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 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 20:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ddj54pFsc8vU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #372305 |
Am 18.12.2015 14:45, schrieb Odd Bodkin: ... >> >> But you cannot create any progress, if certain subjects are forbidden. >> >> Since hobbyists don't know such rules, they can do, whatever they find >> appropriate. (But only they can.) > > Well, as I said, you can study whatever you like. But that wasn't my > question to you. The question was whether you seriously think a hobbyist > can make a significant contribution to theoretical physics? I'm certain > you are free to dabble in unusual areas, but that doesn't translate into > making a significant contribution to theoretical physics. I don't know. Sure, I think my idea is: a) new b) unique c) mine d) the best in the world But d) is not necessarily the case. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 13:52 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n51o4u$hhl$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372326 |
On 12/18/2015 1:29 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 18.12.2015 14:45, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > ... >>> >>> But you cannot create any progress, if certain subjects are forbidden. >>> >>> Since hobbyists don't know such rules, they can do, whatever they find >>> appropriate. (But only they can.) >> >> Well, as I said, you can study whatever you like. But that wasn't my >> question to you. The question was whether you seriously think a hobbyist >> can make a significant contribution to theoretical physics? I'm certain >> you are free to dabble in unusual areas, but that doesn't translate into >> making a significant contribution to theoretical physics. > > > I don't know. > > Sure, I think my idea is: > a) new > b) unique > c) mine > d) the best in the world > > But d) is not necessarily the case. That's right. New, unique, and yours are freebies. I can take a piece of wood and make it into something completely different than anything else that has been made, and it will be new, unique, and mine. But that doesn't make it valuable, even if *I* treasure it. The significance of your contribution to theoretical physics would be something attributed by others, not by you. When you do your own quality assessment, you end up with same kind of self-delusion that Ken Fischer indulged himself. He gave himself some passing of idle time, but did he accomplish anything? Doesn't appear that he did, no. > > TH -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 21:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ddj8alFt66sU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #372328 |
Am 18.12.2015 20:52, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> On 12/18/2015 1:29 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 18.12.2015 14:45, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> ...
>>>>
>>>> But you cannot create any progress, if certain subjects are forbidden.
>>>>
>>>> Since hobbyists don't know such rules, they can do, whatever they find
>>>> appropriate. (But only they can.)
>>>
>>> Well, as I said, you can study whatever you like. But that wasn't my
>>> question to you. The question was whether you seriously think a hobbyist
>>> can make a significant contribution to theoretical physics? I'm certain
>>> you are free to dabble in unusual areas, but that doesn't translate into
>>> making a significant contribution to theoretical physics.
>>
>>
>> I don't know.
>>
>> Sure, I think my idea is:
>> a) new
>> b) unique
>> c) mine
>> d) the best in the world
>>
>> But d) is not necessarily the case.
>
> That's right. New, unique, and yours are freebies. I can take a piece of
> wood and make it into something completely different than anything else
> that has been made, and it will be new, unique, and mine. But that
> doesn't make it valuable, even if *I* treasure it.
>
> The significance of your contribution to theoretical physics would be
> something attributed by others, not by you.
>
So: what do you think?
Here is what I have to offer:
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
It's truly amateurish and most likely not of any practical usefulness.
But I describe a possible way to connect GRT to QM and in this realm
there ain't much competition.
The way I came to my conclusion is this :
I take GR and QM as more or less valid, but do not cover these subjects.
What I try to find is a 'path' to connect both.
This could be understood as finding a way from point 'A' to point 'B'.
Consider: there is a path, but you don't know where that is and how it
may look like.
But if these 'ends' are fixed and assumed valid, then a connection could
be found by certain estimates.
The method is similar to a fractal: draw a line from 'A' to 'B' and
search around the midpoint until you find something fitting.
Then take this point ('C') as new endpoint and repeat (with A and C and
with C and B).
This is a recursive process and will reveal the path (to some degree).
If the path is actually possible, a solution is found.
I have actually started at the 'GR side' and have tried to build
particles out of spacetime.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 14:50 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n51rj4$pl0$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372330 |
On 12/18/2015 2:23 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> So: what do you think?
>
> Here is what I have to offer:
>
> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>
> It's truly amateurish and most likely not of any practical usefulness.
To be honest, yes, it looks amateurish and does not look like a work of
theoretical physics.
I notice there isn't much in the way of a prediction of measurable
quantity to test it against.
>
> But I describe a possible way to connect GRT to QM and in this realm
> there ain't much competition.
>
> The way I came to my conclusion is this :
>
> I take GR and QM as more or less valid, but do not cover these subjects.
> What I try to find is a 'path' to connect both.
>
> This could be understood as finding a way from point 'A' to point 'B'.
> Consider: there is a path, but you don't know where that is and how it
> may look like.
>
> But if these 'ends' are fixed and assumed valid, then a connection could
> be found by certain estimates.
>
> The method is similar to a fractal: draw a line from 'A' to 'B' and
> search around the midpoint until you find something fitting.
>
> Then take this point ('C') as new endpoint and repeat (with A and C and
> with C and B).
>
> This is a recursive process and will reveal the path (to some degree).
>
> If the path is actually possible, a solution is found.
>
> I have actually started at the 'GR side' and have tried to build
> particles out of spacetime.
Actually, it looks like you ASSUMED particles of spacetime, via some
logic that reads, "Any physical system is composed of discrete elements,
and since spacetime is a physical system, it must then be composed of
discrete elements." Of course you then say something like "But spacetime
is a continuum" (which of course completely denies the discreteness you
just claimed) "and therefore the elements must be points with properties."
I think you would do well to look hard at some of the other attempts to
unify GR and QM. There are quite a few of them, with a lot of variety.
This might teach you how to more properly attack the problem.
>
>
> TH
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-20 12:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ddnj7mF12toU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #372332 |
Am 18.12.2015 21:50, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> I have actually started at the 'GR side' and have tried to build >> particles out of spacetime. > > Actually, it looks like you ASSUMED particles of spacetime, via some > logic that reads, "Any physical system is composed of discrete elements, > and since spacetime is a physical system, it must then be composed of > discrete elements." Of course you then say something like "But spacetime > is a continuum" (which of course completely denies the discreteness you > just claimed) "and therefore the elements must be points with properties." The underlying principle are not pointlike particles, but pointlike 'elements of spacetime', what are assumed to be the equivalent to a point, but with features. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-21 01:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jkNdy.34147$IX3.14156@fx36.iad> |
| In reply to | #372446 |
On 12/20/2015 06:54 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 18.12.2015 21:50, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>
>>> I have actually started at the 'GR side' and have tried to build
>>> particles out of spacetime.
