Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #372131 > unrolled thread
| Started by | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-16 02:38 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-01-22 15:57 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 142 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 02:38 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-12-15 23:54 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-16 05:10 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-12-16 06:27 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 07:46 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-12-16 06:27 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 16:06 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 09:22 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 13:08 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 12:36 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 13:01 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jürgen Großenbach <jurgengb@adenauer.org> - 2015-12-16 20:08 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jürgen Großenbach <jurgengb@adenauer.org> - 2015-12-16 20:11 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-16 22:09 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-16 22:08 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jürgen Großenbach <jurgengb@adenauer.org> - 2015-12-16 21:17 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jürgen Großenbach <jurgengb@adenauer.org> - 2015-12-16 21:21 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-16 18:39 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 13:04 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 12:19 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-17 01:37 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 10:09 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 12:38 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 20:47 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-12-16 09:58 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 13:06 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-16 20:26 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Bill Miller" <kt4ye@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-20 11:27 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-16 20:18 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 00:45 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-17 07:27 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-16 10:08 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 13:40 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 01:04 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 10:43 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 20:16 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-12-16 23:17 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-17 03:42 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 01:23 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-17 21:54 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 20:00 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-18 05:49 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 04:43 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-18 20:26 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 22:36 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-19 05:51 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 00:55 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-20 08:05 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 02:26 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-20 12:04 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-20 16:37 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 01:57 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-22 05:48 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-19 12:00 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 09:11 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-17 22:04 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jürgen Großenbach <jurgengb@adenauer.org> - 2015-12-17 21:07 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 15:35 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-18 05:17 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 07:45 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-18 20:29 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 13:52 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-18 21:23 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 14:50 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-20 12:54 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 01:51 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-22 05:12 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 21:39 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-19 15:00 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-19 15:05 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-19 16:27 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-18 10:58 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Ezra Farrow <ezrafa@dubtechno.org> - 2015-12-18 18:02 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-18 13:17 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Ezra Farrow <ezrafa@dubtechno.org> - 2015-12-18 22:01 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 18:14 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Ezra Farrow <ezrafa@dubtechno.org> - 2015-12-19 11:13 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 09:59 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 22:24 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-19 11:51 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 13:36 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-19 17:54 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 02:20 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-20 10:51 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 02:17 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-21 12:07 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 13:53 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 23:39 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-19 06:52 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 01:43 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 00:23 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "szczepan bialek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> - 2015-12-19 09:48 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 13:33 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 13:32 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-19 21:06 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 01:47 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-20 10:36 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 02:55 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-21 11:50 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "szczepan bialek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> - 2015-12-21 18:08 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 12:17 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 13:22 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-21 20:02 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 21:26 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-22 21:56 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 23:46 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 08:19 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-23 06:46 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-23 14:52 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 10:02 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-23 17:11 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 11:32 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-23 18:00 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 12:26 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-23 19:03 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 13:47 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-23 22:04 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 16:29 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-23 22:53 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 14:10 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 13:49 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 22:03 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 11:00 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 21:17 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 12:39 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-23 23:46 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-24 15:15 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Don Kelly <dhky@shaw.ca> - 2015-12-24 18:24 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 22:18 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Don Kelly <dhky@shaw.ca> - 2015-12-25 15:54 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 03:58 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-26 11:35 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-25 10:50 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-25 11:46 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-25 20:28 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-25 03:09 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 04:00 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-25 11:01 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 14:39 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Bill Miller" <kt4ye@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-22 18:17 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 23:10 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-01-22 15:57 -0800
