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 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 20:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <zUIcy.1988$Bz5.906@fx04.iad> |
| In reply to | #372244 |
On 12/17/2015 03:54 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 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?
Bwahahahaha! Since you were just born yesterday, I guess you haven't
had much time to study history both real and imagined.
>> 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.
Actually, I've never seen one.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 05:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ddhhj2Ffl56U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #372279 |
Am 18.12.2015 02:00, schrieb benj: > On 12/17/2015 03:54 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> 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? > > Bwahahahaha! Since you were just born yesterday, I guess you haven't had > much time to study history both real and imagined. > This is an assumption and it's wrong, since I have studied a lot of history. Most of my 'studies' are related to Nazi-Germany. I have actually my own special theory about this subject. So my guesses go like this: I found, that 'My Struggle' was written in English and translated into German by Rudolph Hess and Hitler in Landsberg. The person Hitler and the German Kanzler were actually two different people. One was a gay Austrian looser and the other actually a British spy. His real identity was Noel Trevenen Huxley (brother of Aldous Huxley), who was raised/trained in Bavaria in the house of Houston Steward Chamberlain (son in law of Richard Wagner). His spouse was the niece of Churchill and the granddaughter of Lord Redescale, who owned a goldmine in Canada (in the town 'Swastika'). The shares had also a Nazi-swastika as a logo (as early as before WWI) . The special salute of the Nazis stems actually from the Bellamy brothers, who were early American socialists. The 'Hitler youth' stems as carbon-copy from Baden-Powel's 'Boy Scouts'. Baden-Powel was member of the so called 'Milners kindergarden' in 2nd Boer war in South Africa (together with Churchill). And they invented so called 'concentration camps' (from what the German word 'Konzentrationslager' is derived). The 'Brown shirts' themselves resemble in a way those kaki uniforms, the Brits wore in that Boer war. The so called 'Hitler diaries' are actually scripts, that contain written instructions (hence had two seals) in the linguistic form 'I do ...', why they are mistaken for diaries. They were produced by the 'Tavistock Institute for Human relations' in London, which is a cover for MI6. The 'F.H.' on the books means actually 'Freud Hilton', what was the unofficial name for that institute in the 30th, since the director was Sigmund Freud, who tried to cure soldiers with 'shell shock'. and so forth... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 04:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <QyQcy.11812$Hz3.9621@fx43.iad> |
| In reply to | #372291 |
On 12/17/2015 11:49 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 18.12.2015 02:00, schrieb benj:
>> On 12/17/2015 03:54 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> Bwahahahaha! Since you were just born yesterday, I guess you haven't had
>> much time to study history both real and imagined.
>>
>
> This is an assumption and it's wrong, since I have studied a lot of
> history.
>
> Most of my 'studies' are related to Nazi-Germany.
>
> I have actually my own special theory about this subject. So my guesses
> go like this:
>
> I found, that 'My Struggle' was written in English and translated into
> German by Rudolph Hess and Hitler in Landsberg.
>
> The person Hitler and the German Kanzler were actually two different
> people. One was a gay Austrian looser and the other actually a British
> spy. His real identity was Noel Trevenen Huxley (brother of Aldous
> Huxley), who was raised/trained in Bavaria in the house of Houston
> Steward Chamberlain (son in law of Richard Wagner).
>
> His spouse was the niece of Churchill and the granddaughter of Lord
> Redescale, who owned a goldmine in Canada (in the town 'Swastika'). The
> shares had also a Nazi-swastika as a logo (as early as before WWI) .
>
> The special salute of the Nazis stems actually from the Bellamy
> brothers, who were early American socialists.
>
> The 'Hitler youth' stems as carbon-copy from Baden-Powel's 'Boy Scouts'.
>
> Baden-Powel was member of the so called 'Milners kindergarden' in 2nd
> Boer war in South Africa (together with Churchill). And they invented so
> called 'concentration camps' (from what the German word
> 'Konzentrationslager' is derived).
>
> The 'Brown shirts' themselves resemble in a way those kaki uniforms, the
> Brits wore in that Boer war.
>
> The so called 'Hitler diaries' are actually scripts, that contain
> written instructions (hence had two seals) in the linguistic form 'I do
> ...', why they are mistaken for diaries.
