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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #477148 > unrolled thread

What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

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

Contents

  What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 17:17 +0000
    Re:What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-15 19:54 +0100
      Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-15 20:32 +0100
        Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-15 12:04 -0800
        Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Shon Wible <shwn@shouve.wd> - 2018-11-16 20:22 +0000
        Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-19 17:26 -0600
          Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Lochù Umská <lare@cpi2alwa.cc> - 2018-11-19 23:35 +0000
            Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-19 22:05 -0600
              Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Elden Lathan <an@tnettw.ea> - 2018-11-22 19:25 +0000
          Gravitational waves (was: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-20 03:11 +0100
            Re: Gravitational waves (was: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-19 22:23 -0600
              Re: Gravitational waves Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-20 09:08 +0100
          Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-19 22:23 -0600
          Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 11:46 -0500
            Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-20 21:26 +0100
              Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 19:43 -0500
                Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-21 02:18 +0100
            Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-20 15:51 -0600
              Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Paul Edgar <lara@uldewan.lg> - 2018-11-21 18:12 +0000
                Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-21 13:43 -0600
          Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 14:06 -0800
            Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-20 19:55 -0600
              Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-21 03:02 +0100
              Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 19:21 -0800
                Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-20 19:44 -0800
                  Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-21 12:20 -0600
                    Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-21 17:20 -0800
      Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 20:54 +0000
        Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-15 13:07 -0800
          Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-16 02:07 +0000
            Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-16 03:25 +0100
              Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-16 13:34 +0000
                Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-16 19:50 +0100
                  Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-16 20:46 +0000
                    Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-16 22:36 +0100
                      Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-16 22:10 +0000
                        Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-16 23:25 +0100
                          Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-17 02:44 +0000
                            Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-17 18:39 +0100
                            Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Shon Wible <shwp@swouve.we> - 2018-11-17 19:21 +0000
                              Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-18 15:29 +0100
                                Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Isidro Vitti <itri@ovwdiwi.ot> - 2018-11-18 17:04 +0000
                                  Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-18 19:31 +0100
            Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-15 23:03 -0800
              Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-16 13:53 +0000
                Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-16 09:31 -0800
                  Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 22:34 +0000
                    Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 15:02 -0800
        Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-19 21:57 -0600
          Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-20 09:16 +0100
            Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-20 17:48 +0000
          Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 12:47 +0000
          Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-20 10:01 -0600
          Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 14:14 -0800
    Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-19 10:16 -0800
    Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-20 15:55 -0800
    Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-20 15:59 -0800
    Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know..............<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-21 12:20 -0800

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#477404

The ’nym-shifting troll trolled as "Shon Wible" <shwp@swouve.we>
(invalid TLD):

> Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 16/11/2018 22:25, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: 
>>> FYI, according to my astronomy textbook of 2009, in addition to the
>>> star,
>>> Sol, and the 8 planets, the Sol system consists of more than 100 moons,
>>> ca. 10 million asteroids; ca. 1 billion, short scale, transneptunian
>>> objects (TNOs); ca. 10 million to 100 billion comets, and a gazillion
>>> meteoroids.
>>> And those are just *estimations* of the objects *known* *in 2009*.
>>
>> Well it may be a little difficult to find accurate initial conditions
>> for all those millions, and billions and gazillion objects, and even if
> 
> Never again try to contradict a german. You don't know what those people 
> can do. They can be the reason for generated, unneeded, unspeakable pain.

Not only does this fulfill Godwin’s Law[1], it is also bigoted *hate speech*.

It is my sincere hope that, all your address munging and sock-puppeteering
aside, *this* will *finally* get you kicked from aioe.org.  (If not, then
I suggest to impose the Usenet Death Penalty on aioe.org.  Subscribers be
warned.)

Usenet is not a right, but Usenet also is NOT a place where laws of justice
do not apply.

| X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org

*PLONK*

________
[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law>
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#477410

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>>> Well it may be a little difficult to find accurate initial conditions
>>> for all those millions, and billions and gazillion objects, and even
>>> if
>> 
>> Never again try to contradict a german. You don't know what those
>> people can do. They can be the reason for generated, unneeded,
>> unspeakable pain.
> 
> Not only does this fulfill Godwin’s Law[1], it is also bigoted *hate
> speech*. 
> It is my sincere hope that, all your address munging and
> sock-puppeteering aside, *this* will *finally* get you kicked from
> aioe.org.  (If not, then

You just gave the proof being the one full of hate, you stupid clown.

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

#477418

The ’nym-shifting troll trolled as "Isidro Vitti" <itri@ovwdiwi.ot>
(fake TLD):

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Well it may be a little difficult to find accurate initial conditions
>>>> for all those millions, and billions and gazillion objects, and even
>>>> if
>>>
>>> Never again try to contradict a german. You don't know what those
>>> people can do. They can be the reason for generated, unneeded,
>>> unspeakable pain.
>>
>> Not only does this fulfill Godwin’s Law[1], it is also bigoted *hate
>> speech*. 
>> It is my sincere hope that, all your address munging and
>> sock-puppeteering aside, *this* will *finally* get you kicked from
>> aioe.org.  (If not, then
> 
> You just gave the proof being the one full of hate, you stupid clown.