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 01:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5626340.NYaCNa9DMC@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #372171 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > As for me, I really don't pay much attention to media hype, celebrity > adoration, meme flairs, or the perceptions of propaganda-loving public. > I don't find much value in any rampant attention paid to the > Kardashians, Donald Trump, Steve Jobs, or Stephen Hawking. That’s a game of “odd man out”, isn’t it? Just to mention Hawking in one sentence with the Kardashians and Donald Trump… PointedEars -- Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity does it take to change a light bulb? A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 10:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f99d12b0-e1f4-4fc4-9afe-f6584332be6d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372140 |
On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 5:46:34 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 12/16/2015 1:38 AM, benj wrote: > > In a way it's just an imitation of Einstein who everyone imagines just > > cranked out a complex mathematical theory that nobody understands off > > the top of his genius head. > > Speak for yourself, Ben. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar never did come up with any math to speak of. All the bullshit on relativity was all created by other buffoons. Some (Hilbert and Lorentz) saw the fallacies and walked away. SR and GR are now a unified religion of relativity where Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar serves as the stupid god of relativity. The nitwit would whisper into the ears of the Einstein dingleberries on non-existent laws of physics. An example is the special law of physics from non-inertial frames of reference. Without this man made law of physicist, the Twin paradox becomes a fatal contradiction. <shrug> > I do not believe that the theory of relativity is all that complex. If OB aka PD understands SR and GR, SR and GR are all mathematics. <shrug> > I do not believe that nobody understands it. Well, Koobee Wublee has understood SR and GR perfectly. <shrug> > I do not believe it takes a genius to understand it. That is correct. <shrug> > [rest of rambling nonsense snipped]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 12:38 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4sb3n$fac$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372170 |
On 12/16/2015 12:09 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > Well, Koobee Wublee has understood SR and GR perfectly. <shrug> Koobee, you are a deluded fool. I'm pretty sure that the number of people that would disagree with that statement is exactly one. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 20:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <43848f1c-b585-4368-9dc4-f1264dfd178f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372170 |
On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 10:09:47 AM UTC-8, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 5:46:34 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 12/16/2015 1:38 AM, benj wrote: > > > > In a way it's just an imitation of Einstein who everyone imagines just > > > cranked out a complex mathematical theory that nobody understands off > > > the top of his genius head. > > > > Speak for yourself, Ben. > > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar never did come up with any math to speak of. Yes he did. You simply: 1. don't understand it, 2. but you dearly want to understand it (for some inexplicable reason), 3. so you get tremendously frustrated, 4. therefore you declare the object of your obsession (i.e. Albert Einstein) a "nitwit", 5. this childish idiocy releaves some of the pressure you feel but it's not enough, 6. therefore, you have to post more crap to thjs newsgroup, 7. pretending it makes the slightest difference. Wouldn't one visit to a doctor be a more efficient way to fix your problem? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 09:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dddch6Fdu36U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #372131 |
On 12/16/2015 2:38 AM, benj wrote: > Where does the future of physics lie? > <snip> I am reminded of Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary Of Defense, who was well known for saying: "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know." All the best, Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 13:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <JKhcy.129$uJ5.41@fx35.iad> |
| In reply to | #372144 |
On 12/16/2015 09:58 AM, Bill Miller wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 2:38 AM, benj wrote:
>> Where does the future of physics lie?
>>
> <snip>
>
> I am reminded of Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary Of Defense, who was
> well known for saying:
>
> "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting
> to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we
> know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we
> know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown
> unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know."
>
> All the best, Bill
Actually, Bill, if you follow the internet discussions much, you'll know
that the last category doesn't exist. This is because of something known
as "superpowers" among posters that allow them to know everything even
what they don't know! :-)
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 20:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5671bae9$0$23785$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #372168 |
On 12/16/2015 7:06 PM, benj wrote: > On 12/16/2015 09:58 AM, Bill Miller wrote: >> On 12/16/2015 2:38 AM, benj wrote: >>> Where does the future of physics lie? >>> >> <snip> >> >> I am reminded of Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary Of Defense, who was >> well known for saying: >> >> "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting >> to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we >> know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we >> know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown >> unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know." >> >> All the best, Bill > > > Actually, Bill, if you follow the internet discussions much, you'll know > that the last category doesn't exist. Thanks benj for clarifying! I already suggested to Bill that this might simply not apply to what you were writing. > This is because of something known as "superpowers" among posters Of course. That is exactly the point I was trying to make. > that allow them to know everything even > what they don't know! :-) I wonder if Bill's Hydrino Power also counts as superpower.. (Thus returning to the subject: It would certainly be a *future* advance in physics, given the indefinitely postponed BlackPower demonstration reactors!) -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bill Miller" <kt4ye@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-20 11:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ddo34mF5519U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #372176 |
"Jos Bergervoet" <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:5671bae9$0$23785$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl... > > I wonder if Bill's Hydrino Power also counts as superpower.. > (Thus returning to the subject: It would certainly be a > *future* advance in physics, given the indefinitely postponed > BlackPower demonstration reactors!) > > -- > Jos I believe the theory is sound and excess energy has been replicated by many laboratories. That tends to verify large chunks of the theory *But* none of those replications nor Mills' lab experiments have *yet* demonstrated usable output levels. The latest (in-the-Mills-lab-only) iteration generates dramatic amounts of light and *appears* to be capable of significant light-to-photocell-to-electricity outputs. Nothing has been seen publicly since July of last year, but the company name is changing to Bright Light Power. New website, but password blocked. Not hard for critics to be reminded of the guy sitting on th edge of the bed, telling the gal how GREAT it's gonna be! All the best, Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 20:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5671b909$0$23849$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #372144 |
On 12/16/2015 3:58 PM, Bill Miller wrote: > On 12/16/2015 2:38 AM, benj wrote: >> Where does the future of physics lie? > > <snip> > > I am reminded of Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary Of Defense, who was > well known for saying: > > "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting > to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we > know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we > know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown > unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know." What Donald says may be true (after all he's a politician). But do you think that even for benj there are unknown unknowns?! I find that hard to believe.. -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 00:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <l_rcy.405$9A4.301@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #372175 |
On 12/16/2015 02:18 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 3:58 PM, Bill Miller wrote:
>> On 12/16/2015 2:38 AM, benj wrote:
>>> Where does the future of physics lie?
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I am reminded of Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary Of Defense, who was
>> well known for saying:
>>
>> "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting
>> to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we
>> know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we
>> know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown
>> unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know."
>
> What Donald says may be true (after all he's a politician). But do
> you think that even for benj there are unknown unknowns?! I find
> that hard to believe..