>>
>> Actually, it looks like you ASSUMED particles of spacetime, via some
>> logic that reads, "Any physical system is composed of discrete elements,
>> and since spacetime is a physical system, it must then be composed of
>> discrete elements." Of course you then say something like "But spacetime
>> is a continuum" (which of course completely denies the discreteness you
>> just claimed) "and therefore the elements must be points with
>> properties."
>
> The underlying principle are not pointlike particles, but pointlike
> 'elements of spacetime', what are assumed to be the equivalent to a
> point, but with features.
>
>
> TH
Give up on Boinker, TH. The concept of the granularity of space that
explains it all is WAY over his pointy little head. He makes wooden
toys, you know.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 05:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dds0t4F57raU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #372475 |
Am 21.12.2015 07:51, schrieb benj:
> On 12/20/2015 06:54 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 18.12.2015 21:50, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>
>>>> I have actually started at the 'GR side' and have tried to build
>>>> particles out of spacetime.
>>>
>>> Actually, it looks like you ASSUMED particles of spacetime, via some
>>> logic that reads, "Any physical system is composed of discrete elements,
>>> and since spacetime is a physical system, it must then be composed of
>>> discrete elements." Of course you then say something like "But spacetime
>>> is a continuum" (which of course completely denies the discreteness you
>>> just claimed) "and therefore the elements must be points with
>>> properties."
>>
>> The underlying principle are not pointlike particles, but pointlike
>> 'elements of spacetime', what are assumed to be the equivalent to a
>> point, but with features.
>>
>>
>> TH
>
> Give up on Boinker, TH. The concept of the granularity of space that
> explains it all is WAY over his pointy little head. He makes wooden
> toys, you know.
The idea is kind of difficult to understand, since space-time has
several aspects and one is space. So 'space' (vacuum, void) means the
opposite to matter.
'Void' means 'nothing there but empty space'.
This is a human abstraction, since humans think in terms of matter
('things'), hence need an opposite (void), to have an appropriate 'stage'.
But in relativity space is 'relative', hence matter is 'relative', too.
And this is a concept, the human mind vehemently rejects and does not
like at all.
But lets assume a small version of the big band ('small bang') and than
we have the opposite to a black hole (white hole).
The white hole could be understood as 'the other side from the black
hole' or as 'black hole time reverted'.
Now I take two timelines in opposite directions and let them interact
like rotation around opposite axis'.
This rotation is antisymmetric and parallel axis (of opposite
directions) leave absolutely nothing. If they get an angle to each
other, then things seem to pop out of nowhere ('big/small bang').
Now these things are still 'nothing', but kind of patterns, that emerge
and stay like material objects.
The difference between spacetime and space is, that space is composed of
points without features. Space is meant as set of all possible coordinates.
The 'real thing' is not like void or vacuum, but as a space, where
points have a direction. These 'elements' are connected like one would
multiply quaternions, what is a certain kind of rotation. This rotation
has a normal 'pointer' and this is, what gives such an 'element of
spacetime' it's features.
And there are two, since actually we have bi-quaternions (or
complex-four-vectors), that have a structure like a star-tetrahedron,
where axes point in opposite directions.
Longer version here:
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 21:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vr3dy.5277$pV5.3149@fx21.iad> |
| In reply to | #372305 |
On 12/18/2015 08:45 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/17/2015 10:17 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 17.12.2015 22:35, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>
>>>>>> Further I would like to mention, that I had developed that 'next big
>>>>>> thing' already.
>>>>>
>>>>> This would be your choice, but I think it also points out the
>>>>> difference
>>>>> in motivation between you and physicists. A physicist chooses subjects
>>>>> to research based on where he thinks there is the greatest
>>>>> likelihood of
>>>>> increase in verifiable knowledge, not on the basis of attention and
>>>>> fame.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is kind of true, but I am not a physicist. What I have written is
>>>> more like a hobby.
>>>>
>>>> Hobbyists follow other rules than professional researchers.
>>>>
>>>> Professional must do, what the job requires, while hobbyists can do
>>>> what
>>>> they like.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is true. You should do what you like as a hobby. If that means
>>> investigating water dowsing or ouija boards, go for it.
>>>
>>> But I think you should also be a little honest with yourself about the
>>> likelihood to "achieve something in theoretical physics" and that being
>>> "more like a hobby". Don't you think it's pretty unlikely for a hobbyist
>>> to achieve anything notable in theoretical physics?
>>>
>>
>> No, because the real physicists are kind of stuck in the middle between
>> commercial and and political interests.
>
> I'm not so sure of that. Physicists generally work at either
> institutions of higher learning or at government sponsored research
> labs, if they're doing basic research. In both cases, they're rather
> insulated from profit concerns or political objectives.
Thomas, have you EVER seen a human being so throughly out of touch with
reality as Boinker? Utterly amazing! He is totally oblivious to the fact
that virtually all research in universities and government labs is
sponsored by... you guessed it. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
Even in industry where products are sold to government same control gets
exerted through money.
>>
>> The entire terrain is full of land mines, fences and signs saying: keep
>> away.
>>
>> But you cannot create any progress, if certain subjects are forbidden.
>>
>> Since hobbyists don't know such rules, they can do, whatever they find
>> appropriate. (But only they can.)
>
> Well, as I said, you can study whatever you like. But that wasn't my
> question to you. The question was whether you seriously think a hobbyist
> can make a significant contribution to theoretical physics? I'm certain
> you are free to dabble in unusual areas, but that doesn't translate into
> making a significant contribution to theoretical physics.
Take it up a notch. Do you think an autodidact genius can make a
significant contribution to Theoretical physics even if he already HAS
that contribution worked out in all details. Those who control
publication will see you don't. Take it up even on step higher! Do you
think full professors with tenure are capable of making a contribution
if the topic is "forbidden"? We have some excellent examples of where
they not only were prevented, but also lost their jobs.