I have merely stated facts describing your obnoxious behavior in Usenet.

*I* have not insinuated that all people of a particular nationality are
evil, and their wrath to be feared, on the day, of all days(!), when all
civilized people remember and mourn the losses of World War Ⅰ which ended
100 years ago.

*You* *have* done that!  *You* are the warmonger!

JFTR: It is just the ’nym-shifting troll again.  Adjust your killfiles
accordingly.  Eventually, together, we will get rid of this hateful idiot.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#477211

On Friday, 16 November 2018 03:07:31 UTC+1, Keith Stein  wrote:
> On 15/11/2018 21:07, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > On Thursday, 15 November 2018 21:54:50 UTC+1, Keith Stein  wrote:
> >> On 15/11/2018 18:54, Libor Striz wrote:
> >>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> >>>> How to Program a Computer eh!
> >>>
> >>> They have programmers for that.
> >>
> >> But what you are completely missing Mr.Striz
> >> is just how very much easier physics is, when
> >> you know how to program a computer. You need
> >> to learn to think like a computer, Mr.Striz.
> > 
> > 
> > Keith, computer doesn't think.
> > It's stupider even than a physicist.
> > 
> 
> While what you say is true, Mr.Wozniak, nevertheless
> they can play a better game of chess than you or i,

Yes, there are a lot of things they do better.
Whole mathematics, for instance.
But thinking is not one of them. That's why WE
are in charge.

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

#477221

On 16/11/2018 07:03, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> On Friday, 16 November 2018 03:07:31 UTC+1, Keith Stein  wrote:
>> On 15/11/2018 21:07, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 15 November 2018 21:54:50 UTC+1, Keith Stein  wrote:
>>>> On 15/11/2018 18:54, Libor Striz wrote:
>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>>>>> How to Program a Computer eh!
>>>>>
>>>>> They have programmers for that.
>>>>
>>>> But what you are completely missing Mr.Striz
>>>> is just how very much easier physics is, when
>>>> you know how to program a computer. You need
>>>> to learn to think like a computer, Mr.Striz.
>>>
>>>
>>> Keith, computer doesn't think.
>>> It's stupider even than a physicist.
>>
>> While what you say is true, Mr.Wozniak, nevertheless
>> they can play a better game of chess than you or i,
> 
> Yes, there are a lot of things they do better.

but deciding whether or not to do it, is NOT one of them eh!

> Whole mathematics, for instance.

While they are certainly staggeringly FAST and ACCURATE on ARITHMETIC,
I don't think of them as talented MATHEMATICIANS or physicists eh!


> But thinking is not one of them. That's why WE
> are in charge.


As usual, YOU ARE RIGHT, Mr. Wozniak,
Them computers do what they are TOLD eh!

keith stein

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

#477245

On Friday, 16 November 2018 14:53:05 UTC+1, Keith Stein  wrote:
> On 16/11/2018 07:03, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > On Friday, 16 November 2018 03:07:31 UTC+1, Keith Stein  wrote:
> >> On 15/11/2018 21:07, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 15 November 2018 21:54:50 UTC+1, Keith Stein  wrote:
> >>>> On 15/11/2018 18:54, Libor Striz wrote:
> >>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> >>>>>> How to Program a Computer eh!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They have programmers for that.
> >>>>
> >>>> But what you are completely missing Mr.Striz
> >>>> is just how very much easier physics is, when
> >>>> you know how to program a computer. You need
> >>>> to learn to think like a computer, Mr.Striz.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Keith, computer doesn't think.
> >>> It's stupider even than a physicist.
> >>
> >> While what you say is true, Mr.Wozniak, nevertheless
> >> they can play a better game of chess than you or i,
> > 
> > Yes, there are a lot of things they do better.
> 
> but deciding whether or not to do it, is NOT one of them eh!
> 
> > Whole mathematics, for instance.
> 
> While they are certainly staggeringly FAST and ACCURATE on ARITHMETIC,
> I don't think of them as talented MATHEMATICIANS or physicists eh!

If it can be formalized, computers will be much, much 
better in it than us.
Fortunately we're only able to formalize some
simple things of minor or medium importance.