>
Arrogance is your department Jos. You not only know it all, but you even
know what you don't know! As for my point: Once you admit of the
possibility of higher dimensions in space which create universes that
only tenuously connect to our space, the probability for unknown
unknowns becomes exceeding high.
“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of
in your philosophy.”
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 07:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <567255c9$0$23776$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #372208 |
On 12/17/2015 6:45 AM, benj wrote: > On 12/16/2015 02:18 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >> On 12/16/2015 3:58 PM, Bill Miller wrote: >>> On 12/16/2015 2:38 AM, benj wrote: >>>> Where does the future of physics lie? >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>> I am reminded of Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary Of Defense, who was >>> well known for saying: >>> >>> "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting >>> to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we >>> know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we >>> know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown >>> unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know." >> >> What Donald says may be true (after all he's a politician). But do >> you think that even for benj there are unknown unknowns?! I find >> that hard to believe.. > > Arrogance is your department Jos. Speak for yourself, benj! > As for my point: Once you admit of the > possibility of higher dimensions in space which create universes that > only tenuously connect to our space, That is not your point, that is already contained in many existing attempts of making advances in physics. > ... the probability for unknown > unknowns becomes exceeding high. Correct, so physics is already doing exactly what you want it to be doing (for good or for worse..) > “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of > in your philosophy.” If there is one field of science where this is fully acknowledged, then it is theoretical physics. Hence the often heard criticism that it has lost touch with reality. So you are barking up the wrong tree, benj. But your original question (where will real *advance* be found) still stands, of course. And of course a modest man will not hastily try to answer it.. -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 10:08 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4s29o$p5b$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372131 |
On 12/16/2015 1:38 AM, benj wrote: > Where does the future of physics lie? > > > Well, if you look on the INTERNET, it's pretty clear that most current > efforts are all along the lines of word games, > > So if you think that "remote viewing" or ESP or PK are not "real" and > are all hoaxes, it probably means you somehow are so lazy that you just > accept some anonymous voice on the INTERNET who proclaims infallible > omniscient truth because he says he does. And that means you are NEVER > going to amount to diddly shit in science no matter how many people > swoon over your complex mathematics and how many editors make sure your > screed hits the "big" journals. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi. Got it? > > yep, I gots' it ! remote viewing => lazy => anonymous infallible omniscient true voice => diddly shit => swoon complex maths => big Journals => passing glory
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 13:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4seo9$ol9$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372131 |
On 12/16/2015 1:38 AM, benj wrote: > So if you think that "remote viewing" or ESP or PK are not "real" and > are all hoaxes, it probably means you somehow are so lazy that you just > accept some anonymous voice on the INTERNET who proclaims infallible > omniscient truth because he says he does. And that means you are NEVER > going to amount to diddly shit in science no matter how many people > swoon over your complex mathematics and how many editors make sure your > screed hits the "big" journals. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi. Got it? Every scientist does an instinctive risk vs benefit analysis. You can pour your life into investigating something that is *very likely* hokum but still stands a tiny chance of changing the world. The problem is that there are millions of candidates of ideas to pursue: - That atoms are tiny galaxies, containing microcosms each - That rocks are in fact alive, but at a metabolic rate that is ten billion times slower than animal life - That humans can communicate telepathically - That faster-than-light communication is possible - That gravity screening is possible and anti-gravity drives are accessible - That ghosts exist and souls speak to us after bodily death - That ETs regularly visit and quite likely walk among us incognito - That perpetual motion machines are feasible and the laws of thermodynamics can be broken - That perfectly rigid materials can be built - That humans can be shrunk whole to the size of blood cells and operate completely normally So which one to pursue? You can piss away your whole life floundering in some futile direction, and the only solace you'd bring yourself is "But I'm investigating the unknown, so I'm doing SCIENCE!" I think this is a matter of taste. I think scientists develop a knack for pursuing the unknown but usually in directions where there is some likelihood for it not being futile. And in fact, the successful scientists are the ones that are talented in pursuing a new direction that DOES pan out. And you can ask them, "How did you know to choose THAT direction vs. any of the other million other things you could have pursued?" And they'll probably say something about gut instinct or experience or maybe just luck. For the ones that seem to do it over and over and over again, it's not luck. But people like Ben can feel free to pursue any of the million possibilities they want to pursue, happily owning the risk, knowing that they're more likely to win the lottery than they are of hitting the jackpot. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 01:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5gscy.232$TE6.141@fx41.iad> |
| In reply to | #372177 |
On 12/16/2015 02:40 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 1:38 AM, benj wrote:
>> So if you think that "remote viewing" or ESP or PK are not "real" and
>> are all hoaxes, it probably means you somehow are so lazy that you just
>> accept some anonymous voice on the INTERNET who proclaims infallible
>> omniscient truth because he says he does. And that means you are NEVER
>> going to amount to diddly shit in science no matter how many people
>> swoon over your complex mathematics and how many editors make sure your
>> screed hits the "big" journals. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi. Got it?