So much for tenure protection from politics!
>>
>> I'm actually an engineer, but have some knowledge in adjacent fields:
>> (Organic) chemistry, mathematics, electronics, thermodynamics and a few
>> other.
>>
>> Organic chemistry is in my eyes a good foundation, since this is
>> relatively close to Quantum mechanics and based on experiments, (similar
>> electronics). And both I have done since school.
>>
>> I was also quite good in mathematics and once won a (small) price.
>>
>> And engineers study stuff as well, that is related to physics.
And even better than that, engineers have to build crap that actually
works in the real world. Word games like "probability waves in nothing
at all" may fly in amongst the dogma purveyors that Boinker so
desperately believes in. but among engineers it's obviously babbling
insanity.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-19 15:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c3da7535-6f1b-4752-80de-f43b8eefcb4a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372290 |
On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 10:17:19 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 17.12.2015 22:35, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > > >>>> Further I would like to mention, that I had developed that 'next big > >>>> thing' already. > >>> > >>> This would be your choice, but I think it also points out the difference > >>> in motivation between you and physicists. A physicist chooses subjects > >>> to research based on where he thinks there is the greatest likelihood of > >>> increase in verifiable knowledge, not on the basis of attention and > >>> fame. > >>> > >> > >> This is kind of true, but I am not a physicist. What I have written is > >> more like a hobby. > >> > >> Hobbyists follow other rules than professional researchers. > >> > >> Professional must do, what the job requires, while hobbyists can do what > >> they like. > >> > > > > This is true. You should do what you like as a hobby. If that means > > investigating water dowsing or ouija boards, go for it. > > > > But I think you should also be a little honest with yourself about the > > likelihood to "achieve something in theoretical physics" and that being > > "more like a hobby". Don't you think it's pretty unlikely for a hobbyist > > to achieve anything notable in theoretical physics? > > > > No, because the real physicists are kind of stuck in the middle between > commercial and and political interests. > > The entire terrain is full of land mines, fences and signs saying: keep > away. > > But you cannot create any progress, if certain subjects are forbidden. > > Since hobbyists don't know such rules, they can do, whatever they find > appropriate. (But only they can.) > > I'm actually an engineer, but have some knowledge in adjacent fields: > (Organic) chemistry, mathematics, electronics, thermodynamics and a few > other. > > Organic chemistry is in my eyes a good foundation, since this is > relatively close to Quantum mechanics and based on experiments, (similar > electronics). And both I have done since school. > > I was also quite good in mathematics and once won a (small) price. > > And engineers study stuff as well, that is related to physics. > > > TH I was just thinking to myself why it is, the path I traveled and how I became a hobbyist of physics? The answer here is simple. I loved physics so much that I didn't want it to be as much a "container of information" but more as a discovery to be made. I want to discover as I age- I don't want to learn everything right away and spend the rest of my life judging.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-19 15:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <05da68e6-b7e6-4f53-a2b2-53b2b7b14268@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372412 |
On Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 5:00:48 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote: > On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 10:17:19 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 17.12.2015 22:35, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > > > > >>>> Further I would like to mention, that I had developed that 'next big > > >>>> thing' already. > > >>> > > >>> This would be your choice, but I think it also points out the difference > > >>> in motivation between you and physicists. A physicist chooses subjects > > >>> to research based on where he thinks there is the greatest likelihood of > > >>> increase in verifiable knowledge, not on the basis of attention and > > >>> fame. > > >>> > > >> > > >> This is kind of true, but I am not a physicist. What I have written is > > >> more like a hobby. > > >> > > >> Hobbyists follow other rules than professional researchers. > > >> > > >> Professional must do, what the job requires, while hobbyists can do what > > >> they like. > > >> > > > > > > This is true. You should do what you like as a hobby. If that means > > > investigating water dowsing or ouija boards, go for it. > > > > > > But I think you should also be a little honest with yourself about the > > > likelihood to "achieve something in theoretical physics" and that being > > > "more like a hobby". Don't you think it's pretty unlikely for a hobbyist > > > to achieve anything notable in theoretical physics? > > > > > > > No, because the real physicists are kind of stuck in the middle between > > commercial and and political interests. > > > > The entire terrain is full of land mines, fences and signs saying: keep > > away. > > > > But you cannot create any progress, if certain subjects are forbidden. > > > > Since hobbyists don't know such rules, they can do, whatever they find > > appropriate. (But only they can.) > > > > I'm actually an engineer, but have some knowledge in adjacent fields: > > (Organic) chemistry, mathematics, electronics, thermodynamics and a few > > other. > > > > Organic chemistry is in my eyes a good foundation, since this is > > relatively close to Quantum mechanics and based on experiments, (similar > > electronics). And both I have done since school. > > > > I was also quite good in mathematics and once won a (small) price. > > > > And engineers study stuff as well, that is related to physics. > > > > > > TH > > I was just thinking to myself why it is, the path I traveled and how I became a hobbyist of physics? The answer here is simple. I loved physics so much that I didn't want it to be as much a "container of information" but more as a discovery to be made. I want to discover as I age- I don't want to learn everything right away and spend the rest of my life judging. I guess this makes me lazy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-19 16:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bd7f7527-336c-4d8c-8f64-ff481bbe354c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372413 |
On Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 5:06:01 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote: > On Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 5:00:48 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote: > > On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 10:17:19 PM UTC-6, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > Am 17.12.2015 22:35, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > > > > > > >>>> Further I would like to mention, that I had developed that 'next big > > > >>>> thing' already. > > > >>> > > > >>> This would be your choice, but I think it also points out the difference > > > >>> in motivation between you and physicists. A physicist chooses subjects > > > >>> to research based on where he thinks there is the greatest likelihood of > > > >>> increase in verifiable knowledge, not on the basis of attention and > > > >>> fame. > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> This is kind of true, but I am not a physicist. What I have written is > > > >> more like a hobby. > > > >> > > > >> Hobbyists follow other rules than professional researchers. > > > >> > > > >> Professional must do, what the job requires, while hobbyists can do what > > > >> they like. > > > >> > > > > > > > > This is true. You should do what you like as a hobby. If that means > > > > investigating water dowsing or ouija boards, go for it. > > > > > > > > But I think you should also be a little honest with yourself about the > > > > likelihood to "achieve something in theoretical physics" and that being > > > > "more like a hobby". Don't you think it's pretty unlikely for a hobbyist > > > > to achieve anything notable in theoretical physics? > > > > > > > > > > No, because the real physicists are kind of stuck in the middle between > > > commercial and and political interests. > > > > > > The entire terrain is full of land mines, fences and signs saying: keep > > > away. > > > > > > But you cannot create any progress, if certain subjects are forbidden. > > > > > > Since hobbyists don't know such rules, they can do, whatever they find > > > appropriate. (But only they can.) > > > > > > I'm actually an engineer, but have some knowledge in adjacent fields: > > > (Organic) chemistry, mathematics, electronics, thermodynamics and a few > > > other. > > > > > > Organic chemistry is in my eyes a good foundation, since this is > > > relatively close to Quantum mechanics and based on experiments, (similar > > > electronics). And both I have done since school. > > > > > > I was also quite good in mathematics and once won a (small) price. > > > > > > And engineers study stuff as well, that is related to physics. > > > > > > > > > TH > > > > I was just thinking to myself why it is, the path I traveled and how I became a hobbyist of physics? The answer here is simple. I loved physics so much that I didn't want it to be as much a "container of information" but more as a discovery to be made. I want to discover as I age- I don't want to learn everything right away and spend the rest of my life judging. > > I guess this makes me lazy. But, in reality, I don't think you will know the meaning of James Joyce's Ulysses at age 20. There is a natural progression as one ages. Certain concepts become more important than others as we age, though we take these fundamental problems on as young men.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 10:58 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nsSdnWT64qy-punLnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #372131 |
On 12/16/15 12/16/15 - 1:38 AM, benj wrote: > Where does the future of physics lie? With people who actually STUDY physics. Not with fools like you who attempt to write about subjects they clearly do not understand. > So, you want to be the next "Einstein" developing the next big thing in physics. > Where you do investigate? Spend a lot of tax money to smash things together and > then name all the pieces? Pretty much like studying architecture by grinding up > bricks and studying the dust under a microscope. No. A proper analogy would be studying dust by grinding up bricks. FYI the structure of dust is VERY different from "architecture", but can be just as interesting.... If instead of "dust" one studies atoms and subatomic particles, the study becomes fundamental, as everything is made up of atoms and subatomic particles. Your attempted analogy does not really apply. When you pontificate like this on subjects you know nothing about, you merely display your personal ignorance. > Well, if you look on the INTERNET, it's pretty clear that most current efforts > are all along the lines of word games, proving Relativity "wrong" and obscure > mathematical complexity. Well, if I look at this statement, it's pretty clear that you don't know how to use the internet. You merely describe fools and idiots, like those who mostly populate this newsgroup, and those who put up websites that masquerade as science but promulgate nonsense. Yes, that is useless, and not written by scientists -- your "most current efforts" is napplicable, because you are not looking at physics. Around here at Fermilab we use the internet to significantly improve our productivity, as do virtually all scientists today. It has become an ENORMOUS help in discovering papers of interest and then getting them, as well as greatly improving our efficiency in looking up facts (e.g. material properties). Plus meetings and other modes of communication.... It takes a certain "maturity" to be able to distinguish sense from nonsense, and you have not even approached the threshold. The only reliable way I know for newbies and amateurs to do this is that fools, idiots, and poseurs do not reference textbooks, while knowledgeable people often do. For SR I recommend: Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_. For GR I recommend: Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, _Gravitation_. Of course the traditional way to achieve such "maturity" is to take courses at a university.... > In a way it's just an imitation of Einstein who everyone imagines [...] I'll stop here. Your "everyone" consists of PEOPLE LIKE YOU, and not real scientists. The result is that your writings are just complete nonsense. So there's no point in my continuing. You seem to be saying that physics needs a revolution -- new ideas outside the current theories. There is more than just a grain of truth in that. But let me point out that in the history of physics nobody has ever made a significant contribution who was not familiar with the then-current experiments and theories. So anybody who actually wants to contribute to physics should be STUDYING the current theories and experiments; you yourself are an INCREDIBLY POOR example, as are your suggestions. Your comments on "remote viewing", ESP, and PK show that YOU are "so lazy" that you have not actually studied them. And you left out Velikovsky (and many others). I HAVE spent enough time studying these subjects that I KNOW they do not stand up to basic tests for FRAUD. It's about REPRODUCIBILITY, and none of those phenomena are reproducible at all -- that's why they are not subjects of scientific research, not who might have said they are unworthy. So it's clear to me that YOU "are NEVER going to amount to diddly shit in science". Later on you say: > If you use hoaxes to choose, then you will not choose wisely either. So why do you mention "remote viewing, ESP, and PK"?? Because they ARE hoaxes. And: > Velikovsky merely suggested that one might find something of value in the examination of old myths. No, Velikovsky went far beyond such a "suggestion", and wrote FRAUDULENT books that claimed to show correspondence between those myths and the history of the solar system. In grad school (~ 1973) I was amazed by his _Worlds_In_Collision_; my advisor was highly skeptical. I decided to spend one Saturday in the physics library checking his references. NOT A SINGLE ONE CHECKED OUT, and I gave up before noon. Years later I learned that Carl Sagan had done the same thing in an astronomy library, with the same result. From your writings, it is QUITE CLEAR that YOU have not "Got it". Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ezra Farrow <ezrafa@dubtechno.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 18:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n51hoi$1n5$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372317 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > If instead of "dust" one studies atoms and subatomic particles, the > study becomes fundamental, as everything is made up of atoms and > subatomic particles. Good you brought it in the front. Exactly how deep you can go into the sizes in Physics. About 10⁻²⁰ times the size of a proton? I mean, the size of an atom is about 0.1nm, hence the size of the nucleus e3 times smaller ie 0.1pm. Disregard the number of protons/neutrons? You caNT be serious. Lower than this you cant measure anything. Consequently this is my limit, 0.1 picometres. Below this limit nothing makes sense. Is a quark the size of a proton? Stupid question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 13:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <VbGdnbfYlMZExunLnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #372321 |
