Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #539548 > unrolled thread
| Started by | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-16 02:38 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-12-26 22:22 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 211 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 02:38 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "J.B. Wood" <arl_123234@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-16 06:19 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 04:18 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 13:02 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 07:46 -0600
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... Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-12-16 22:13 +0100
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jürgen Großenbach <jurgengb@adenauer.org> - 2015-12-16 21:21 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Jürgen Großenbach <jurgengb@adenauer.org> - 2015-12-16 21:17 +0000
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 22:41 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 06:50 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 22:21 -0800
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... 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... Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 07:50 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-16 10:08 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 08:18 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 13:23 -0500
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... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 07:03 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 03:15 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 00:26 -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... "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 07:47 -0800
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... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 07:52 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 10:06 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 08:18 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-17 10:44 -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... Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 08:24 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Mapple Babble" <invalid@example.com> - 2015-12-19 11:28 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 11:59 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 12:15 -0800
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... "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 00:40 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 21:39 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 07:48 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 13:46 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 02:22 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 10:53 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-16 22:33 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... xxein1@att.net - 2015-12-17 10:36 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... dobri karagorgov <dobrikarate.gov@gmail.com> - 2015-12-18 08:51 -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... 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... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 10:52 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 03:29 -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... "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... 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... 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... 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... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 04:01 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 04:19 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 13:09 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 05:14 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 14:16 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 14:54 -0800
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... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 17:23 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 19:44 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 02:27 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 02:45 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Timo <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-12-19 01:29 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 13:58 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... dobri karagorgov <dobrikarate.gov@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 11:15 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Timo <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-12-19 13:07 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 03:23 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Timo <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-12-21 01:11 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 16:47 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-12-19 12:17 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Timo <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-12-19 13:22 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 03:27 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Timo <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-12-21 00:57 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 14:00 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 14:21 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Timo <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-12-21 17:12 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 21:44 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 07:53 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 13:12 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 12:34 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 18:13 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 08:14 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 14:03 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 16:16 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 22:24 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-12-27 14:03 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 16:48 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 12:38 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 18:20 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 08:16 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 14:09 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 21:20 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 07:38 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 13:03 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 12:23 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 17:56 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 17:46 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 20:11 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 05:14 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 08:21 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 00:48 -0800
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 11:13 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 07:44 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 13:05 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 12:28 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-22 18:03 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 10:14 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 10:32 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 22:00 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 21:57 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 11:12 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-24 21:19 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 13:03 -0600
Re: Future Advances in Physics... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 14:12 -0500
Re: Future Advances in Physics... "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 22:22 -0800
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 18:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n4s7k0$f6$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #539587 |
Użytkownik "Poutnik" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:n4ruhb$5eo$1@dont-email.me... |If anybody claims |all what he does not understand is useless nonsense and word salad, |it helps keeping him big in his eyes. Both are common sequences between your fellow relativistic morons.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 13:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <QIhcy.128$uJ5.78@fx35.iad> |
| In reply to | #539578 |
On 12/16/2015 08:46 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 1:38 AM, benj wrote:
>>
>> In a way it's just an imitation of Einstein who everyone imagines just
>> cranked out a complex mathematical theory that nobody understands off
>> the top of his genius head.
>
> Speak for yourself, Ben.
> I do not believe that the theory of relativity is all that complex.
> I do not believe that nobody understands it.
> I do not believe it takes a genius to understand it.
>
> Now, it might be that YOU think nobody understands it. It might be that
> YOU think it's complex. It might be that YOU imagine that Einstein just
> cranked it out so that it would be above everyone's head. But that's
> just YOU, and you don't speak for anyone else but you.
