Tom, I think this last statement here is a problem on your part. You can propose whatever you want. The expectation that you have that it will be treated seriously is the unrealistic one. You have this notion, I guess, that when you say something, it should either be welcomed in a supportive way or effort should be made to show you why it's wrong. But life doesn't work that way. If you haven't made the idea compelling to other people (not just to yourself), then you aren't owed any serious attention, and you will get casual dismissals, and the fault will lay with you for falling short of a compelling case. It is not a disease of other people. It's you not doing the right kind of work. > > This behaviour is actually a disease, (which I call 'Academia'). > > We find it all over the place and this is what makes me think, physics > is a complete waste of time. > > > TH -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-25 08:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <72d5e428-011c-445a-acd2-151b1a4bf870@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370871 |
On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 8:17:16 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/25/2015 12:54 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 24.11.2015 11:53, schrieb shuba: > > > >>>> Plus, it's already understood quite well how the interaction of > >>>> sunlight with the atmosphere produces the blue sky. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Obviously it is not well understood by the participants of this > >>> discussion. > >> > >> True enough. But the failure of ignorant buffoons like 'kefischer' > >> or 'yanarchi' to understand it doesn't negate the fact that it is > >> not only well understood, but the underlying concepts involved are > >> backed by extensive observations and precision experiments. > >> > >>> I asked this question several times, but found none of the common > >>> explanations very convincing. > >> > >> Yes, I know you reject all of rational, workable physics. That is > >> neither here nor there. It's easy to find material to learn the > >> real stuff, and I'll leave it to interested people to do just that. > > > > I have presented an alternative explanation, which is actually my own > > invention. > > > > So it is obvious, this is not "....rational, workable physics" (someone > > could possibly learn from a book), but a proposal, made by me. > > > > You reject this idea without even a faint try to disprove it, but by > > assumed authority, (which you don't posses). > > Tom, I think this last statement here is a problem on your part. > You can propose whatever you want. The expectation that you have that it > will be treated seriously is the unrealistic one. You have this notion, > I guess, that when you say something, it should either be welcomed in a > supportive way or effort should be made to show you why it's wrong. But > life doesn't work that way. If you haven't made the idea compelling to > other people (not just to yourself), then you aren't owed any serious > attention, and you will get casual dismissals, and the fault will lay > with you for falling short of a compelling case. > > It is not a disease of other people. It's you not doing the right kind > of work. > > > > > This behaviour is actually a disease, (which I call 'Academia'). > > > > We find it all over the place and this is what makes me think, physics > > is a complete waste of time. > > > > > > TH > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables And for physicists it has to be compelling, (consistent with all that there is) and for mathematicians you have to prove it (consistent with all there ever could be)! Academia's the body, any disease is "bad science". Then, for a "color model" in the gradient that is the force of gravity among massy bodies, that may see a correct meaning much as we have a fluid model for charge current or a charge model for fluid current, for where it _is_ and also for where it _is not_, that the metaphor of the application of another model, to a model, sees that metaphor eventually fails, where the model is never wrong (as a matter of definition and the model's own closure for consistency and completeness as a closed logical system). Here, the very definition of "what is color" in all its variation and diversity, follows from the concise where everything is black and white through grays as monochrome and thus simply in metaphor for where it may apply then where it ends. Color and light is an interesting example as a very rich coordinate model for what we see, then for what we are finding under scientific discovery that is more what it _is_. Then, as we've harnessed other terms to this model for metaphor, each of those must be re-evaluated for whether their reins keep, let, reverse, or break (cart and horse model).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-25 19:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dbmdpkFju0lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #370871 |