On 12/18/15 12/18/15 - 12:02 PM, Ezra Farrow wrote: > Exactly how deep you can go into the > sizes in Physics. About 10⁻²⁰ times the size of a proton? No. The LHC can study phenomena at the scale ~ 10^-20 meters, or about 10^-5 the radius of a proton. > I mean, the size > of an atom is about 0.1nm, hence the size of the nucleus e3 times smaller > ie 0.1pm. You got it wrong -- the nucleus is about 10^5 times smaller than the size of an atom. The radius of a proton is about 1.3 femtometer, and a nucleus with A nucleons has a radius about A^(1/3) larger. > Disregard the number of protons/neutrons? You caNT be serious. > Lower than this you cant measure anything. Consequently this is my limit, > 0.1 picometres. Below this limit nothing makes sense. Your "limit" is wrong (see above). We _ARE_ probing length scales much smaller than that, and see no reason why future accelerators could not probe length scales smaller than 10^-20 meters. > Is a quark the size > of a proton? Stupid question. While not completely "stupid", it is not easy to discuss "size" of quantum objects. At present there is no evidence for substructure in either quarks or leptons. Our best model, the standard model, considers quarks and leptons to be fundamental, pointlike objects with 0 radius. Its accuracy is evidence of the validity of that assumption. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ezra Farrow <ezrafa@dubtechno.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 22:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n51vnp$3n7$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372324 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > On 12/18/15 12/18/15 - 12:02 PM, Ezra Farrow wrote: >> Exactly how deep you can go into the sizes in Physics. About 10⁻²⁰ >> times the size of a proton? > > No. The LHC can study phenomena at the scale ~ 10^-20 meters, or about > 10^-5 the radius of a proton. But this is 10¹⁵ larger than the Plank distance. That's the point. They never go down to that resolution. What is bellow Plank distance, pure discretization of the continuum? >> I mean, the size of an atom is about 0.1nm, hence the size of the >> nucleus e3 times smaller ie 0.1pm. > > You got it wrong -- the nucleus is about 10^5 times smaller than the That's not much wrong 100 times is nothing in that region, because no meter stick can measure it accurately. Those are merely probabilities, I guess. Saying that the nucleus is 1E5 times smaller does not solve anything, since the electrons cloud is a soft Probabilistic blurred domain, which inflates and deflate (periodically?) You can say for certain that 1E5 times smaller. Can you? To me 1fm is utopia. > size of an atom. The radius of a proton is about 1.3 femtometer, and a > nucleus with A nucleons has a radius about A^(1/3) larger. Thanks. Good to know. > Your "limit" is wrong (see above). We _ARE_ probing length scales much > smaller than that, and see no reason why future accelerators could not > probe length scales smaller than 10^-20 meters. I am not questioning that, but the derivation of the size, may be deceptive. What infact they see at the large hadrons are Pixels in display say Full-HD (1920x1080) of 4k (3840x2160) which is not much. The measurements are more than likely Derivations, not direct. >> Is a quark the size of a proton? Stupid question. > > While not completely "stupid", it is not easy to discuss "size" of > quantum objects. Absolutely, I already implied that. The best "direct" measurement of the sizes of particles supposes Correlation of Laser Scattering. (wavelengths region particles).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 18:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <74c884e1-b82d-4448-bc9a-0d18a2e053ba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372333 |
On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 2:01:35 PM UTC-8, Ezra Farrow wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > On 12/18/15 12/18/15 - 12:02 PM, Ezra Farrow wrote:
> >> Exactly how deep you can go into the sizes in Physics. About 10⁻²⁰
> >> times the size of a proton?
> >
> > No. The LHC can study phenomena at the scale ~ 10^-20 meters, or about
> > 10^-5 the radius of a proton.
>
> But this is 10¹⁵ larger than the Plank distance. That's the point. They
> never go down to that resolution. What is bellow Plank distance, pure
> discretization of the continuum?
>
> >> I mean, the size of an atom is about 0.1nm, hence the size of the
> >> nucleus e3 times smaller ie 0.1pm.
> >
> > You got it wrong -- the nucleus is about 10^5 times smaller than the
>
> That's not much wrong 100 times is nothing in that region, because no
> meter stick can measure it accurately. Those are merely probabilities, I
> guess. Saying that the nucleus is 1E5 times smaller does not solve
> anything, since the electrons cloud is a soft Probabilistic blurred
> domain, which inflates and deflate (periodically?)
>
> You can say for certain that 1E5 times smaller. Can you? To me 1fm is
> utopia.
>
> > size of an atom. The radius of a proton is about 1.3 femtometer, and a
> > nucleus with A nucleons has a radius about A^(1/3) larger.
>
> Thanks. Good to know.
>
> > Your "limit" is wrong (see above). We _ARE_ probing length scales much
> > smaller than that, and see no reason why future accelerators could not
> > probe length scales smaller than 10^-20 meters.
>
> I am not questioning that, but the derivation of the size, may be
> deceptive. What infact they see at the large hadrons are Pixels in display
> say Full-HD (1920x1080) of 4k (3840x2160) which is not much. The
> measurements are more than likely Derivations, not direct.
>
> >> Is a quark the size of a proton? Stupid question.
> >
> > While not completely "stupid", it is not easy to discuss "size" of
> > quantum objects.
>
> Absolutely, I already implied that. The best "direct" measurement of the
> sizes of particles supposes Correlation of Laser Scattering. (wavelengths
> region particles).
There is either "no shortest distance" (Planck length)
or "no straight lines" (because connecting corners of
a Planck length square would be square root of two,
not an integer multiple of Planck length).
Then it is so that Planck's "big C / little c" (not
light speed's constant c, but Planck's length constant
c) is about the "running constants and C = oo ("infinity")
and c = 1/oo ("infinitesimal").
Then it seems a "discretization of the continuum" is
very much what it is there, where talking about strings
as evenly distributed in a regular space, are as much
smaller as atoms than atoms are of us (10^-25, to 10^-50).
That is effectively fine-grained as to be continuous in
terms of what finite scalar they would be, but another
way to look at these atomic particles and superstrings
is as they are points, discretized, of the substrate of
the continuous medium, atoms as occupied by matter and
superstrings then as occupied by space.
It seems a re-think of what particles are is casting them
as to their detection from their uniform continuous media.