>
> Every scientist does an instinctive risk vs benefit analysis. You can
> pour your life into investigating something that is *very likely* hokum
> but still stands a tiny chance of changing the world. The problem is
> that there are millions of candidates of ideas to pursue:
> - That atoms are tiny galaxies, containing microcosms each
> - That rocks are in fact alive, but at a metabolic rate that is ten
> billion times slower than animal life
> - That humans can communicate telepathically
> - That faster-than-light communication is possible
> - That gravity screening is possible and anti-gravity drives are accessible
> - That ghosts exist and souls speak to us after bodily death
> - That ETs regularly visit and quite likely walk among us incognito
> - That perpetual motion machines are feasible and the laws of
> thermodynamics can be broken
> - That perfectly rigid materials can be built
> - That humans can be shrunk whole to the size of blood cells and operate
> completely normally
>
> So which one to pursue? You can piss away your whole life floundering in
> some futile direction, and the only solace you'd bring yourself is "But
> I'm investigating the unknown, so I'm doing SCIENCE!"
Obviously you pursue the ones that interest you. But to have hopes of
success one doesn't simply throw darts at a list to choose. One tries to
examine those where there seems to be data indicating that the candidate
has some hope of being something of value. If one starts with a
preconceived notion that all the data is just hoaxes and misguided
adventures, then clearly one has thrown away the very thing you need to
use to choose. On the other hand one also must have discernment. If you
use hoaxes to choose, then you will not choose wisely either.
> I think this is a matter of taste. I think scientists develop a knack
> for pursuing the unknown but usually in directions where there is some
> likelihood for it not being futile. And in fact, the successful
> scientists are the ones that are talented in pursuing a new direction
> that DOES pan out. And you can ask them, "How did you know to choose
> THAT direction vs. any of the other million other things you could have
> pursued?" And they'll probably say something about gut instinct or
> experience or maybe just luck. For the ones that seem to do it over and
> over and over again, it's not luck.
Not taste. It's a combination of evaluations and judgment as to what is
important. One CAN do science filling in the blank spots in tables of
parameters. And people do do that. One can argue that it has a certain
importance. But is it as important as demonstrating FTL transmissions?
> But people like Ben can feel free to pursue any of the million
> possibilities they want to pursue, happily owning the risk, knowing that
> they're more likely to win the lottery than they are of hitting the
> jackpot.
The Problem here is "people like Boinker" have no understanding of what
science is or how it is done. He only has his "liberal arts" descriptive
viewpoint that misses all the essence. He has no idea where even to
START a project like demonstrating low temperature fusion or
transmutations. He thinks you just sit down with an idea and let your
imagination run wild as if you are writing some novel. That's his world.
Not the world of science. In science one stands on the shoulders of
giants to see farther and that is where one begins.
Velikovsky merely suggested that one might find something of value in
the examination of old myths. And the Boinkers and HVACs of the world
all screamed with one voice: THEY ARE ALL MYTH! THEY ARE ALL FANTASY!
YOU HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF WINNING THE LOTTERY THAN FINDING MYTHICAL TROY!
But of course as usual, Boinker is an idiot and HVAC is ignorant and
troy was found right where Homer said it was. And now Boinker is sure to
say "I never doubted there was a real Troy for a minute!" That's how he
works.
The future of physics and science does NOT lie with the Bonkers of the
world...at least not unless it is going to crash and burn.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 10:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4uoo7$kpv$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372209 |
On 12/17/2015 12:04 AM, benj wrote: > On 12/16/2015 02:40 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 12/16/2015 1:38 AM, benj wrote: >>> So if you think that "remote viewing" or ESP or PK are not "real" and >>> are all hoaxes, it probably means you somehow are so lazy that you just >>> accept some anonymous voice on the INTERNET who proclaims infallible >>> omniscient truth because he says he does. And that means you are NEVER >>> going to amount to diddly shit in science no matter how many people >>> swoon over your complex mathematics and how many editors make sure your >>> screed hits the "big" journals. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi. Got it? >> >> Every scientist does an instinctive risk vs benefit analysis. You can >> pour your life into investigating something that is *very likely* hokum >> but still stands a tiny chance of changing the world. The problem is >> that there are millions of candidates of ideas to pursue: >> - That atoms are tiny galaxies, containing microcosms each >> - That rocks are in fact alive, but at a metabolic rate that is ten >> billion times slower than animal life >> - That humans can communicate telepathically >> - That faster-than-light communication is possible >> - That gravity screening is possible and anti-gravity drives are >> accessible >> - That ghosts exist and souls speak to us after bodily death >> - That ETs regularly visit and quite likely walk among us incognito >> - That perpetual motion machines are feasible and the laws of >> thermodynamics can be broken >> - That perfectly rigid materials can be built >> - That humans can be shrunk whole to the size of blood cells and operate >> completely normally >> >> So which one to pursue? You can piss away your whole life floundering in >> some futile direction, and the only solace you'd bring yourself is "But >> I'm investigating the unknown, so I'm doing SCIENCE!" > > Obviously you pursue the ones that