>
Actually I was speaking about media hype over Einstein to the public,
but you seem to take everything personally.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 12:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4s9vb$cqd$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539611 |
On 12/16/2015 12:04 PM, benj wrote: > On 12/16/2015 08:46 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 12/16/2015 1:38 AM, benj wrote: >>> >>> In a way it's just an imitation of Einstein who everyone imagines just >>> cranked out a complex mathematical theory that nobody understands off >>> the top of his genius head. >> >> Speak for yourself, Ben. >> I do not believe that the theory of relativity is all that complex. >> I do not believe that nobody understands it. >> I do not believe it takes a genius to understand it. >> >> Now, it might be that YOU think nobody understands it. It might be that >> YOU think it's complex. It might be that YOU imagine that Einstein just >> cranked it out so that it would be above everyone's head. But that's >> just YOU, and you don't speak for anyone else but you. >> > Actually I was speaking about media hype over Einstein to the public, > but you seem to take everything personally. > Maybe it's just me, but saying "everyone imagines" is quite different than saying "the media hype is". As for me, I really don't pay much attention to media hype, celebrity adoration, meme flairs, or the perceptions of propaganda-loving public. I don't find much value in any rampant attention paid to the Kardashians, Donald Trump, Steve Jobs, or Stephen Hawking. Frankly, I don't think intelligent people do. Whether there is a group of folks who gush over a man in a wheelchair just because he talks about black holes and because there was a movie about him, is really not important. To me, these are the same people who buy copper bracelets and magnetic insoles and take rhino horn pills to increase potency. So you can rant all you want about how undeserving Einstein (or the Kardashians) is of media hype -- it won't change anything, because the people who sell the hype and who consume the hype will be around forever. All you can do is choose not to participate and start to look at what KNOWLEDGABLE people say about Einstein or Hawking or Jobs or Trump. You'll know it when you see it. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 01:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5626340.NYaCNa9DMC@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #539623 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > As for me, I really don't pay much attention to media hype, celebrity > adoration, meme flairs, or the perceptions of propaganda-loving public. > I don't find much value in any rampant attention paid to the > Kardashians, Donald Trump, Steve Jobs, or Stephen Hawking. That’s a game of “odd man out”, isn’t it? Just to mention Hawking in one sentence with the Kardashians and Donald Trump… PointedEars -- Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity does it take to change a light bulb? A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 09:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dddch6Fdu36U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #539548 |
On 12/16/2015 2:38 AM, benj wrote: > Where does the future of physics lie? > <snip> I am reminded of Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary Of Defense, who was well known for saying: "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know." All the best, Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 13:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <JKhcy.129$uJ5.41@fx35.iad> |
| In reply to | #539584 |
On 12/16/2015 09:58 AM, Bill Miller wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 2:38 AM, benj wrote:
>> Where does the future of physics lie?
>>
> <snip>
>
> I am reminded of Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary Of Defense, who was
> well known for saying:
>
> "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting
> to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we
> know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we
> know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown
> unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know."
>
> All the best, Bill
Actually, Bill, if you follow the internet discussions much, you'll know
that the last category doesn't exist. This is because of something known
as "superpowers" among posters that allow them to know everything even
what they don't know! :-)
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 20:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5671bae9$0$23785$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #539614 |
On 12/16/2015 7:06 PM, benj wrote: > On 12/16/2015 09:58 AM, Bill Miller wrote: >> On 12/16/2015 2:38 AM, benj wrote: >>> Where does the future of physics lie? >>> >> <snip> >> >> I am reminded of Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary Of Defense, who was >> well known for saying: >> >> "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting >> to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we >> know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we >> know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown >> unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know." >> >> All the best, Bill > > > Actually, Bill, if you follow the internet discussions much, you'll know > that the last category doesn't exist. Thanks benj for clarifying! I already suggested to Bill that this might simply not apply to what you were writing. > This is because of something known as "superpowers" among posters Of course. That is exactly the point I was trying to make. > that allow them to know everything even > what they don't know! :-) I wonder if Bill's Hydrino Power also counts as superpower.. (Thus returning to the subject: It would certainly be a *future* advance in physics, given the indefinitely postponed BlackPower demonstration reactors!) -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bill Miller" <kt4ye@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-20 11:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ddo34mF5519U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #539641 |
"Jos Bergervoet" <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:5671bae9$0$23785$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl... > > I wonder if Bill's Hydrino Power also counts as superpower.. > (Thus returning to the subject: It would certainly be a > *future* advance in physics, given the indefinitely postponed > BlackPower demonstration reactors!) > > -- > Jos I believe the theory is sound and excess energy has been replicated by many laboratories. That tends to verify large chunks of the theory *But* none of those replications nor Mills' lab experiments have *yet* demonstrated usable output levels. The latest (in-the-Mills-lab-only) iteration generates dramatic amounts of light and *appears* to be capable of significant light-to-photocell-to-electricity outputs. Nothing has been seen publicly since July of last year, but the company name is changing to Bright Light Power. New website, but password blocked. Not hard for critics to be reminded of the guy sitting on th edge of the bed, telling the gal how GREAT it's gonna be! All the best, Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 20:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5671b909$0$23849$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #539584 |
On 12/16/2015 3:58 PM, Bill Miller wrote: > On 12/16/2015 2:38 AM, benj wrote: >> Where does the future of physics lie? > > <snip> > > I am reminded of Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary Of Defense, who was > well known for saying: > > "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting > to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we > know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we > know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown > unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know." What Donald says may be true (after all he's a politician). But do you think that even for benj there are unknown unknowns?! I find that hard to believe.. -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 00:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <l_rcy.405$9A4.301@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #539637 |
On 12/16/2015 02:18 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 3:58 PM, Bill Miller wrote:
>> On 12/16/2015 2:38 AM, benj wrote:
>>> Where does the future of physics lie?