Then, the effects of measurement and observation discretized
elements is as of sampling and counting real numbers from
the continuum, where, it's possible to consider that there
are some effects in the numbers themselves, that "discretizing"
or fully identifying a point on the line, draws it up variously
in different configurations of the address (of the collinear
elements, the intersections, instead of coordinate elements,
the abscissae). Then, there's an idea that measurement and
observer effects do arise in the poly- and pan-dimensional
configuration of experiment (where there are only three space
dimensions and one time ray, but, but infinite degrees of
freedom, of inputs to parallel transport and the polydimensional
perspective, eg as of Pezzaglia).
Then it is to be added up what these are to explain with new
foundations for mathematics with augmented definitions of
continuity and making discrete, points of the mathematical
edifice for mathematical physics to use.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ezra Farrow <ezrafa@dubtechno.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-19 11:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n53e48$6u2$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372338 |
Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 2:01:35 PM UTC-8, Ezra Farrow wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>
>> > On 12/18/15 12/18/15 - 12:02 PM, Ezra Farrow wrote:
>> >> Exactly how deep you can go into the sizes in Physics. About 10⁻²⁰
>> >> times the size of a proton?
>> >
>> > No. The LHC can study phenomena at the scale ~ 10^-20 meters, or
>> > about 10^-5 the radius of a proton.
>>
>> But this is 10¹⁵ larger than the Plank distance. That's the point. They
>> never go down to that resolution. What is bellow Plank distance, pure
>> discretization of the continuum?
>>
>> >> I mean, the size of an atom is about 0.1nm, hence the size of the
>> >> nucleus e3 times smaller ie 0.1pm.
>> >
>> > You got it wrong -- the nucleus is about 10^5 times smaller than the
>>
>> That's not much wrong 100 times is nothing in that region, because no
>> meter stick can measure it accurately. Those are merely probabilities,
>> I guess. Saying that the nucleus is 1E5 times smaller does not solve
>> anything, since the electrons cloud is a soft Probabilistic blurred
>> domain, which inflates and deflate (periodically?)
>>
>> You can say for certain that 1E5 times smaller. Can you? To me 1fm is
>> utopia.
>>
>> > size of an atom. The radius of a proton is about 1.3 femtometer, and
>> > a nucleus with A nucleons has a radius about A^(1/3) larger.
>>
>> Thanks. Good to know.
>>
>> > Your "limit" is wrong (see above). We _ARE_ probing length scales
>> > much smaller than that, and see no reason why future accelerators
>> > could not probe length scales smaller than 10^-20 meters.
>>
>> I am not questioning that, but the derivation of the size, may be
>> deceptive. What infact they see at the large hadrons are Pixels in
>> display say Full-HD (1920x1080) of 4k (3840x2160) which is not much.
>> The measurements are more than likely Derivations, not direct.
>>
>> >> Is a quark the size of a proton? Stupid question.
>> >
>> > While not completely "stupid", it is not easy to discuss "size" of
>> > quantum objects.
>>
>> Absolutely, I already implied that. The best "direct" measurement of
>> the sizes of particles supposes Correlation of Laser Scattering.
>> (wavelengths region particles).
>
> There is either "no shortest distance" (Planck length) or "no straight
> lines" (because connecting corners of a Planck length square would be
> square root of two, not an integer multiple of Planck length).
Interesting aspect, you must be professional. Of course in that region
straight lines are nonsense, since those lengths are rather small spheres
than lengths of metersticks. Interesting enough, logically, at that scale,
1D goes into 3D. In steps of 2. Very funny indeed.
> Then it is so that Planck's "big C / little c" (not light speed's
> constant c, but Planck's length constant c) is about the "running
> constants and C = oo ("infinity") and c = 1/oo ("infinitesimal").
No. That's the point in my little treatise, that there is a Natural limit
to Sizes or Volumes. And according to me, that limit is at the size of the
Nucleus in an atom. Essentially you can't go lower than that, because the
Probabilities at that scale takes over. This is merely imposed by the
"duality" of electron going into Electron Cloud.
Yes, there are electron microscopes, but those just uses shorter
wavelength. However, shorter wavelengths goes into particle behavioural,
hence it gets into Particle Collision again, rather than length
measurements. Good post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-19 09:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <866d3b0f-dd04-4e27-91f6-4c189d03c391@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #372358 |
On Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 3:13:17 AM UTC-8, Ezra Farrow wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>
> > On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 2:01:35 PM UTC-8, Ezra Farrow wrote:
> >> Tom Roberts wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 12/18/15 12/18/15 - 12:02 PM, Ezra Farrow wrote:
> >> >> Exactly how deep you can go into the sizes in Physics. About 10⁻²⁰
> >> >> times the size of a proton?
> >> >
> >> > No. The LHC can study phenomena at the scale ~ 10^-20 meters, or
> >> > about 10^-5 the radius of a proton.
> >>
> >> But this is 10¹⁵ larger than the Plank distance. That's the point. They
> >> never go down to that resolution. What is bellow Plank distance, pure
> >> discretization of the continuum?
> >>
> >> >> I mean, the size of an atom is about 0.1nm, hence the size of the
> >> >> nucleus e3 times smaller ie 0.1pm.
> >> >
> >> > You got it wrong -- the nucleus is about 10^5 times smaller than the
> >>
> >> That's not much wrong 100 times is nothing in that region, because no
> >> meter stick can measure it accurately. Those are merely probabilities,
> >> I guess. Saying that the nucleus is 1E5 times smaller does not solve
> >> anything, since the electrons cloud is a soft Probabilistic blurred
> >> domain, which inflates and deflate (periodically?)
> >>
> >> You can say for certain that 1E5 times smaller. Can you? To me 1fm is
> >> utopia.
> >>
> >> > size of an atom. The radius of a proton is about 1.3 femtometer, and
> >> > a nucleus with A nucleons has a radius about A^(1/3) larger.
> >>
> >> Thanks. Good to know.
> >>
> >> > Your "limit" is wrong (see above). We _ARE_ probing length scales
> >> > much smaller than that, and see no reason why future accelerators
> >> > could not probe length scales smaller than 10^-20 meters.
> >>
> >> I am not questioning that, but the derivation of the size, may be
> >> deceptive. What infact they see at the large hadrons are Pixels in
> >> display say Full-HD (1920x1080) of 4k (3840x2160) which is not much.
> >> The measurements are more than likely Derivations, not direct.
> >>
> >> >> Is a quark the size of a proton? Stupid question.