interest you. But to have hopes of > success one doesn't simply throw darts at a list to choose. One tries to > examine those where there seems to be data indicating that the candidate > has some hope of being something of value. If one starts with a > preconceived notion that all the data is just hoaxes and misguided > adventures, then clearly one has thrown away the very thing you need to > use to choose. On the other hand one also must have discernment. If you > use hoaxes to choose, then you will not choose wisely either. I couldn't have said it better. > >> I think this is a matter of taste. I think scientists develop a knack >> for pursuing the unknown but usually in directions where there is some >> likelihood for it not being futile. And in fact, the successful >> scientists are the ones that are talented in pursuing a new direction >> that DOES pan out. And you can ask them, "How did you know to choose >> THAT direction vs. any of the other million other things you could have >> pursued?" And they'll probably say something about gut instinct or >> experience or maybe just luck. For the ones that seem to do it over and >> over and over again, it's not luck. > > Not taste. It's a combination of evaluations and judgment as to what is > important. One CAN do science filling in the blank spots in tables of > parameters. And people do do that. One can argue that it has a certain > importance. But is it as important as demonstrating FTL transmissions? Not just important. Promising. That means weighing both the impact if true vs. the risk that it's just trash. > >> But people like Ben can feel free to pursue any of the million >> possibilities they want to pursue, happily owning the risk, knowing that >> they're more likely to win the lottery than they are of hitting the >> jackpot. > > The Problem here is "people like Boinker" have no understanding of what > science is or how it is done. He only has his "liberal arts" descriptive > viewpoint that misses all the essence. I don't think you have the right to prejudge me. > He has no idea where even to > START a project like demonstrating low temperature fusion or > transmutations. He thinks you just sit down with an idea and let your > imagination run wild as if you are writing some novel. That's his world. > Not the world of science. In science one stands on the shoulders of > giants to see farther and that is where one begins. > > Velikovsky merely suggested that one might find something of value in > the examination of old myths. And the Boinkers and HVACs of the world > all screamed with one voice: THEY ARE ALL MYTH! THEY ARE ALL FANTASY! > YOU HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF WINNING THE LOTTERY THAN FINDING MYTHICAL TROY! Here's where you have exhibited prejudice, lumping me in with a class of people, a class of your own manufacture, when I have said nothing whatsoever about Velikovsky. So mind your tongue and your manners, Ben. On the other hand, "one might find something of value" is the kind of thing that doesn't seem very promising to me. It might to you, though. To me, it's of the sort "one might find gemstones 4 inches below the surface in the backyard", to which I'm sure some people would promptly pick up a shovel and spend the next two weeks tearing up their backyard. Because the "importance" of the possibility seems to outweigh the likelihood that it's going to turn up nothing. Each to his own, Ben. You go ahead and pursue ESP and Roswell technology. Maybe you'll find something earth-shaking. Let us know when something pans out. > > But of course as usual, Boinker is an idiot and HVAC is ignorant and > troy was found right where Homer said it was. And now Boinker is sure to > say "I never doubted there was a real Troy for a minute!" That's how he > works. > > The future of physics and science does NOT lie with the Bonkers of the > world...at least not unless it is going to crash and burn. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 20:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <A7Jcy.5166$Xk5.2053@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #372227 |
On 12/17/2015 11:43 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/17/2015 12:04 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 12/16/2015 02:40 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2015 1:38 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> So if you think that "remote viewing" or ESP or PK are not "real" and
>>>> are all hoaxes, it probably means you somehow are so lazy that you just
>>>> accept some anonymous voice on the INTERNET who proclaims infallible
>>>> omniscient truth because he says he does. And that means you are NEVER
>>>> going to amount to diddly shit in science no matter how many people
>>>> swoon over your complex mathematics and how many editors make sure your
>>>> screed hits the "big" journals. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi. Got it?
>>>
>>> Every scientist does an instinctive risk vs benefit analysis. You can
>>> pour your life into investigating something that is *very likely* hokum
>>> but still stands a tiny chance of changing the world. The problem is
>>> that there are millions of candidates of ideas to pursue:
>>> - That atoms are tiny galaxies, containing microcosms each
>>> - That rocks are in fact alive, but at a metabolic rate that is ten
>>> billion times slower than animal life
>>> - That humans can communicate telepathically
>>> - That faster-than-light communication is possible
>>> - That gravity screening is possible and anti-gravity drives are
>>> accessible
>>> - That ghosts exist and souls speak to us after bodily death
>>> - That ETs regularly visit and quite likely walk among us incognito
>>> - That perpetual motion machines are feasible and the laws of
>>> thermodynamics can be broken
>>> - That perfectly rigid materials can be built
>>> - That humans can be shrunk whole to the size of blood cells and operate
>>> completely normally
>>>
>>> So which one to pursue? You can piss away your whole life floundering in
>>> some futile direction, and the only solace you'd bring yourself is "But
>>> I'm investigating the unknown, so I'm doing SCIENCE!"