>
> They were produced by the 'Tavistock Institute for Human relations' in
> London, which is a cover for MI6. The 'F.H.' on the books means
> actually 'Freud Hilton', what was the unofficial name for that institute
> in the 30th, since the director was Sigmund Freud, who tried to cure
> soldiers with 'shell shock'.
>
> and so forth...
Wait a minute! Isn't writing things like this a serious crime in Euro
countries? I'm think I'm suppose to laugh now and ridicule your
"studies" as being "kook" conspiracy theories etc. to discourage you
(and anyone else) from pursuing them further. Obviously it's all
fabrications! This is almost as insane as the idea that American wealth
provided the resources needed to keep Hitler and WWII going.
PS. You need to dig deeper to discover who REALLY runs Tavistock and
what it's true purpose is.
And you wonder what "real" history means?
Say no more.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 20:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ddj4uoFsauaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #372294 |
Am 18.12.2015 10:43, schrieb benj: .. > > Wait a minute! Isn't writing things like this a serious crime in Euro > countries? I'm think I'm suppose to laugh now and ridicule your > "studies" as being "kook" conspiracy theories etc. to discourage you > (and anyone else) from pursuing them further. Obviously it's all > fabrications! This is almost as insane as the idea that American wealth > provided the resources needed to keep Hitler and WWII going. > In 'Euro countries' we still have constitutions (and occasionally recognise them as valid laws). The German constitution -for example- states, who releases laws about what is legal and what is illegal. The EU is not a nation, but kind of 'club of nations' and has no own legislative. This belongs to the nations (like in my case Germany). German laws forbid 'Holocaust denial' (for example). But in fact, that was not my plan. Actually have no reason to question Nazi crimes and do not want to deny anything. But I can question other things. Here the subject was, whether or not certain elitist groups from the English aristocracy are somehow involved in Naziism. And, sure, some have been involved. E.g. then king of England was a famous Nazi supporter (why he had to resign). Also Diana and Unity Midfort have been high in the British aristocracy. The idea of 'Mein Kampf' being a translation from English to German stems from a regular named 'Topaz' in 'alt.conspiracy', who often quotes 'My Struggle'. Since I speak (of course) German, I can read both (English and German version). It is immediately obvious, that the English version is written much better. The German version is a real pain to read and has this typical 'Hitler style'. And this can only be, if the German version is a translation from English. I can prove this on any given page (just say which page I shall take). > PS. You need to dig deeper to discover who REALLY runs Tavistock and > what it's true purpose is. > THIS is the million dollar question ... TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 22:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <6h4dy.3513$kN.343@fx11.iad> |
| In reply to | #372325 |
On 12/18/2015 02:26 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 18.12.2015 10:43, schrieb benj:
> ..
>>
>> Wait a minute! Isn't writing things like this a serious crime in Euro
>> countries? I'm think I'm suppose to laugh now and ridicule your
>> "studies" as being "kook" conspiracy theories etc. to discourage you
>> (and anyone else) from pursuing them further. Obviously it's all
>> fabrications! This is almost as insane as the idea that American wealth
>> provided the resources needed to keep Hitler and WWII going.
>>
>
> In 'Euro countries' we still have constitutions (and occasionally
> recognise them as valid laws).
>
> The German constitution -for example- states, who releases laws about
> what is legal and what is illegal.
>
> The EU is not a nation, but kind of 'club of nations' and has no own
> legislative. This belongs to the nations (like in my case Germany).
>
> German laws forbid 'Holocaust denial' (for example). But in fact, that
> was not my plan. Actually have no reason to question Nazi crimes and do
> not want to deny anything.
>
> But I can question other things. Here the subject was, whether or not
> certain elitist groups from the English aristocracy are somehow involved
> in Naziism.
Well, perhaps you need to look a bit closer. Germany is particularly
sensitive about the Nazi era (for understandable reasons) and there have
been bone-fide historians trying to research and write a history of that
era who have run afoul of bureaucratic excesses of the law also
obviously with no intention of denying anything.
> And, sure, some have been involved. E.g. then king of England was a
> famous Nazi supporter (why he had to resign).
>
> Also Diana and Unity Midfort have been high in the British aristocracy.
Not to mention the name change earlier to Windsor to hide the German blood.
> The idea of 'Mein Kampf' being a translation from English to German
> stems from a regular named 'Topaz' in 'alt.conspiracy', who often quotes
> 'My Struggle'.