> >> >
> >> > While not completely "stupid", it is not easy to discuss "size" of
> >> > quantum objects.
> >>
> >> Absolutely, I already implied that. The best "direct" measurement of
> >> the sizes of particles supposes Correlation of Laser Scattering.
> >> (wavelengths region particles).
> >
> > There is either "no shortest distance" (Planck length) or "no straight
> > lines" (because connecting corners of a Planck length square would be
> > square root of two, not an integer multiple of Planck length).
>
> Interesting aspect, you must be professional. Of course in that region
> straight lines are nonsense, since those lengths are rather small spheres
> than lengths of metersticks. Interesting enough, logically, at that scale,
> 1D goes into 3D. In steps of 2. Very funny indeed.
>
> > Then it is so that Planck's "big C / little c" (not light speed's
> > constant c, but Planck's length constant c) is about the "running
> > constants and C = oo ("infinity") and c = 1/oo ("infinitesimal").
>
> No. That's the point in my little treatise, that there is a Natural limit
> to Sizes or Volumes. And according to me, that limit is at the size of the
> Nucleus in an atom. Essentially you can't go lower than that, because the
> Probabilities at that scale takes over. This is merely imposed by the
> "duality" of electron going into Electron Cloud.
>
> Yes, there are electron microscopes, but those just uses shorter
> wavelength. However, shorter wavelengths goes into particle behavioural,
> hence it gets into Particle Collision again, rather than length
> measurements. Good post.
"Atoms" are in a sense the smallest particles already,
with even protons and neutrons and electrons as "virtual"
or "ghost", already.
The quarks don't exist except as together, they reflect a
crevice for an electron or other leptons to bounce around
inside a proton and escape. Quarks never exit the collision,
with electrons slammed into protons bouncing out, and protons
into proton bouncing off. Protons are not "rendered asunder" and
quarks with the "asymptotic freedom" of their strong nuclear force
basically see them as floating together, free at their interface where
a gluon is the label of the description of the force in the field holding
them together, again, "not another particle". There are simply "not
more particles". The reason "why" there are quarks is to explain
deflection and offset in terms of momentum and inertia, classically
conserved quantities (that are absolutely conserved).
So, there are quarks, about quantum chromodynamics, or in that theory,
there are more of them all the way down about the colour force or colour
charge in technicolour. Here we would usually use the American spelling
"color" but it's "chromodynamic", instead of "chromatic" (for "Any colour
you like"). Then, why there are 2, or maybe 3, quarks in the linear particle
collision models, is because the configuration is linear, so the "asymptotic
free-floating interface" between the "points of the proton as point" (with
electron as flux about 2^11 less) is lined up there where having the particles
coming in from many points at once (in 3-D, neatly) could have 4, 5, 6 or
otherwise as of the classical regular polytopes the "free-floating interface"
why the sub-atomic structure ("as" particles, but they're not concrete particles
instead virtual or ghost).
The "Particle Zoo" with quantum "field" theories having their "particles",
is a neatness in organization of scale, configuration, and effect, if not so
apt in terms of metaphor that fails as the descriptive. I will much recommend
a chapter from PCW Davies "God and the new physics" the chapter "The
fundamental structure of matter". (It's neatly scientific and accommodative
of sensitivity of belief, both.)
(And for God's sake use the Oxford comma, support its maintenance, and
reject its omission.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 22:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <C54dy.3971$Gc6.3961@fx08.iad> |
| In reply to | #372317 |
On 12/18/2015 11:58 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 12/16/15 12/16/15 - 1:38 AM, benj wrote:
>> Where does the future of physics lie?
>
> With people who actually STUDY physics. Not with fools like you who
> attempt to write about subjects they clearly do not understand.
Uh oh! Here's another one with "superpowers"!
>> So, you want to be the next "Einstein" developing the next big thing
>> in physics.
>> Where you do investigate? Spend a lot of tax money to smash things
>> together and
>> then name all the pieces? Pretty much like studying architecture by
>> grinding up
>> bricks and studying the dust under a microscope.
> No. A proper analogy would be studying dust by grinding up bricks. FYI
> the structure of dust is VERY different from "architecture", but can be
> just as interesting....
So study dust. But please keep your "cosmology" that you invented as a
result to yourself. The dust is not the same as the "big picture".
> If instead of "dust" one studies atoms and subatomic particles, the
> study becomes fundamental, as everything is made up of atoms and
> subatomic particles.
Anybody here (without superpowers) know what the actual structure of an
atom is? Didn't think so. Better look at some more brick dust!
> Your attempted analogy does not really apply. When you pontificate like
> this on subjects you know nothing about, you merely display your
> personal ignorance.
And the way you know I know nothing is? Oh that's right. Superpowers!
>> Well, if you look on the INTERNET, it's pretty clear that most current
>> efforts
>> are all along the lines of word games, proving Relativity "wrong" and
>> obscure
>> mathematical complexity.
>
> Well, if I look at this statement, it's pretty clear that you don't know
> how to use the internet. You merely describe fools and idiots, like
> those who mostly populate this newsgroup, and those who put up websites
> that masquerade as science but promulgate nonsense. Yes, that is
> useless, and not written by scientists -- your "most current efforts" is
> napplicable, because you are not looking at physics.
Sonny, I was on the INTERNET BEFORE it was the INTERENT. However, your
description of posting denizens here is correct. You don't count the
lurkers though. Use your superpowers to get a list of scientist lurkers.
Obviously you are a lurker. Hence I'm speaking to YOU!
> Around here at Fermilab we use the internet to significantly improve our
> productivity, as do virtually all scientists today. It has become an
> ENORMOUS help in discovering papers of interest and then getting them,
> as well as greatly improving our efficiency in looking up facts (e.g.
> material properties). Plus meetings and other modes of communication....
Internet as superphone? Whoda thunk it? And of course it helps a lot
when you have taxpayers (me) forking over all the fees needed to
actually see papers on the Internet. However, the days of Usenet as
intelligent conversations on science are pretty much gone. And forums
are all so controlled any new ideas are censored out. So just WHERE do
you go to "discover" new papers? What you are saying is you've all
turned the internet into a private network through use of fees and that
means that you keep all new ideas OUT! Which is exactly the OPPOSITE to
the point I was making as to where progress is located.
