Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #372731 > unrolled thread

Re: Particles and Theory

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-25 09:41 +0100
    Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-25 05:48 -0600
      Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-25 20:38 +0100
        Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-12-25 20:29 -0600
          Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-26 03:50 +0100
        Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-26 03:31 +0100

#372731 — Re: Particles and Theory

Am 19.09.2015 07:16, schrieb Ned Latham:
> fuller.david@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> You should do some thinking about how to quote effectively.
> Your post is an abomination.
>
> ----snip----
>
>> The vacuum of Space time itself is the oscillator.
>
> And try to avoid using unsubstantiated hypotheses as fact.
>
Apparently you demand a proof for such a hypothesis.

To prove something is difficult in physics. But I like to assist by 
providing a more elaborate version:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6


TH

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#372738

Thomas Heger wrote:
> schrieb Ned Latham:
> > fuller.david@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > You should do some thinking about how to quote effectively.
> > Your post is an abomination.
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > The vacuum of Space time itself is the oscillator.
> >
> > And try to avoid using unsubstantiated hypotheses as fact.
>
> Apparently you demand a proof for such a hypothesis.

No. In my lexicon, hypotheses and theories are called that because
they're unproven, and the difference between them is simply that a
theory is a testable hypothesis. I don't demand proof, just evidence.

I regard the space-time postulate as a hypothesis which I cannot
assess as either testable or untestable, so I'm forced to fall
back on assessing the plausibility of the notion. And I see none.
AFAIC, it's nonsense, and that opinion is reinforced by the lack
of any credible evidence in its favour.

In fact, in the Particle Theory of Matter, I have stated one of
the problems of "current theory" as being that it "postulates
the noumenon Time as a phenomenon, an aspect and dimension of
the postulated space-time continuum".

Fuller treats the unsubstantiated hypothesis (postulate) as
an established fact. It ain't. To say that it oscillates is
to do no more than embellish the nonsense.

> To prove something is difficult in physics. But I like to
> assist by providing a more elaborate version:
>
> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

Very interesting, Thomas. Is there any way I can download it
as a single file?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372759

Am 25.12.2015 12:48, schrieb Ned Latham:

>>> ----snip----
>>>
>>>> The vacuum of Space time itself is the oscillator.
>>>
>>> And try to avoid using unsubstantiated hypotheses as fact.
>>
>> Apparently you demand a proof for such a hypothesis.
>
> No. In my lexicon, hypotheses and theories are called that because
> they're unproven, and the difference between them is simply that a
> theory is a testable hypothesis. I don't demand proof, just evidence.
>
> I regard the space-time postulate as a hypothesis which I cannot
> assess as either testable or untestable, so I'm forced to fall
> back on assessing the plausibility of the notion. And I see none.
> AFAIC, it's nonsense, and that opinion is reinforced by the lack
> of any credible evidence in its favour.
>
> In fact, in the Particle Theory of Matter, I have stated one of
> the problems of "current theory" as being that it "postulates
> the noumenon Time as a phenomenon, an aspect and dimension of
> the postulated space-time continuum".
>
> Fuller treats the unsubstantiated hypothesis (postulate) as
> an established fact. It ain't. To say that it oscillates is
> to do no more than embellish the nonsense.
>
>> To prove something is difficult in physics. But I like to
>> assist by providing a more elaborate version:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>
> Very interesting, Thomas. Is there any way I can download it
> as a single file?


Yes. There is a little arrow at the bottom of the page, labelled 'actions'.

One of those is 'download as pdf'. This will do what you want.


The text is actually a google.doc. This specific format I had used for 
some strange reasons.

Such presentations behave somehow similar to usual webpages and that's 
why I have chosen this format. It is actually extremely annoying to 
write something in this format. But google.doc.presentations are free 
and a that time had no money (and lost all my domains).

The text would certainly deserve some 'maintenance', but I see no 
compelling reason to do that.

I have spent some years with this 'book'. But after I failed to find 
readers, I have closed this project and do other stuff now.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372772

Thomas Heger wrote:
> schrieb Ned Latham:
> > Thomas Heger wrote:

----snip----

> > > To prove something is difficult in physics. But I like to
> > > assist by providing a more elaborate version:
> > >
> > > https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
> >
> > Very interesting, Thomas. Is there any way I can download it
> > as a single file?
>
> Yes. There is a little arrow at the bottom of the page,
> labelled 'actions.

Arrow, no label in Firefox.

> One of those is 'download as pdf'. This will do what you want.

Done. Printng as I write.

> The text is actually a google.doc. This specific format I had
> used for some strange reasons.
>
> Such presentations behave somehow similar to usual webpages
> and that's why I have chosen this format.

It's cewtainly web-oriented. The PDF insists of being a landscape
presentation. Still, for me that's good: the font is coming out
quite legibly large.