>
> Since I speak (of course) German, I can read both (English and German
> version). It is immediately obvious, that the English version is written
> much better. The German version is a real pain to read and has this
> typical 'Hitler style'. And this can only be, if the German version is a
> translation from English.
This is a very interesting theory which I've never heard before,
although I must admit it makes perfect sense.
> I can prove this on any given page (just say which page I shall take).
>
>
>> PS. You need to dig deeper to discover who REALLY runs Tavistock and
>> what it's true purpose is.
>>
> THIS is the million dollar question ...
Yes it is.
Just need to dig down to the level of "real history"! :-)
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-19 05:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ddk62kF5g0rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #372341 |
Am 19.12.2015 04:36, schrieb benj: >> German laws forbid 'Holocaust denial' (for example). But in fact, that >> was not my plan. Actually have no reason to question Nazi crimes and do >> not want to deny anything. >> >> But I can question other things. Here the subject was, whether or not >> certain elitist groups from the English aristocracy are somehow involved >> in Naziism. > > Well, perhaps you need to look a bit closer. Germany is particularly > sensitive about the Nazi era (for understandable reasons) and there have > been bone-fide historians trying to research and write a history of that > era who have run afoul of bureaucratic excesses of the law also > obviously with no intention of denying anything. > >> And, sure, some have been involved. E.g. then king of England was a >> famous Nazi supporter (why he had to resign). >> >> Also Diana and Unity Midfort have been high in the British aristocracy. > > Not to mention the name change earlier to Windsor to hide the German blood. > >> The idea of 'Mein Kampf' being a translation from English to German >> stems from a regular named 'Topaz' in 'alt.conspiracy', who often quotes >> 'My Struggle'. >> >> Since I speak (of course) German, I can read both (English and German >> version). It is immediately obvious, that the English version is written >> much better. The German version is a real pain to read and has this >> typical 'Hitler style'. And this can only be, if the German version is a >> translation from English. > > This is a very interesting theory which I've never heard before, > although I must admit it makes perfect sense. The book 'Mein Kampf' is not absolutely, but almost, illegal in Germany. Also there is little reason to obtain and actually read this book, since - after all - the Germans are not particularly proud about the Nazis. And then: Germany was occupied by US, UK and USSR troops. They confiscated all available copies of Nazi-literature (several hundred titles) and among them (obviously) 'Mein Kampf'. So Germans could not read this book and actually didn't want. Other people could read this book, but not in German, since that language is spoken mainly in Germany, Austria and Swiss. So most readers read 'My Struggle' and had neither reason nor ability to read 'Mein Kampf'. And these readers had the impression of a well written book. German readers, on the other hand, had to fight with sleep, if they read more than a page. So it was at its time a typical coffee-table-book, which nobody really have read. But everybody had a copy and NEVER admitted, not to read it. And critique of any kind on this book could cause the secret police knock at your door, early in the morning. So this didn't happen. But the Brits made an extremely stupid mistake: the book had to be reversely translated from German to English again, before it could be published. The original version is 'toxic' in public hands. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-19 00:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tj6dy.4942$9A4.4186@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #372344 |
On 12/18/2015 11:51 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 19.12.2015 04:36, schrieb benj:
>
>>> German laws forbid 'Holocaust denial' (for example). But in fact, that
>>> was not my plan. Actually have no reason to question Nazi crimes and do
>>> not want to deny anything.
>>>
>>> But I can question other things. Here the subject was, whether or not
>>> certain elitist groups from the English aristocracy are somehow involved
>>> in Naziism.
>>
>> Well, perhaps you need to look a bit closer. Germany is particularly
>> sensitive about the Nazi era (for understandable reasons) and there have
>> been bone-fide historians trying to research and write a history of that
>> era who have run afoul of bureaucratic excesses of the law also
>> obviously with no intention of denying anything.
>>
>>> And, sure, some have been involved. E.g. then king of England was a
>>> famous Nazi supporter (why he had to resign).
>>>
>>> Also Diana and Unity Midfort have been high in the British aristocracy.
>>
>> Not to mention the name change earlier to Windsor to hide the German
>> blood.
>>
>>> The idea of 'Mein Kampf' being a translation from English to German
>>> stems from a regular named 'Topaz' in 'alt.conspiracy', who often quotes
>>> 'My Struggle'.