>>
>> Obviously you pursue the ones that interest you. But to have hopes of
>> success one doesn't simply throw darts at a list to choose. One tries to
>> examine those where there seems to be data indicating that the candidate
>> has some hope of being something of value. If one starts with a
>> preconceived notion that all the data is just hoaxes and misguided
>> adventures, then clearly one has thrown away the very thing you need to
>> use to choose. On the other hand one also must have discernment. If you
>> use hoaxes to choose, then you will not choose wisely either.
>
> I couldn't have said it better.
>
>>
>>> I think this is a matter of taste. I think scientists develop a knack
>>> for pursuing the unknown but usually in directions where there is some
>>> likelihood for it not being futile. And in fact, the successful
>>> scientists are the ones that are talented in pursuing a new direction
>>> that DOES pan out. And you can ask them, "How did you know to choose
>>> THAT direction vs. any of the other million other things you could have
>>> pursued?" And they'll probably say something about gut instinct or
>>> experience or maybe just luck. For the ones that seem to do it over and
>>> over and over again, it's not luck.
>>
>> Not taste. It's a combination of evaluations and judgment as to what is
>> important. One CAN do science filling in the blank spots in tables of
>> parameters. And people do do that. One can argue that it has a certain
>> importance. But is it as important as demonstrating FTL transmissions?
>
> Not just important. Promising. That means weighing both the impact if
> true vs. the risk that it's just trash.
>
>>
>>> But people like Ben can feel free to pursue any of the million
>>> possibilities they want to pursue, happily owning the risk, knowing that
>>> they're more likely to win the lottery than they are of hitting the
>>> jackpot.
>>
>> The Problem here is "people like Boinker" have no understanding of what
>> science is or how it is done. He only has his "liberal arts" descriptive
>> viewpoint that misses all the essence.
>
> I don't think you have the right to prejudge me.
Boinker you are too funny! Anyone with a modicum of intellect can play
a tune on you like a fiddle! I'm sure most of the lurkers here are sharp
enough to note that my "People like Boinker" is nothing but a satire on
your "people like Ben"! <snort> And you think I "have not right"? You
maker of fine toys (I almost said idiot), you GAVE me the right!
>> He has no idea where even to
>> START a project like demonstrating low temperature fusion or
>> transmutations. He thinks you just sit down with an idea and let your
>> imagination run wild as if you are writing some novel. That's his world.
>> Not the world of science. In science one stands on the shoulders of
>> giants to see farther and that is where one begins.
>>
>> Velikovsky merely suggested that one might find something of value in
>> the examination of old myths. And the Boinkers and HVACs of the world
>> all screamed with one voice: THEY ARE ALL MYTH! THEY ARE ALL FANTASY!
>> YOU HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF WINNING THE LOTTERY THAN FINDING MYTHICAL
>> TROY!
>
> Here's where you have exhibited prejudice, lumping me in with a class of
> people, a class of your own manufacture, when I have said nothing
> whatsoever about Velikovsky.
>
> So mind your tongue and your manners, Ben.
So I guess HVAC has the day off as group "moderator" and you've taken
over. He must be Napoleon today!
> On the other hand, "one might find something of value" is the kind of
> thing that doesn't seem very promising to me. It might to you, though.
> To me, it's of the sort "one might find gemstones 4 inches below the
> surface in the backyard", to which I'm sure some people would promptly
> pick up a shovel and spend the next two weeks tearing up their backyard.
> Because the "importance" of the possibility seems to outweigh the
> likelihood that it's going to turn up nothing.
Your ignorance of science defies comprehension, Boinker! You wander in
your fantasy land without a logical, practical thought in your pretty
little head! One does not dig up the back yard simply because one
suddenly got the Lib fantasy that gems could be buried there 4 inches
below the surface. You might as well be cut and paste posting that
global warming "could" kill us all! You did the backyard because you
have some indication that doing such might be a valuable exercise
(treasure mape, a gem already found there, etc.) THAT is how science is
done. That "WHOOSH" noise was my remark about standing on the shoulders
of giants going right over top of your pointy little head!
> Each to his own, Ben. You go ahead and pursue ESP and Roswell
> technology. Maybe you'll find something earth-shaking. Let us know when
> something pans out.
It would be great if what you say were were true. But you have no idea
how forbidden science works any more than you do about how conventional
science works. HVAC can give you lessons on how to deal with preventing
any earth-shaking discoveries in the "wrong" areas and you can give him
lessons in the making of fine wooden toys.
>> But of course as usual, Boinker is an idiot and HVAC is ignorant and
>> troy was found right where Homer said it was. And now Boinker is sure to
>> say "I never doubted there was a real Troy for a minute!" That's how he
>> works.