> It takes a certain "maturity" to be able to distinguish sense
> from nonsense, and you have not even approached the threshold.
> The only reliable way I know for newbies and amateurs to do
> this is that fools, idiots, and poseurs do not reference
> textbooks, while knowledgeable people often do.
> For SR I recommend:
> Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_.
> For GR I recommend:
> Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, _Gravitation_.
>
> Of course the traditional way to achieve such "maturity" is to
> take courses at a university....
Glad to hear that in your opinion I'm both "traditional" and "mature"
having taken some courses at a university.
>> In a way it's just an imitation of Einstein who everyone imagines [...]
>
> I'll stop here. Your "everyone" consists of PEOPLE LIKE YOU, and not
> real scientists. The result is that your writings are just complete
> nonsense. So there's no point in my continuing.
That's funny I've got a business card that says "scientist" on it
printed by an organization probably running your lab! <snort>! Your
superpowers are failing you!
> You seem to be saying that physics needs a revolution -- new ideas
> outside the current theories. There is more than just a grain of truth
> in that. But let me point out that in the history of physics nobody has
> ever made a significant contribution who was not familiar with the
> then-current experiments and theories. So anybody who actually wants to
> contribute to physics should be STUDYING the current theories and
> experiments; you yourself are an INCREDIBLY POOR example, as are your
> suggestions.
And the way you know this is? Ah! Superpowers again! I'd love to see
just what your hero costume looks like! Does it have a cape? I hope so!
Whoosh was the sound of my comment to Boinker about standing on the
shoulders of giants going right over both your and his pointy little heads!
> Your comments on "remote viewing", ESP, and PK show that
> YOU are "so lazy" that you have not actually studied them.
> And you left out Velikovsky (and many others). I HAVE spent
> enough time studying these subjects that I KNOW they do not
> stand up to basic tests for FRAUD. It's about REPRODUCIBILITY,
> and none of those phenomena are reproducible at all -- that's
> why they are not subjects of scientific research, not who might
> have said they are unworthy. So it's clear to me that YOU "are
> NEVER going to amount to diddly shit in science".
>
> Later on you say:
>> If you use hoaxes to choose, then you will not choose wisely either.
>
> So why do you mention "remote viewing, ESP, and PK"?? Because they ARE
> hoaxes.
Obviously you haven't studied the data at all. You are the EXACT
"incredibly poor example" that you accuse me of being. To call these
things Hoaxes and try to pass that off as "learning" is incredibly
ignorant and is the EXACT reason I posted the original piece. It means
that YOU and people like you are the VERY reason that science is
stagnant. You refuse to actually examine any actual data because your
mind is already made up! Some science.
> And:
>> Velikovsky merely suggested that one might find something of value in
>> the examination of old myths.
>
> No, Velikovsky went far beyond such a "suggestion", and wrote FRAUDULENT
> books that claimed to show correspondence between those myths and the
> history of the solar system.
>
> In grad school (~ 1973) I was amazed by his _Worlds_In_Collision_;
> my advisor was highly skeptical. I decided to spend one Saturday
> in the physics library checking his references. NOT A SINGLE
> ONE CHECKED OUT, and I gave up before noon. Years later I
> learned that Carl Sagan had done the same thing in an astronomy
> library, with the same result.
Given the way his books seem to give everyone diarrhea in science, and
how hard you all work to "debunk" what was merely the idea that there
may be truth to ancient myth, he obviously was onto something. No need
for you and the late establishment mouthpiece Sagan to work so hard at
proving he wasn't an astronomer. He wasn't. Never said he was. What are
you guys trying to hide?
> From your writings, it is QUITE CLEAR that YOU have not "Got it".
Sure just join the crowd. I'm ignorant. I'm uneducated. I'm batshit
crazy. I'm a "conspiracy theorist". I'm afraid of mathematics. I'm a
Christian fundamentalists. I'm a kook. I'm a gunnutter. Did I forget
anything? Just use your superpowers to complete the list.
Oh wait. I actually AM a gunnut!
"There is an emotional prejudice behind the choice of 'the facts' the
scientist is willing to take seriously; a feeling that certain facts are
'good taste' and certain others are bad taste. Quite unconsciously he
has come to limit his interest to the kind of facts that fit into the
kind of jigsaw puzzle he is good at solving."
Colin Wilson
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-19 11:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <567536a3$0$23765$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #372340 |
On 12/19/2015 4:24 AM, benj wrote: > On 12/18/2015 11:58 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 12/16/15 12/16/15 - 1:38 AM, benj wrote: >>> Where does the future of physics lie? >> >> With people who actually STUDY physics. Not with fools like you who >> attempt to write about subjects they clearly do not understand. > > Uh oh! Here's another one with "superpowers"! They understand math, for instance. While you do not even allow it to be used . "Not even willing to look through the telescope," that's benj. As in Galileo's time ... >> No. A proper analogy would be studying dust by grinding up bricks. FYI >> the structure of dust is VERY different from "architecture", but can be >> just as interesting.... > > So study dust. But please keep your "cosmology" that you invented The people who "study dust" are the particle physicists. They are not the cosmologists who invented the Lambda-CDM cosmology (which is the model that prevails nowadays). I even think the particle physicists *never would have invented it* because it mainly consists *not* of known particles! They would not have included the CDM because they would have naturally assumed their own particle zoo to suffice. And they would not have included Lambda because that also looks like a fudge to fit things (but real cosmological observations require it nevertheless). > as a > result to yourself. The dust is not the same as the "big picture". The ingredients of (known) particle physics only make up 4% of it! But indeed it's mainly Lambda and for a large part CDM. So here you have a revolution already: the complete (for 96% at least) change of our notion of the contents of the cosmos would be spectacular enough to begin with, but the fact that the content not even consists of known matter goes further. And the reappearance of Einstein's earlier dismissed Lambda then completes the three-strikes picture, unless it is not completed yet of course! So these are two likely future advances: Either (1) Lambda-CDM is wrong, which can only be shown by future advances in comology (undoing a revolution!), or (2) Lambda-CDM is correct, which can only be shown by finding the CDM. .. > Anybody here (without superpowers) know what the actual > structure of an atom is? Since understanding things is derided by you as "having superpowers" and believing in fairy tales is all you want to do, the question answers itself. -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web