>>>
>>> Since I speak (of course) German, I can read both (English and German
>>> version). It is immediately obvious, that the English version is written
>>> much better. The German version is a real pain to read and has this
>>> typical 'Hitler style'. And this can only be, if the German version is a
>>> translation from English.
>>
>> This is a very interesting theory which I've never heard before,
>> although I must admit it makes perfect sense.
>
>
> The book 'Mein Kampf' is not absolutely, but almost, illegal in Germany.
>
> Also there is little reason to obtain and actually read this book, since
> - after all - the Germans are not particularly proud about the Nazis.
>
> And then: Germany was occupied by US, UK and USSR troops.
>
> They confiscated all available copies of Nazi-literature (several
> hundred titles) and among them (obviously) 'Mein Kampf'.
>
> So Germans could not read this book and actually didn't want.
>
> Other people could read this book, but not in German, since that
> language is spoken mainly in Germany, Austria and Swiss.
>
> So most readers read 'My Struggle' and had neither reason nor ability to
> read 'Mein Kampf'.
>
> And these readers had the impression of a well written book. German
> readers, on the other hand, had to fight with sleep, if they read more
> than a page.
>
> So it was at its time a typical coffee-table-book, which nobody really
> have read. But everybody had a copy and NEVER admitted, not to read it.
>
> And critique of any kind on this book could cause the secret police
> knock at your door, early in the morning. So this didn't happen.
>
> But the Brits made an extremely stupid mistake: the book had to be
> reversely translated from German to English again, before it could be
> published. The original version is 'toxic' in public hands.
Interesting. So the question is that if Hitler's German version was a
translation of an English original according to your assessment, and
then the Brits later created an "English version" by translating the
German back to English (and obviously creating a much inferior English
version, then does the original English version exist somewhere? Did it
appear simultaneous with Hitler's German version and copies are still
around, or was it more or less a secret source, with only the German
one's appearing and English only appearing later with the
back-translated ones? It would be a hoot to compare the original
English source (your theory) to the obviously inferior back translated
English late version.
Since I know no German I can't judge the English-German or
German-English translations as you have, but I could I believe easily
spot things going on comparing English-English versions where one had
been filtered through German and back again.
Lots of strange things are usually discovered to have gone on whenever
politics are involved.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-20 08:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ddn2a8FrdfkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #372346 |
Am 19.12.2015 06:55, schrieb benj:
>> So it was at its time a typical coffee-table-book, which nobody really
>> have read. But everybody had a copy and NEVER admitted, not to read it.
>>
>> And critique of any kind on this book could cause the secret police
>> knock at your door, early in the morning. So this didn't happen.
>>
>> But the Brits made an extremely stupid mistake: the book had to be
>> reversely translated from German to English again, before it could be
>> published. The original version is 'toxic' in public hands.
>
> Interesting. So the question is that if Hitler's German version was a
> translation of an English original according to your assessment, and
> then the Brits later created an "English version" by translating the
> German back to English (and obviously creating a much inferior English
> version, then does the original English version exist somewhere? Did it
> appear simultaneous with Hitler's German version and copies are still
> around, or was it more or less a secret source, with only the German
> one's appearing and English only appearing later with the
> back-translated ones? It would be a hoot to compare the original English
> source (your theory) to the obviously inferior back translated English
> late version.
>
> Since I know no German I can't judge the English-German or
> German-English translations as you have, but I could I believe easily
> spot things going on comparing English-English versions where one had
> been filtered through German and back again.
>
The book 'My Struggle' (by Adolf Hitler) was published in England
somewhere in the 1920th.
The book is quite long and contains some interesting philosophical and
political ideas, which require a certain degree of education to write
about them.
So: where had Hitler got this education from?
He was expelled from school, because he was too bad student for this
type of school ('Realgymnasium').
His schoolmate was the famous philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein and the
school one of those, that leads to 'Matura'. This is the same as German
'Abitur' and the highest level of school exit. It allows to go to
university.
The book 'Mein Kampf' contains longish passages about the problem, that
Hitler's father only allow him to go to 'Realschule', what is the medium
(of three) levels in *German* schools.
But in fact he went to the highest level (similar to German
'Gymnasium'), and several pages of this book are completely bogus.
But he was in reality quite a bad student, why he had to leave school.