Am 25.11.2015 17:17, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >>>>> Plus, it's already understood quite well how the interaction of >>>>> sunlight with the atmosphere produces the blue sky. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Obviously it is not well understood by the participants of this >>>> discussion. >>> >>> True enough. But the failure of ignorant buffoons like 'kefischer' >>> or 'yanarchi' to understand it doesn't negate the fact that it is >>> not only well understood, but the underlying concepts involved are >>> backed by extensive observations and precision experiments. >>> >>>> I asked this question several times, but found none of the common >>>> explanations very convincing. >>> >>> Yes, I know you reject all of rational, workable physics. That is >>> neither here nor there. It's easy to find material to learn the >>> real stuff, and I'll leave it to interested people to do just that. >> >> I have presented an alternative explanation, which is actually my own >> invention. >> >> So it is obvious, this is not "....rational, workable physics" (someone >> could possibly learn from a book), but a proposal, made by me. >> >> You reject this idea without even a faint try to disprove it, but by >> assumed authority, (which you don't posses). > > Tom, I think this last statement here is a problem on your part. > You can propose whatever you want. The expectation that you have that it > will be treated seriously is the unrealistic one. You have this notion, > I guess, that when you say something, it should either be welcomed in a > supportive way or effort should be made to show you why it's wrong. But > life doesn't work that way. If you haven't made the idea compelling to > other people (not just to yourself), then you aren't owed any serious > attention, and you will get casual dismissals, and the fault will lay > with you for falling short of a compelling case. > > It is not a disease of other people. It's you not doing the right kind > of work. I'm not a physicist, hence do not work in this field. I regard physics as hobby and do something similar, but not as employee. This is actually a legal and valid position and would release me from the burden, to do somehow usable work (in physics). So you are in fact correct with your observation, that I don't do proper work. Only: my occupation is not a scientific question and has no influence on the validity of my statements. Usually the professionals have more experience and could participate in the progress of science far better than amateurs can. But unless you regard science as a sport, the amateurs have the right to speak as well. And if these amateurs make errors, the pros will certainly be able to see them and to tell, why this is an error. In this particular case I had assumed, that gravity is related to the colour of the sky. This was - btw- related to the OPs question: "Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ?" TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-25 13:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n351n3$598$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #370895 |
On 11/25/2015 12:42 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > I'm not a physicist, hence do not work in this field. > > I regard physics as hobby and do something similar, but not as employee. > > This is actually a legal and valid position and would release me from > the burden, to do somehow usable work (in physics). > So you are in fact correct with your observation, that I don't do proper > work. > > Only: my occupation is not a scientific question and has no influence on > the validity of my statements. > > Usually the professionals have more experience and could participate in > the progress of science far better than amateurs can. > > But unless you regard science as a sport, the amateurs have the right to > speak as well. Sure you have the right to speak. What you do not have any entitlement to is being paid attention to. There are lots of levels of amateurs. Chess masters who play weekends in the park are amateurs -- because they don't do it for a living. Chess beginners who have not practiced much and haven't read much about the game are also amateurs. But you'll notice that amateur chess masters get a lot more attention than amateur novices. > > And if these amateurs make errors, the pros will certainly be able to > see them and to tell, why this is an error. Of course they CAN. The question is why would they bother? Likewise you might say, "If I am a beginner at chess, why doesn't a chess master teach me what my mistakes are?" And the answer is, because a chess beginner should be learning from basic learning materials and by playing people who are only a little better than they, not from chess masters. > > In this particular case I had assumed, that gravity is related to the > colour of the sky. This was - btw- related to the OPs question: And your assumption was wrong. And in fact, even a beginner can google "Why is the sky blue?" to learn what the real basis for the sky's color is. The fact that you said something like this and expected someone to correct so basic an error, is why you are not getting much attention. > > "Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ?" > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-26 05:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dbneqqFrq83U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #370897 |