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

#477538

On 16/11/2018 17:31, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> On Friday, 16 November 2018 14:53:05 UTC+1, Keith Stein  wrote:
>> On 16/11/2018 07:03, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>>> On Friday, 16 November 2018 03:07:31 UTC+1, Keith Stein  wrote:
>>>> On 15/11/2018 21:07, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 15 November 2018 21:54:50 UTC+1, Keith Stein  wrote:
>>>>>> On 15/11/2018 18:54, Libor Striz wrote:
>>>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>>>>>>> How to Program a Computer eh!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They have programmers for that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But what you are completely missing Mr.Striz
>>>>>> is just how very much easier physics is, when
>>>>>> you know how to program a computer. You need
>>>>>> to learn to think like a computer, Mr.Striz.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Keith, computer doesn't think.
>>>>> It's stupider even than a physicist.
>>>>
>>>> While what you say is true, Mr.Wozniak, nevertheless
>>>> they can play a better game of chess than you or i,
>>>
>>> Yes, there are a lot of things they do better.
>>
>> but deciding whether or not to do it, is NOT one of them eh!
>>
>>> Whole mathematics, for instance.
>>
>> While they are certainly staggeringly FAST and ACCURATE on ARITHMETIC,
>> I don't think of them as talented MATHEMATICIANS or physicists eh!
> 
> If it can be formalized, computers will be much, much
> better in it than us.
> Fortunately we're only able to formalize some
> simple things of minor or medium importance.

Fundamentally, Mr.Wozniak, WHAT DOES A COMPUTER DO ?









what it's TOLD eh!

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

#477540

On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 2:34:22 PM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 16/11/2018 17:31, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > On Friday, 16 November 2018 14:53:05 UTC+1, Keith Stein  wrote:
> >> On 16/11/2018 07:03, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 16 November 2018 03:07:31 UTC+1, Keith Stein  wrote:
> >>>> On 15/11/2018 21:07, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 15 November 2018 21:54:50 UTC+1, Keith Stein  wrote:
> >>>>>> On 15/11/2018 18:54, Libor Striz wrote:
> >>>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> >>>>>>>> How to Program a Computer eh!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> They have programmers for that.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But what you are completely missing Mr.Striz
> >>>>>> is just how very much easier physics is, when
> >>>>>> you know how to program a computer. You need
> >>>>>> to learn to think like a computer, Mr.Striz.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Keith, computer doesn't think.
> >>>>> It's stupider even than a physicist.
> >>>>
> >>>> While what you say is true, Mr.Wozniak, nevertheless
> >>>> they can play a better game of chess than you or i,
> >>>
> >>> Yes, there are a lot of things they do better.
> >>
> >> but deciding whether or not to do it, is NOT one of them eh!
> >>
> >>> Whole mathematics, for instance.
> >>
> >> While they are certainly staggeringly FAST and ACCURATE on ARITHMETIC,
> >> I don't think of them as talented MATHEMATICIANS or physicists eh!
> > 
> > If it can be formalized, computers will be much, much
> > better in it than us.
> > Fortunately we're only able to formalize some
> > simple things of minor or medium importance.
> 
> Fundamentally, Mr.Wozniak, WHAT DOES A COMPUTER DO ?

I noticed three types of people form the majority of physics cranks:

1. engineers (usually EE),
2. software engineers,
3. lawyers.

The last one is not very common. What they seem to have in common is
mastering some body of knowledge which to them appears universal
enough to tackle virtually ANY intellectual problem (not only science).

So why physics? I guess it's other domains as well, it's just that we
don't get OTHER pointless noises on this NG (usually).

The prerequisite for any of this to happen though is a certain form of
a blind spot: the inability to perceive, quickly and instinctively, one's
lack of knowledge. This is very characteristic and actually quite hard
to comprehend for a person not so affected. It's a bit like trying to
understand a blind person's world.

In case it's not obvious, yes, I consider it a defect. A bit like
autism EXCEPT it's not affecting the emotional system but the critical
one, as if one's "intellectual perception"(*) was impaired somewhat.

(*)NOTE: I DON'T mean by this the person is not intelligent, AFAICT
there is frequently nothing wrong with the raw processing power, it's
instead a certain perception on that level which is affected/blocked which
in normal person works mostly areflexively and fully transparently.

--
Jan

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

#477561

On 11/15/2018 2:54 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 15/11/2018 18:54, Libor Striz wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>> How to Program a Computer eh!
>>
>> They have programmers for that.
> 
> But what you are completely missing Mr.Striz
> is just how very much easier physics is, when
> you know how to program a computer. You need
> to learn to think like a computer, Mr.Striz.

na,
computers think in binary, 1's and 0's and they have an accumulator,
that is about it, everything else is support.

   64 bit ? means 64 bit wide accumulator


>>
> HOW WOULD A COMPUTER SOLVE THE PROBLEM eh!

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

#477574

Sergio wrote on 20.11.2018 04:57:
>    64 bit ? means 64 bit wide accumulator
No, primarily it means a 64 bit wide *address* *bus*.