Than he painted and lived in a homeless asylum in Vienna. Then there was
WWI and he got wounded ( at the eyes injured by gas). So he could not
read in hospital either.
So: where in this CV occurs higher education in politics, history and
philosophy?
Answer: nowhere.
The alleged author simply could not have written the book.
But who could?
Well: this is a difficult question, but I assume a connection to the so
called 'Apostles' of Cambridge.
Somewhere around this I would assume the real authors.
They had written this book. Possibly there was also a real (British)
Adolf Hitler, who had written the book (or at least helped). But this is
all speculation.
Then the book had to 'flip authorship', since the 'Fuehrer' needed some
sort of credibility (as 'leader') and this could be proven by such a book.
But this book also proves, what a poor writer he actually was, as far as
the German language is concerned.
So the assumption is: the book was originally written in English by an
unknown author and then translated into German by Hitler and Rudolph
Hess in their time in prison.
This prison sentence is also a completely bogus story, since never ever
prisoners where allowed to have typewriters and their own private
secretary.
He was convicted of High Treason and to have attempted to overthrow the
German government in a coup. Two years in prison, together with
typewriter and secretary, do not seem to be an extremely harsh
punishment for a revolt.
Anyhow: Hitler had, according to legends, dictated the book to Rudolph
Hess in his prison cell in Landsberg.
Since two years is a little to short time for that many pages, even for
a good writer (what he wasn't). But the German version has this typical
'Hitler style', hence he could have actually translated the book. Than
his secretary wrote this translation down, adjusted the German slightly
and typed that into his typewriter.
But in this scenario the Brits should never have released the English
version, since German readers could easily see, that the English version
was the source of the translation and not the German.
But this could only happen, if someone is able, has opportunity and will
to compare both version. This is not very likely, since the German
version is actually illegal and all available copies have been confiscated.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-20 02:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <QKsdy.8136$9A4.4402@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #372437 |
On 12/20/2015 02:05 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 19.12.2015 06:55, schrieb benj:
>
>>> So it was at its time a typical coffee-table-book, which nobody really
>>> have read. But everybody had a copy and NEVER admitted, not to read it.
>>>
>>> And critique of any kind on this book could cause the secret police
>>> knock at your door, early in the morning. So this didn't happen.
>>>
>>> But the Brits made an extremely stupid mistake: the book had to be
>>> reversely translated from German to English again, before it could be
>>> published. The original version is 'toxic' in public hands.
>>
>> Interesting. So the question is that if Hitler's German version was a
>> translation of an English original according to your assessment, and
>> then the Brits later created an "English version" by translating the
>> German back to English (and obviously creating a much inferior English
>> version, then does the original English version exist somewhere? Did it
>> appear simultaneous with Hitler's German version and copies are still
>> around, or was it more or less a secret source, with only the German
>> one's appearing and English only appearing later with the
>> back-translated ones? It would be a hoot to compare the original English
>> source (your theory) to the obviously inferior back translated English
>> late version.
>>
>> Since I know no German I can't judge the English-German or
>> German-English translations as you have, but I could I believe easily
>> spot things going on comparing English-English versions where one had
>> been filtered through German and back again.
>>
>
> The book 'My Struggle' (by Adolf Hitler) was published in England
> somewhere in the 1920th.
>
> The book is quite long and contains some interesting philosophical and
> political ideas, which require a certain degree of education to write
> about them.
>
> So: where had Hitler got this education from?
>
> He was expelled from school, because he was too bad student for this
> type of school ('Realgymnasium').
>
> His schoolmate was the famous philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein and the
> school one of those, that leads to 'Matura'. This is the same as German
> 'Abitur' and the highest level of school exit. It allows to go to
> university.
>
> The book 'Mein Kampf' contains longish passages about the problem, that
> Hitler's father only allow him to go to 'Realschule', what is the medium
> (of three) levels in *German* schools.
>
> But in fact he went to the highest level (similar to German
> 'Gymnasium'), and several pages of this book are completely bogus.
>
> But he was in reality quite a bad student, why he had to leave school.
>
> Than he painted and lived in a homeless asylum in Vienna. Then there was
> WWI and he got wounded ( at the eyes injured by gas). So he could not
> read in hospital either.
>
> So: where in this CV occurs higher education in politics, history and
> philosophy?
>
> Answer: nowhere.
>
> The alleged author simply could not have written the book.
>
> But who could?