>>
>> The future of physics and science does NOT lie with the Bonkers of the
>> world...at least not unless it is going to crash and burn.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 23:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ac94255f-78b7-4288-b469-9b1e1bae37d2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372177 |
W dniu środa, 16 grudnia 2015 20:41:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > Every scientist does an instinctive risk vs benefit analysis. Yeah. Your idiot guru did it too. And when his analysis didn't satisfy him, he yelled "common sense is a prejudice!!!!" and continue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 03:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ddelpdFo6dmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #372131 |
Am 16.12.2015 08:38, schrieb benj: > Point is while strategic writers like HVAC and Odd try to ridicule any > mention of a forbidden topic and discourage any actual investigation, > this is exactly where the next advances will occur. They say, these > things can't be real (never looking at the actual data, of course) > because there is no theory to explain them! Ding! Ding! Ding! > > It is the very FACT that there is no theory that "explains" them that > shows that they NEED to be studied! So today there is a HUGE list of > "forbidden topics" that are off-limits to official support and > publication and it is little wonder that official physics has lapsed > into some monster word game of people trying to "explain" the universe > using ever more and more illogical and meaningless "explanations". > I would say, that 'howling with the wolves' does not bring fun. If someone tries to achieve something in theoretical physics, he should try something really weird, not something 'normal'. Reason: the amount of work is similar if you research - say - ETs or Newton's law of gravity. But public attention is not, since Newton's law of gravity belongs already to Newton. So I would try to obtain such a list with 'forbidden subjects' and chose one of those subjects. This is much more promising, since -after all- they are not as overcrowded as everything else. Further I would like to mention, that I had developed that 'next big thing' already. ;-) This is my 'bet' and how I think the world would function: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 TH >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 01:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Bxscy.44$IX3.0@fx36.iad> |
| In reply to | #372204 |
On 12/16/2015 09:42 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 16.12.2015 08:38, schrieb benj:
>
>> Point is while strategic writers like HVAC and Odd try to ridicule any
>> mention of a forbidden topic and discourage any actual investigation,
>> this is exactly where the next advances will occur. They say, these
>> things can't be real (never looking at the actual data, of course)
>> because there is no theory to explain them! Ding! Ding! Ding!
>>
>> It is the very FACT that there is no theory that "explains" them that
>> shows that they NEED to be studied! So today there is a HUGE list of
>> "forbidden topics" that are off-limits to official support and
>> publication and it is little wonder that official physics has lapsed
>> into some monster word game of people trying to "explain" the universe
>> using ever more and more illogical and meaningless "explanations".
>>
>
> I would say, that 'howling with the wolves' does not bring fun.
>
> If someone tries to achieve something in theoretical physics, he should
> try something really weird, not something 'normal'.
>
> Reason:
>
> the amount of work is similar if you research - say - ETs or Newton's
> law of gravity.
>
> But public attention is not, since Newton's law of gravity belongs
> already to Newton.
>
> So I would try to obtain such a list with 'forbidden subjects' and chose
> one of those subjects.
>
> This is much more promising, since -after all- they are not as
> overcrowded as everything else.
>
> Further I would like to mention, that I had developed that 'next big
> thing' already.
>
> ;-)
>
> This is my 'bet' and how I think the world would function:
>
> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
Your wish is my command! Here is a list of "forbidden" topics developed
by the fine denizens of sci.physics.
1. intelligent design (Includes UFO genetic labs)
2. alchemy
3. ESP
4. UFOs
5. Free energy
6. Cold fusion
7. Anti-gravity
8. Radionics
9. Life after death. (And near-death experiences)
10. Cancer cures (that actually work)
11. 9/11 structural failure
12. Murrah building structural failure
13. Life energy
14. Alien Lifeforms/life on other planets (beyond bacteria)
15. AGW deniers
16. Big Bang deniers
17. Relativity deniers
18. Man-made origins of new diseases
19. Psychokinesis
20. Astrology
21. Phrenology
22. Water fluoridation
23. Mandatory shots of mercury
24. Mercury tooth fillings
25. Astral projection
26. Remote viewing
27. Hypnosis (includes Manchurian Candidate)
28. Telepathy
29. ELF mind control
30. ELF weather making
31. ELF earthquake making
32. ELF tsunami making
33. Self replicating machines
34. Real history
35. Ancient technology (includes Cyclopean walls)
36. School brainwashing (Includes control of public Ed.)
37. University brainwashing (Start with censorship of these topics)
38. Tee Vee brainwashing (Include influence by “subs”)
39. (Political) Neurolinguistics
40. Nutrition vs thought pattern (i.e. eating meat makes people
aggressive, poor nutrition triggers primitive survival instincts)
41. Collective conscience
42. Animal intellect (Includes animal speech)
43. Hollow earth (questioning the “iron” core)
44. Growing earth
45. Molecular resonance
46. Automated construction of housing
47. Desert farming
48. Full mind transfer
49. Military artificial intelligence (self-controlled fighting bots)
50. BIO warfare (Includes race-specific diseases)
51. ZOG government (tracking actual authority)
52. Laser tunneling (in earth)
53. Underground secret bases and cities.
54. secret space bases and cities.