Am 25.11.2015 20:21, schrieb Odd Bodkin: ... >> But unless you regard science as a sport, the amateurs have the right to >> speak as well. > > Sure you have the right to speak. What you do not have any entitlement > to is being paid attention to. > > There are lots of levels of amateurs. Chess masters who play weekends in > the park are amateurs -- because they don't do it for a living. Chess > beginners who have not practiced much and haven't read much about the > game are also amateurs. But you'll notice that amateur chess masters get > a lot more attention than amateur novices. > >> >> And if these amateurs make errors, the pros will certainly be able to >> see them and to tell, why this is an error. > > Of course they CAN. The question is why would they bother? Likewise you > might say, "If I am a beginner at chess, why doesn't a chess master > teach me what my mistakes are?" And the answer is, because a chess > beginner should be learning from basic learning materials and by playing > people who are only a little better than they, not from chess masters. > >> >> In this particular case I had assumed, that gravity is related to the >> colour of the sky. This was - btw- related to the OPs question: > > And your assumption was wrong. And in fact, even a beginner can google > "Why is the sky blue?" to learn what the real basis for the sky's color > is. The fact that you said something like this and expected someone to > correct so basic an error, is why you are not getting much attention. > But I don't want to learn, what physicists have to say about the blue sky, but provide evidence about a concept I have invented myself. The are other hints in the same direction, that are vehemently rejected as well, like 'Growing Earth'. This is now what I got for several years and that's why I think, that you simply can't talk to physicists: They are in fact a sect and worship their black voodoo priests and don't like to be disturbed. The worst of these 'black magic sorcerers' are actually the famous ones, like Newton or Hawking. There are also 'hot spots', like Cornell University. I don't know why exactly there, but many strange developments had participants, who had studied there, like many of the builders of the atomic bomb. Also CERN seems to be a place, where they practice 'withcraft', (besides searching for the Higgs boson.) So you cannot really talk about anything, since the people you see and know are missionaries for evil blunder, they try to sell to the public. This bullshit you are requested to 'learn' and nothing else. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-26 04:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5ade8fb3-2a68-4db5-b4e6-f5e59b951538@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370915 |
On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 9:06:55 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 25.11.2015 20:21, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > > ... > > And your assumption was wrong. And in fact, even a beginner can google > > "Why is the sky blue?" to learn what the real basis for the sky's color > > is. The fact that you said something like this and expected someone to > > correct so basic an error, is why you are not getting much attention. > > But I don't want to learn, what physicists have to say about the blue > sky, That says it ALL. You have a hermetically-sealed mind, or rather, you have a read-only memory. > but provide evidence about a concept I have invented myself. Lots of people have concepts they've invented themselves, but most of them have enough intelligence to compare their concepts with the real world and reject those that don't agree with it. > The are other hints in the same direction, that are vehemently rejected > as well, like 'Growing Earth'. As well it should be. > This is now what I got for several years and that's why I think, that > you simply can't talk to physicists: The REAL problem is you have a ROM. > They are in fact a sect and worship their black voodoo priests and don't > like to be disturbed. This is pure crackpot nonsense. > The worst of these 'black magic sorcerers' are actually the famous ones, > like Newton or Hawking. So, you talk to Newton? Sounds delusional to me. > There are also 'hot spots', like Cornell University. I don't know why > exactly there, but many strange developments had participants, who had > studied there, like many of the builders of the atomic bomb. > > Also CERN seems to be a place, where they practice 'withcraft', (besides > searching for the Higgs boson.) > > So you cannot really talk about anything, since the people you see and > know are missionaries for evil blunder, they try to sell to the public. > > This bullshit you are requested to 'learn' and nothing else. > > TH You have a very twisted mind. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-26 04:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <08495ef0-04e8-41bc-b04c-502283b6133b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370929 |
W dniu czwartek, 26 listopada 2015 13:17:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > Lots of people have concepts they've invented themselves, but most of > them have enough intelligence to compare their concepts with the real > world and reject those that don't agree with it. Unfortunately, relativistic morons, like you, are only able to repeat concepts invented by their gurus and don't really care, whether their match reality or not. You don't even care, whether your gurus shit is consistent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-26 04:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a0e24c89-d28a-47b6-bb38-e8aa7be1081e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370931 |
On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 5:25:09 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 26 listopada 2015 13:17:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > > > Lots of people have concepts they've invented themselves, but most of > > them have enough intelligence to compare their concepts with the real > > world and reject those that don't agree with it. > > Unfortunately, relativistic morons, like you, > are only able to repeat concepts invented by > their gurus and don't really care, whether their > match reality or not. You don't even care, whether > your gurus shit is consistent. Of course I do, lying weasel. So what is wrong with your brain that you continue to prevaricate and insult people for no valid reason? Do you need another session with your shrink? Are you using a public computer in your asylum? Do you even realize that your behavior is seriously aberrant?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-26 05:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e1255fde-55f5-4999-8608-9f0a0ef84a44@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370933 |