>                                           It is actually
> extremely annoying to write something in this format. But
> google.doc.presentations are free and a that time had no
> money (and lost all my domains).

I handwrite my work in HTML because of its cross-referencing power.
The only downside (IMO) is the lack of a tag for defining pages.
But maybe HTML 5 will cure that: I've just started reading a manual
on it.

> The text would certainly deserve some 'maintenance', but I see no
> compelling reason to do that.

You don't believe in it any more?

> I have spent some years with this 'book'. But after I failed to
> find readers, I have closed this project and do other stuff now.

My ISP gives each user account 50 MB of space to use as a web page.
Can you get a deal like that where you are?

Ned

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372775

Am 26.12.2015 03:29, schrieb Ned Latham:

>> The text is actually a google.doc. This specific format I had
>> used for some strange reasons.
>>
>> Such presentations behave somehow similar to usual webpages
>> and that's why I have chosen this format.
>
> It's cewtainly web-oriented. The PDF insists of being a landscape
> presentation. Still, for me that's good: the font is coming out
> quite legibly large.


It IS a landscape presentation (technically).

It is a special feature of this particular format to behave somehow 
similar to webspace. Other google.docs cannot be used for this purpose.

>>                                            It is actually
>> extremely annoying to write something in this format. But
>> google.doc.presentations are free and a that time had no
>> money (and lost all my domains).
>
> I handwrite my work in HTML because of its cross-referencing power.
> The only downside (IMO) is the lack of a tag for defining pages.
> But maybe HTML 5 will cure that: I've just started reading a manual
> on it.
>
>> The text would certainly deserve some 'maintenance', but I see no
>> compelling reason to do that.
>
> You don't believe in it any more?


I have the habit to change the focus of my interests from time to time.

E.g. once I was interested in Chemistry. Later I made a lot of photos 
and had a darkroom and a few exhibitions.

I can also paint quite well. And three little stories of me got published.

Now I spent my free time with electronics, repair of various technical 
stuff (like watches or cameras) and 'conspiracy theories'.

But occasionally I try to bring my 'book' into attention, since - after 
all- it was a lot of work.

But you cannot maintain the ability to do such work for a long time, if 
there is no feedback.

So I decided to do things more directly useful, like renovation of my 
flat, sorting papers and invention of new recipes for pizza.

>> I have spent some years with this 'book'. But after I failed to
>> find readers, I have closed this project and do other stuff now.
>
> My ISP gives each user account 50 MB of space to use as a web page.
> Can you get a deal like that where you are?

Yes, actually not a problem to find cheap webspace. But at the time I 
had written that book, I went broke with my bar and had no money at all.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372773

Am 25.12.2015 20:38, schrieb Thomas Heger:

>>>> ----snip----
>>>>
>>>>> The vacuum of Space time itself is the oscillator.
>>>>
>>>> And try to avoid using unsubstantiated hypotheses as fact.
>>>
>>> Apparently you demand a proof for such a hypothesis.
>>
>> No. In my lexicon, hypotheses and theories are called that because
>> they're unproven, and the difference between them is simply that a
>> theory is a testable hypothesis. I don't demand proof, just evidence.
>>
>> I regard the space-time postulate as a hypothesis which I cannot
>> assess as either testable or untestable, so I'm forced to fall
>> back on assessing the plausibility of the notion. And I see none.
>> AFAIC, it's nonsense, and that opinion is reinforced by the lack
>> of any credible evidence in its favour.
>>
>> In fact, in the Particle Theory of Matter, I have stated one of
>> the problems of "current theory" as being that it "postulates
>> the noumenon Time as a phenomenon, an aspect and dimension of
>> the postulated space-time continuum".
>>
>> Fuller treats the unsubstantiated hypothesis (postulate) as
>> an established fact. It ain't. To say that it oscillates is
>> to do no more than embellish the nonsense.
>>
>>> To prove something is difficult in physics. But I like to
>>> assist by providing a more elaborate version:
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>>
>> Very interesting, Thomas. Is there any way I can download it
>> as a single file?
>
>
> Yes. There is a little arrow at the bottom of the page, labelled 'actions'.
>
> One of those is 'download as pdf'. This will do what you want.
>

Google has changed the design a little bit and now the button looks like 
a tiny flower and is labelled 'options'.

There you find the possibility to download the entire 'book'.

It's not really a book, but a presentation similar to powerpoint.

It's inital purpose was, that I wanted to store such postings to the 
UseNet (like e.g. this one)  into a file, that was possible to access 
from the Internet.

So at the beginning every page contained something different. Than I 
shuffled them around into a new order, shortened everything a bit and 
wrote several new pages, to make the thing look more like a book.

Then I made all these illustrations, which are an important part of the 
text.

Finally I formatted everything as carefully as possible (what is 
difficult with google.docs).

But (to my surprise) there seemed to be no demand for what I had written.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web