>
> Well: this is a difficult question, but I assume a connection to the so
> called 'Apostles' of Cambridge.
>
> Somewhere around this I would assume the real authors.
>
> They had written this book. Possibly there was also a real (British)
> Adolf Hitler, who had written the book (or at least helped). But this is
> all speculation.
>
> Then the book had to 'flip authorship', since the 'Fuehrer' needed some
> sort of credibility (as 'leader') and this could be proven by such a book.
>
> But this book also proves, what a poor writer he actually was, as far as
> the German language is concerned.
>
> So the assumption is: the book was originally written in English by an
> unknown author and then translated into German by Hitler and Rudolph
> Hess in their time in prison.
>
> This prison sentence is also a completely bogus story, since never ever
> prisoners where allowed to have typewriters and their own private
> secretary.
>
> He was convicted of High Treason and to have attempted to overthrow the
> German government in a coup. Two years in prison, together with
> typewriter and secretary, do not seem to be an extremely harsh
> punishment for a revolt.
>
> Anyhow: Hitler had, according to legends, dictated the book to Rudolph
> Hess in his prison cell in Landsberg.
>
> Since two years is a little to short time for that many pages, even for
> a good writer (what he wasn't). But the German version has this typical
> 'Hitler style', hence he could have actually translated the book. Than
> his secretary wrote this translation down, adjusted the German slightly
> and typed that into his typewriter.
>
> But in this scenario the Brits should never have released the English
> version, since German readers could easily see, that the English version
> was the source of the translation and not the German.
>
> But this could only happen, if someone is able, has opportunity and will
> to compare both version. This is not very likely, since the German
> version is actually illegal and all available copies have been confiscated.
Although I am not especially familiar with these events, what you say
has a true ring to me. I say that because of similar oddities involving
the works of Karl Marx as another work that "justified" a large
political movement. One begins to suspect geopolitical manipulations of
hegemonies from behind the scenes.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-20 12:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ddngaaFaeaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #372439 |
Am 20.12.2015 08:26, schrieb benj:
..
>> Anyhow: Hitler had, according to legends, dictated the book to Rudolph
>> Hess in his prison cell in Landsberg.
>>
>> Since two years is a little to short time for that many pages, even for
>> a good writer (what he wasn't). But the German version has this typical
>> 'Hitler style', hence he could have actually translated the book. Than
>> his secretary wrote this translation down, adjusted the German slightly
>> and typed that into his typewriter.
>>
>> But in this scenario the Brits should never have released the English
>> version, since German readers could easily see, that the English version
>> was the source of the translation and not the German.
>>
>> But this could only happen, if someone is able, has opportunity and will
>> to compare both version. This is not very likely, since the German
>> version is actually illegal and all available copies have been
>> confiscated.
>
> Although I am not especially familiar with these events, what you say
> has a true ring to me. I say that because of similar oddities involving
> the works of Karl Marx as another work that "justified" a large
> political movement. One begins to suspect geopolitical manipulations of
> hegemonies from behind the scenes.
>
According to my 'theory', Hitler (from Austria) and Hitler (the
'Fuehrer') have been two different people.
So we have non-continuity of personal identity.
In other words: a spy used the real person Hitler as his own false
identity. The real Hitler was thrown into prison and the fake one was
released in exchange ('injured' by gas)
(Another author with similar ideas is Greg Hallett from New Zealand:
http://hallettreport.com/index.html)
The real identity of this spy was (in my opinion) Noel Treven Huxley
(brother of Julian and Aldous Huxley).
Julian Huxley was a famous promoter of Eugenics. He was grandson of
Thomas Huxley and that a key person in Darwinism.
Aldous Huxley wrote the famous 'Brave New World' (..order!).
So we have 'family business', since some key figures of Naziism have
similar roots.
Also the name 'Russel' repeatedly occurs in such circumstances. E.g.
Lord of Tavistock is a title held by a member of that family. Or the
Fabians like Bertrand Russel seem to be involved.
Other famous supporters of the Nazis was Prescott Bush, grandfather of
George W. Bush and father of George Bush (who announced the appearance
of a 'New World Order').
We have also Henry Ford as important supporter (who delivered truck and
tank motors to Germany - plus a few bucks).