55. Air evacuated maglev tunnels (Includes Prehistoric ones)
56. Woman's lib (aka 'freedom is wage slavery')
57. Zionist banking magic (money from nothing)
58. Music intelligence modifier
59. Military psychopathy
60. Anything questioning the necessity of human labor (automation)
61. Anything questioning the necessity of money
62. Reincarnation
63. Telekinesis
64. Geometries enhancing "supernatural" abilities.
65. Longitudinal “scalar” electromagnetic (Actually not “scalar” are
Tesla fields)
66. Backster effect.
67. ORMUS metals (Phrana, CHI, QI, KI, odic force, bioplasma etc...See
Radionics)
68. Homeopathy
69. Acupuncture
70. Herbal medicine
71. The electrical universe (electrostatic force in solar system)
72. Wireless electricity (Tesla power transmission)
73. Rain dancing
74. Biolevitation
75. aquatic ape theory
76. Lunar effect on activity (see astrology)
77. Inertial propulsion
78. Non Newtonian Gyroscope effects (co-gravitation theory)
79. Non Newtonian pendulum effects
80. Symbiosis
81. Electronic voice phenomenon
82. Bacteria from deep underground
83. Vacuum bacteria in space
84. Bacteria in deep ocean trenches
85. Bacteria in ultra high radiation.
86. Cold fusion
87. Low energy Transmutation
88. Late pleistocene submerged cities and civilizations.
89. Humans in early pleistocene.
90. Any evidence of technology prior to 6000 BC.
91. Cyclopean Walls.
92. Feats of Yogis and Fakirs.
93. Seances
94. Prophesy.
95. Time travel.
96. Mantauk Experiments.
97. Project “rainbow”
98. Roswell technology
99. Multi-dimensional space as a logical explanation for all of the above!
100. Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Abominble Snowman
And last but not least Ghosts!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 21:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ddglodF9c81U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #372210 |
Am 17.12.2015 07:23, schrieb benj: > On 12/16/2015 09:42 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 16.12.2015 08:38, schrieb benj: >> >>> Point is while strategic writers like HVAC and Odd try to ridicule any >>> mention of a forbidden topic and discourage any actual investigation, >>> this is exactly where the next advances will occur. They say, these >>> things can't be real (never looking at the actual data, of course) >>> because there is no theory to explain them! Ding! Ding! Ding! >>> >>> It is the very FACT that there is no theory that "explains" them that >>> shows that they NEED to be studied! So today there is a HUGE list of >>> "forbidden topics" that are off-limits to official support and >>> publication and it is little wonder that official physics has lapsed >>> into some monster word game of people trying to "explain" the universe >>> using ever more and more illogical and meaningless "explanations". >>> >> >> I would say, that 'howling with the wolves' does not bring fun. >> >> If someone tries to achieve something in theoretical physics, he should >> try something really weird, not something 'normal'. >> >> Reason: >> >> the amount of work is similar if you research - say - ETs or Newton's >> law of gravity. >> >> But public attention is not, since Newton's law of gravity belongs >> already to Newton. >> >> So I would try to obtain such a list with 'forbidden subjects' and chose >> one of those subjects. >> >> This is much more promising, since -after all- they are not as >> overcrowded as everything else. >> >> Further I would like to mention, that I had developed that 'next big >> thing' already. >> >> ;-) >> >> This is my 'bet' and how I think the world would function: >> >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 > > Your wish is my command! Here is a list of "forbidden" topics developed > by the fine denizens of sci.physics. > > > 1. intelligent design (Includes UFO genetic labs) ?? > 2. alchemy > 3. ESP > 4. UFOs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8z4SnCDu8 > 5. Free energy www.free-energy-info.com/PJKbook.pdf > 6. Cold fusion > 7. Anti-gravity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GctFKIp8uXI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgiwK8vJde4 > 8. Radionics > 9. Life after death. (And near-death experiences) > 10. Cancer cures (that actually work) https://www.google.de/?gws_rd=ssl#q=royal+Rife > 11. 9/11 structural failure http://drjudywood.com/ > 12. Murrah building structural failure Seemed to be a test > 13. Life energy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPV-JExUPns > 14. Alien Lifeforms/life on other planets (beyond bacteria) > 15. AGW deniers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ&list=PL5A1097F4E958728D http://www.nuclearplanet.com/Hilgenberg.html > 16. Big Bang deniers http://www.sensibleuniverse.net/ > 17. Relativity deniers kenseto, Pancho Valev .. > 27. Hypnosis (includes Manchurian Candidate) Why is that on this list? > 28. Telepathy > 29. ELF mind control > 30. ELF weather making > 31. ELF earthquake making https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foLDKQ00XJc > 32. ELF tsunami making > 33. Self replicating machines > 34. Real history Ain't history always real? > 35. Ancient technology (includes Cyclopean walls) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C76MafUXNec https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1C_CYEb9Qpo .. > 44. Growing earth already mentioned. In fact I do think, the Earth does grow. > 45. Molecular resonance why on the list ? > 46. Automated construction of housing why on the list ? > 47. Desert farming why on the list ? .. > 68. Homeopathy I had a long and fruitless discussion about this subject in the Usenet. But think, that Homeopathy could actually work. > 69. Acupuncture I have studied this for some time, but think, that most western practitioners have not the sufficient education. But with such knowledge it may actually be helpful. ... > 73. Rain dancing what's that? .. > > And last but not least Ghosts! > I haven't seen one recently. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web