Shut up as you do not know what you are talking about.

And stop amok-crossposting.

F’up2 poster

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#477614

On 20 Nov 2018 09:16, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>Sergio wrote on 20.11.2018 04:57:
>>    64 bit ? means 64 bit wide accumulator
>No, primarily it means a 64 bit wide *address* *bus*.

Only sort of.

In the old days when the natural data unit size and the address bus size
were often different, "xx bits" meant the natural data unit (accumulator,
if relevant) size.  The address bus width was often different.
DEC in its earlier days had 12, 18, 16, 36 and 32 bit systems before its
64 bit Alpha. The 16 bit PDP-11 had 16, 18 or 22 bits of address space,
depending on the model.

These days, both the natural unit and (theoretical) address bus size
are the same, and the same instructions could manipulate both.
Physical and virtual memory blur things more.

64 bit processors treat address pointers as 64 bit values BUT:

These days, *no* "64 bit" processor can address a full 64 bits of memory,
physical or virtual. Depending on processor, some address lines will 
either be nonfunctional or cause a nonexistent memory fault if set.
A full 64 bits of memory would be over 18 exabytes of memory.
The latest x86-64 can theoretically address 56 bits worth of virtual 
memory, at least internally.

>>Shut up as you do not know what you are talking about.

>And stop amok-crossposting.

>Fup2 poster

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

#477583

 >> HOW WOULD A COMPUTER SOLVE THE PROBLEM eh!
 >

Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know...........Re: What Every 
Physicist Needs to Know..........Re: What Every Physicist Needs to 
Know............Re: What Every Physicist Needs to Know...........

>>> Keith Stein Wrote:
>>>> How to Program a Computer eh!

>> Libor Striz wrote: >>> They have programmers for that.

 > Keith Stein wrote:
>> But what you are completely missing Mr.Striz
>> is just how very much easier physics is, when
>> you know how to program a computer. You need
>> to learn to think like a computer, Mr.Striz.

   Sergio wrote:> na,
> computers think in binary,

Good point Sergio, we wouldn't want Mr.Striz
to think in binary eh!

> 1's and 0's and they have an accumulator,
> that is about it, everything else is support.

Well it is very clear you know all there is to know,
about computers Sergio, but do you know how to program one?


>     64 bit ? means 64 bit wide accumulator

Too much information Sergio. Don't tell it all.
Keep a bit of mystery eh!

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

#477598

On 11/19/2018 9:57 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 11/15/2018 2:54 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 15/11/2018 18:54, Libor Striz wrote:
>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>>> How to Program a Computer eh!
>>>
>>> They have programmers for that.
>>
>> But what you are completely missing Mr.Striz
>> is just how very much easier physics is, when
>> you know how to program a computer. You need
>> to learn to think like a computer, Mr.Striz.
> 
> na,
> computers think in binary, 1's and 0's and they have an accumulator,
> that is about it, everything else is support.
> 
>    64 bit ? means 64 bit wide accumulator
> 
> 
>>>
>> HOW WOULD A COMPUTER SOLVE THE PROBLEM eh!
> 


walk back into ancient history;

64 bit is the size of the data bus, the width of the data word, which is
directly dependent on the size of accummulator or regester.

remember ?
4 bit  (nibble)
8 bit (one byte)
16 bit  (double byte)
32 bit   (systems mostly before windows xp)
64 bit

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

#477650

On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 7:57:38 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote:
> On 11/15/2018 2:54 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> > On 15/11/2018 18:54, Libor Striz wrote:
> >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> >>> How to Program a Computer eh!
> >>
> >> They have programmers for that.
> > 
> > But what you are completely missing Mr.Striz
> > is just how very much easier physics is, when
> > you know how to program a computer. You need
> > to learn to think like a computer, Mr.Striz.
> 
> na,
> computers think in binary, 1's and 0's and they have an accumulator,

Hardwarewise I think this has been obsolete for >30 years now.
AFAIK more than two levels of physical voltage are used, i.e.
base other than 2 at the bare hardware level. Comments?

--
Jan

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

#477515

"If we adopt either Fresnel's or Maccullagh's form of the undulatory theory, half of this energy is in the form of potential energy, due to the distortion of elementary portions of the medium, and half in the form of kinetic energy, due to the motion of the medium. We must therefore regard the aether as possessing elasticity similar to that of a solid body, and also as having a finite density." (Maxwell, Part XCVII, p. 767). 

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

#477666

Are you guys and guy-girls getting scared?

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

#477670

Dow fail 1,000 pt is two days but it will go up tomorrow I promise.

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

#477756

Nancy neuter Trump. Ochywawa.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

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

csiph-web