He was also author of a Nazi-style pamphlet called 'The International Jew'.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-20 16:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ddo09kF4d2bU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #372444 |
Am 20.12.2015 12:04, schrieb Thomas Heger: >>> Anyhow: Hitler had, according to legends, dictated the book to Rudolph >>> Hess in his prison cell in Landsberg. >>> >>> Since two years is a little to short time for that many pages, even for >>> a good writer (what he wasn't). But the German version has this typical >>> 'Hitler style', hence he could have actually translated the book. Than >>> his secretary wrote this translation down, adjusted the German slightly >>> and typed that into his typewriter. >>> >>> But in this scenario the Brits should never have released the English >>> version, since German readers could easily see, that the English version >>> was the source of the translation and not the German. >>> >>> But this could only happen, if someone is able, has opportunity and will >>> to compare both version. This is not very likely, since the German >>> version is actually illegal and all available copies have been >>> confiscated. >> >> Although I am not especially familiar with these events, what you say >> has a true ring to me. I say that because of similar oddities involving >> the works of Karl Marx as another work that "justified" a large >> political movement. One begins to suspect geopolitical manipulations of >> hegemonies from behind the scenes. >> > > According to my 'theory', Hitler (from Austria) and Hitler (the > 'Fuehrer') have been two different people. > > So we have non-continuity of personal identity. > This photo was at the Odensplatz in Munich on 2dn of August 1914 http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_VtWIlclprYM/TF6E-VplhnI/AAAAAAAATek/bz9qg0Hkh_k/s400/1.jpg (from: http://www.tracesofevil.com/2008/01/munich-feldherrnhalle.html) and in comparison this picture: http://www.greatwar.nl/remarque/adolfhitler.jpg This photo was made in Munich on 26th of August 1914 The location and date are known, because it shows soldiers in the barracks, before they have been brought to the front. (Even if it is ascribed to Flanders and much later in war). This can be seen in pictures, where Hitler's comrades are cheering from a train in Munich (Hitler was not on the picture). But - obviously - his 'square moustache' could not have grown to that long tips in three weeks. So: different people! Also other bodily features do not fit at all: - protruding ears for example - or skinny appearance - different ear form - different head form .. The Austrian Hitler was gay, while the 'Fuehrer' had several girlfriends. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-21 01:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jpNdy.17615$m53.8793@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #372444 |
On 12/20/2015 06:04 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 20.12.2015 08:26, schrieb benj:
> ..
>>> Anyhow: Hitler had, according to legends, dictated the book to Rudolph
>>> Hess in his prison cell in Landsberg.
>>>
>>> Since two years is a little to short time for that many pages, even for
>>> a good writer (what he wasn't). But the German version has this typical
>>> 'Hitler style', hence he could have actually translated the book. Than
>>> his secretary wrote this translation down, adjusted the German slightly
>>> and typed that into his typewriter.
>>>
>>> But in this scenario the Brits should never have released the English
>>> version, since German readers could easily see, that the English version
>>> was the source of the translation and not the German.
>>>
>>> But this could only happen, if someone is able, has opportunity and will
>>> to compare both version. This is not very likely, since the German
>>> version is actually illegal and all available copies have been
>>> confiscated.
>>
>> Although I am not especially familiar with these events, what you say
>> has a true ring to me. I say that because of similar oddities involving
>> the works of Karl Marx as another work that "justified" a large
>> political movement. One begins to suspect geopolitical manipulations of
>> hegemonies from behind the scenes.
>>
>
> According to my 'theory', Hitler (from Austria) and Hitler (the
> 'Fuehrer') have been two different people.
>
> So we have non-continuity of personal identity.
>
> In other words: a spy used the real person Hitler as his own false
> identity. The real Hitler was thrown into prison and the fake one was
> released in exchange ('injured' by gas)
>
>
> (Another author with similar ideas is Greg Hallett from New Zealand:
> http://hallettreport.com/index.html)
>
> The real identity of this spy was (in my opinion) Noel Treven Huxley
> (brother of Julian and Aldous Huxley).
>
> Julian Huxley was a famous promoter of Eugenics. He was grandson of
> Thomas Huxley and that a key person in Darwinism.
>
> Aldous Huxley wrote the famous 'Brave New World' (..order!).
>
> So we have 'family business', since some key figures of Naziism have
> similar roots.
>
> Also the name 'Russel' repeatedly occurs in such circumstances. E.g.