W dniu czwartek, 26 listopada 2015 13:48:14 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 5:25:09 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu czwartek, 26 listopada 2015 13:17:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > > > > > Lots of people have concepts they've invented themselves, but most of > > > them have enough intelligence to compare their concepts with the real > > > world and reject those that don't agree with it. > > > > Unfortunately, relativistic morons, like you, > > are only able to repeat concepts invented by > > their gurus and don't really care, whether their > > match reality or not. You don't even care, whether > > your gurus shit is consistent. > > Of course I do, lying weasel. Of course you don't. Fanatic morons never do. You don't like to be treated the way you're treating others, do you? So, yell and spit, moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-26 07:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7653d6d3-8ffe-4776-9eeb-51c50a4472b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370934 |
On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 6:25:21 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 26 listopada 2015 13:48:14 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 5:25:09 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > W dniu czwartek, 26 listopada 2015 13:17:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > > > > > > > Lots of people have concepts they've invented themselves, but most of > > > > them have enough intelligence to compare their concepts with the real > > > > world and reject those that don't agree with it. > > > > > > Unfortunately, relativistic morons, like you, > > > are only able to repeat concepts invented by > > > their gurus and don't really care, whether their > > > match reality or not. You don't even care, whether > > > your gurus shit is consistent. > > > > Of course I do, lying weasel. > > Of course you don't. > Fanatic morons never do. > > You don't like to be treated the way you're > treating others, do you? So, yell and spit, > moron. Pot, kettle, black
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-26 20:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dbp6euFb5g1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #370929 |
Am 26.11.2015 13:17, schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>> And your assumption was wrong. And in fact, even a beginner can google >>> "Why is the sky blue?" to learn what the real basis for the sky's color >>> is. The fact that you said something like this and expected someone to >>> correct so basic an error, is why you are not getting much attention. >> >> But I don't want to learn, what physicists have to say about the blue >> sky, > > > That says it ALL. You have a hermetically-sealed mind, or rather, you > have a read-only memory. Maybe I had to put my statement in other words: sure I want to know, what physicists have to say about the blue sky. But here I wanted to discuss an alternative explanation (for that phenomenon: blue sky). This alternative explanation I would like to discuss and not what is apparently common knowledge. >> but provide evidence about a concept I have invented myself. > > Lots of people have concepts they've invented themselves, but most of > them have enough intelligence to compare their concepts with the real > world and reject those that don't agree with it. You constantly mix people with ideas. What you like or dislike, that is up to you. You may think whatever you like about me as a person, but this is not a question to discuss in such a forum. >> The are other hints in the same direction, that are vehemently rejected >> as well, like 'Growing Earth'. > > As well it should be. Well, in my eyes is 'Plate tectonics' a symptom: it is carefully crafted nonsense, that is used to divert people from what is regarded as rightful property of a certain caste. .. >> They are in fact a sect and worship their black voodoo priests and don't >> like to be disturbed. > > This is pure crackpot nonsense. Well, your statement is in parts true, but not totally. >> The worst of these 'black magic sorcerers' are actually the famous ones, >> like Newton or Hawking. > > So, you talk to Newton? Sounds delusional to me. Newton was kind of Alchemist and a person, that you may eventually compare to a sorcerer. But - as a matter of fact - I have not talked to him. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-27 06:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <585c9a5f-9c61-46d2-94af-0e774f97d45c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370953 |