> Lord of Tavistock is a title held by a member of that family. Or the
> Fabians like Bertrand Russel seem to be involved.
>
> Other famous supporters of the Nazis was Prescott Bush, grandfather of
> George W. Bush and father of George Bush (who announced the appearance
> of a 'New World Order').
>
> We have also Henry Ford as important supporter (who delivered truck and
> tank motors to Germany - plus a few bucks).
>
> He was also author of a Nazi-style pamphlet called 'The International Jew'.
>
> TH
If you'd like to poke your nose further into places it doesn't belong,
check out the books by Antony C. Sutton.
http://www.amazon.com/Antony-C.-Sutton/e/B001K1S1ZE
Much of it is there chapter and verse.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-22 05:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dds31gF5lvsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #372476 |
Am 21.12.2015 07:57, schrieb benj:
..
>> So we have 'family business', since some key figures of Naziism have
>> similar roots.
>>
>> Also the name 'Russel' repeatedly occurs in such circumstances. E.g.
>> Lord of Tavistock is a title held by a member of that family. Or the
>> Fabians like Bertrand Russel seem to be involved.
>>
>> Other famous supporters of the Nazis was Prescott Bush, grandfather of
>> George W. Bush and father of George Bush (who announced the appearance
>> of a 'New World Order').
>>
>> We have also Henry Ford as important supporter (who delivered truck and
>> tank motors to Germany - plus a few bucks).
>>
>> He was also author of a Nazi-style pamphlet called 'The International
>> Jew'.
>>
>> TH
>
> If you'd like to poke your nose further into places it doesn't belong,
> check out the books by Antony C. Sutton.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Antony-C.-Sutton/e/B001K1S1ZE
>
> Much of it is there chapter and verse.
Well, most of these books I have heard about.
But they are about the 'US-side', mainly. What about the British side?
I think, that Naziism stems mainly from England and is closely related
to socialism in the elitists fashion ('Fabians').
'Elitism' is apparently organised like (pseudo-) ethnicity and along
(alleged) 'races' (arians).
But this is an entirely bogus and unethical concept, since 'elite' is
meant as 'set of people, who did something best their realm'.
This 'best' you cannot inherit, hence a dynastic/ethnic 'elite' is a
bogus concept to begin with.
But Brits have such an 'elite', what they call 'aristocracy'. And no
other society in history had ever produced such an insane amount of
aristocrats as the society of the UK.
They really believe, they are better by birth and really deserve, what
in fact is stolen wealth.
And where can one steal from?
Well, main 'milk cows' are the middle class (aka 'capitalists'), since
capitalists base wealth on production of things and not on theft.
To justify the large scale suppression of the middle class, there was
'socialism' developed, what could be understood as war against the
'capitalists' (carried out by the elite, with the help of the masses).
And such 'handlers', sent out by the elite, were Hitler and Stalin, both
trained at the 'Tavistock Institute'. Also Mussolini belonged to these
people.
Saddam Hussein have most likely been installed by UK/US, too.
But there have been several others. E.g. Idi Amin of Uganda had also
suspiciously close ties to the Brits (in Kenya).
The interesting point is, that Russians behave, as if they want to break
free of this system. And I would say, they have good reason to do so
(like Germany has).
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-19 12:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <567538b8$0$23753$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #372344 |
On 12/19/2015 5:51 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: .. > Other people could read this book, but not in German, since that > language is spoken mainly in Germany, Austria and Swiss. So no-one else in the world understands German?! Ach so ja.. -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 09:11 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4uja8$6pg$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372204 |
On 12/16/2015 8:42 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > 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 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. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 22:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ddgma7F9gs0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #372221 |
Am 17.12.2015 16:11, schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> 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 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. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jürgen Großenbach <jurgengb@adenauer.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 21:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n4v860$obu$4@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372250 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > This is kind of true, but I am not a physicist. What I have written is > more like a hobby. Hobbyists follow other rules than professional > researchers. You mean they aint followin any. > Professional must do, what the job requires, while hobbyists can do what > they like. Nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 15:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4v9rn$tov$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372250 |
On 12/17/2015 3:04 PM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 17.12.2015 16:11, schrieb Odd Bodkin: > >>> 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 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? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 05:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ddhfmaFf8b3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #372254 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 07:45 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n512mj$qeq$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #372290 |
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. > > 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. > > 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 -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web