On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 5:56:20 AM UTC+10, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 26.11.2015 13:17, schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > >>> And your assumption was wrong. And in fact, even a beginner can google > >>> "Why is the sky blue?" to learn what the real basis for the sky's color > >>> is. The fact that you said something like this and expected someone to > >>> correct so basic an error, is why you are not getting much attention. > >> > >> But I don't want to learn, what physicists have to say about the blue > >> sky, > > > > > > That says it ALL. You have a hermetically-sealed mind, or rather, you > > have a read-only memory. > > Maybe I had to put my statement in other words: > > sure I want to know, what physicists have to say about the blue sky. But > here I wanted to discuss an alternative explanation (for that > phenomenon: blue sky). > > This alternative explanation I would like to discuss and not what is > apparently common knowledge. > > > >> but provide evidence about a concept I have invented myself. > > > > Lots of people have concepts they've invented themselves, but most of > > them have enough intelligence to compare their concepts with the real > > world and reject those that don't agree with it. > > You constantly mix people with ideas. What you like or dislike, that is > up to you. You may think whatever you like about me as a person, but > this is not a question to discuss in such a forum. > > > >> The are other hints in the same direction, that are vehemently rejected > >> as well, like 'Growing Earth'. > > > > As well it should be. > > Well, in my eyes is 'Plate tectonics' a symptom: it is carefully crafted > nonsense, that is used to divert people from what is regarded as > rightful property of a certain caste. > > .. > >> They are in fact a sect and worship their black voodoo priests and don't > >> like to be disturbed. > > > > This is pure crackpot nonsense. > > Well, your statement is in parts true, but not totally. > > >> The worst of these 'black magic sorcerers' are actually the famous ones, > >> like Newton or Hawking. > > > > So, you talk to Newton? Sounds delusional to me. > > Newton was kind of Alchemist and a person, that you may eventually > compare to a sorcerer. But - as a matter of fact - I have not talked to him. > > > TH Thomas. Being a hobbyist is no excuse for talking like an imbecile. Bodkin's a hobbyist. Look how well he carries his knowledge of text books. We come to him every time we want to push the boundaries of or be reminded by a text book concept. STFU and learn, instead of talking shit. -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-28 08:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dbt1s6F9lm3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #370980 |
Am 27.11.2015 15:34, schrieb Y: >> Newton was kind of Alchemist and a person, that you may eventually >> compare to a sorcerer. But - as a matter of fact - I have not talked to him. >> >> >> TH > > Thomas. Being a hobbyist is no excuse for talking like an imbecile. Bodkin's a hobbyist. Look how well he carries his knowledge of text books. We come to him every time we want to push the boundaries of or be reminded by a text book concept. > > STFU and learn, instead of talking shit. > Yes, I like to learn, but move away from physics. Theoretical physics seems to be in an incurable mess and people involved actually love that. So, well.. I actually do other stuff now, what is also interesting. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-29 22:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b372147f-f840-4eeb-a836-814c98b574ca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #371007 |
On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 5:02:34 PM UTC+10, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 27.11.2015 15:34, schrieb Y: > > >> Newton was kind of Alchemist and a person, that you may eventually > >> compare to a sorcerer. But - as a matter of fact - I have not talked to him. > >> > >> > >> TH > > > > Thomas. Being a hobbyist is no excuse for talking like an imbecile. Bodkin's a hobbyist. Look how well he carries his knowledge of text books. We come to him every time we want to push the boundaries of or be reminded by a text book concept. > > > > STFU and learn, instead of talking shit. > > > Yes, I like to learn, but move away from physics. Theoretical physics > seems to be in an incurable mess and people involved actually love that. > > So, well.. I actually do other stuff now, what is also interesting. > > > TH It's probably a good idea to have your own research program. That much is true. OTOH, just try to learn what theoretical physics says now, instead of arguing with what is said. That's the only way to produce something worthwhile if that's what you intend on doing. -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-30 18:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dc3h0pFsue5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #371119 |
Am 30.11.2015 07:47, schrieb Y: >> Yes, I like to learn, but move away from physics. Theoretical physics >> seems to be in an incurable mess and people involved actually love that. >> >> So, well.. I actually do other stuff now, what is also interesting. >> >> >> TH > > It's probably a good idea to have your own research program. That much is true. OTOH, just try to learn what theoretical physics says now, instead of arguing with what is said. That's the only way to produce something worthwhile if that's what you intend on doing. > Yes, agreed. But here I wanted to discuss kind of alternative concept. My idea was, that the atmosphere is partially 'self-gloving' and the energy we receive as light stems to some parts from a process inside the atmosphere. And this part creates the blue sky. The concept is difficult to explain and based on my own inventions. But I have written them down and occasionally try to apply them. (here, btw: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 ) So I also assume, that CMBR is actually created in real time by the same effect and near Earth, only further away than the blue sky. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web