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I am reminded of Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary Of Defense, who was
>> well known for saying:
>>
>> "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting
>> to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we
>> know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we
>> know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown
>> unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know."
>
> What Donald says may be true (after all he's a politician). But do
> you think that even for benj there are unknown unknowns?! I find
> that hard to believe..
>
Arrogance is your department Jos. You not only know it all, but you even
know what you don't know! As for my point: Once you admit of the
possibility of higher dimensions in space which create universes that
only tenuously connect to our space, the probability for unknown
unknowns becomes exceeding high.
“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of
in your philosophy.”
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 07:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <567255c9$0$23776$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #539754 |
On 12/17/2015 6:45 AM, benj wrote: > On 12/16/2015 02:18 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >> On 12/16/2015 3:58 PM, Bill Miller wrote: >>> On 12/16/2015 2:38 AM, benj wrote: >>>> Where does the future of physics lie? >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>> I am reminded of Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary Of Defense, who was >>> well known for saying: >>> >>> "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting >>> to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we >>> know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we >>> know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown >>> unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know." >> >> What Donald says may be true (after all he's a politician). But do >> you think that even for benj there are unknown unknowns?! I find >> that hard to believe.. > > Arrogance is your department Jos. Speak for yourself, benj! > As for my point: Once you admit of the > possibility of higher dimensions in space which create universes that > only tenuously connect to our space, That is not your point, that is already contained in many existing attempts of making advances in physics. > ... the probability for unknown > unknowns becomes exceeding high. Correct, so physics is already doing exactly what you want it to be doing (for good or for worse..) > “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of > in your philosophy.” If there is one field of science where this is fully acknowledged, then it is theoretical physics. Hence the often heard criticism that it has lost touch with reality. So you are barking up the wrong tree, benj. But your original question (where will real *advance* be found) still stands, of course. And of course a modest man will not hastily try to answer it.. -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 07:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0dd86476-b30c-4921-bb6f-2b8a84c4cadd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #539548 |
On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 2:38:40 AM UTC-5, benj wrote: > Where does the future of physics lie? > > So, you want to be the next "Einstein" developing the next big thing in > physics. Where you do investigate? Spend a lot of tax money to smash > things together and then name all the pieces? Pretty much like studying > architecture by grinding up bricks and studying the dust under a > microscope. > > Well, if you look on the INTERNET, it's pretty clear that most current > efforts are all along the lines of word games, proving Relativity > "wrong" and obscure mathematical complexity. Word games, Math games, CGI simulations... The Complete Toolset. The advent of WWW+Internet has made the control of disseminated ideas far easier and not at all open, as might've been falsely advertised. > In a way it's just an imitation of Einstein who everyone imagines just > cranked out a complex mathematical theory that nobody understands off > the top of his genius head. Per my History lessons, Einstein's work was instantly recognized by even the commonest of man, that back in the 1905 days all the coffee shops the world over plastered his documents on windows, walls, and toilet paper. Never in the history of physics has the populace been so impressed and moved! I do not make this stuff up. > But discoveries really don't work that way, even with Einstein it > started with a simple thing. In his case was the question if Galileo's > theory of relativity held for electromagnetic phenomena. It did. > > The point here, gentle reader, is that while so many today in physics > strain mightily with obscure mathematics and word games that literally > make no logical sense in an attempt to "explain" how up is really down > and black is really white and nothing at all can have "behavior", the > place one needs to look for the "next big thing", is on the list of > "forbidden" topics. Hidden Variables used to be a unmentionable concept, like DataMining. One can't undermine Word Games by using phrases like WordSalad which are themselves made of words. MathSalad = Math + Salad. Squared! Language is very important, see any AIP Physics Vade Mecum, any edition. The version I have is in English, 330 small print pages, only one of which, page 157, per the index, is about SR relativistic effects. Meaning? Why does there have to be any ...youKnow Meaning?! > As Professor Benade (who I used to work for once) told me: Don't be like > the guy who lost a quarter over there but is looking over here because > the light is better! KeyQ: Why are you dropping all your change into the outhouse? KeyA: I ain't going into that sHit for just one quarter! > 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! Odd's believe Believe BELIEVE... Odd must be kissing up to HVAC. > 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". It's all Settled Physics Science, until the Fiscal Year Renewal Dance. > So if you think that "remote viewing" or ESP or PK are not "real" and > are all hoaxes, it probably means you somehow are so lazy that you just > accept some anonymous voice on the INTERNET who proclaims infallible > omniscient truth because he says he does. And that means you are NEVER > going to amount to diddly shit in science no matter how many people > swoon over your complex mathematics and how many editors make sure your > screed hits the "big" journals. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi. Got it? > > -- > ___ ___ ___ ___ > /\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \ > /::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \ > /:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\ > /::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/ > /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ / > \:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ / > \:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/ > \:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ / > \_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ / > \/__/ \/__/ -- Mahipal "IPMM... If you can't monetize it, what's a Universe for?!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 10:08 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4s29o$p5b$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539548 |
On 12/16/2015 1:38 AM, benj wrote: > Where does the future of physics lie? > > > Well, if you look on the INTERNET, it's pretty clear that most current > efforts are all along the lines of word games, > > So if you think that "remote viewing" or ESP or PK are not "real" and > are all hoaxes, it probably means you somehow are so lazy that you just > accept some anonymous voice on the INTERNET who proclaims infallible > omniscient truth because he says he does. And that means you are NEVER > going to amount to diddly shit in science no matter how many people > swoon over your complex mathematics and how many editors make sure your > screed hits the "big" journals. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi. Got it? > > yep, I gots' it ! remote viewing => lazy => anonymous infallible omniscient true voice => diddly shit => swoon complex maths => big Journals => passing glory
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 08:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <03ec91ab-df9c-4f9b-b63c-d09e33b7a4ab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #539548 |
On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 7:38:40 AM UTC, benj wrote: > Where does the future of physics lie? > > So, you want to be the next "Einstein" developing the next big thing in > physics. Where you do investigate? Spend a lot of tax money to smash > things together and then name all the pieces? Pretty much like studying > architecture by grinding up bricks and studying the dust under a > microscope. Well, not for nothing, but if you wanted to study brick dust, wouldn't that be a good way to do it? I was just going to let you make the leap of understanding, but since I know you're stupid I will explain. If you want to study sub atomic particles, MAKING them appear is the first step. Hopefully that isn't too cryptic for you, BJ > The point here, gentle reader, is that Anyone who would use 'gentle reader' in a post is gay. > 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! Look BJ...If you want to believe in ghosts and shit, feel free. Just don't expect others to follow. Since there is no known modality for consciousness to survive death, it is ludicrous. > It is the very FACT that there is no theory that "explains" them that > shows that they NEED to be studied! That's like asking for an explanation of why the moon is made out of green cheese. YOU may assert it all you want. Just don't be surprised when reputable men of science like Mr. Bodkin and myself don't answer you except with derision. Note: See Velikovsky > So if you think that "remote viewing" or ESP or PK are not "real" and > are all hoaxes, it probably means you somehow are so lazy that you just > accept some anonymous voice on the INTERNET who proclaims infallible > omniscient truth because he says he does. ESP, ghosts, remote viewing and all of the rest of BJ's retarded 'science' are 100% fake. Absolutely nothing there for a scientist to investigate. Trust me on this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 13:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2%hcy.11143$8P4.4309@fx30.iad> |
| In reply to | #539603 |
On 12/16/2015 11:18 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 7:38:40 AM UTC, benj wrote:
>> Where does the future of physics lie?
>>
>> So, you want to be the next "Einstein" developing the next big
>> thing in physics. Where you do investigate? Spend a lot of tax
>> money to smash things together and then name all the pieces? Pretty
>> much like studying architecture by grinding up bricks and studying
>> the dust under a microscope.
>
>
> Well, not for nothing, but if you wanted to study brick dust,
> wouldn't that be a good way to do it?
>
> I was just going to let you make the leap of understanding, but since
> I know you're stupid I will explain.
>
> If you want to study sub atomic particles, MAKING them appear is the
> first step.
>
> Hopefully that isn't too cryptic for you, BJ
>
WHOOSH! Point going right over the HVAC head.
>
>> The point here, gentle reader, is that
>
>
> Anyone who would use 'gentle reader' in a post is gay.
HVAC is gay. Are you out of the closet yet? You KNOW you want to tell
the world you are gay!
Personalities is all HVAC knows. Ideas don't interest him. He loves
the reality of professional wrestling.
>
>> 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!
>
>
> Look BJ...If you want to believe in ghosts and shit, feel free. Just
> don't expect others to follow. Since there is no known modality for
> consciousness to survive death, it is ludicrous.
Ignorant blather. If science followed this idea, nothing new would EVER
have been discovered. I guess that is too cryptic for you. Anyway, as
usual the piece never mentioned "ghosts" or persistence of
consicousness. You made that up and then pretend I said it. I said no
such thing. You are a liar as always.
>> It is the very FACT that there is no theory that "explains" them
>> that shows that they NEED to be studied!
>
>
> That's like asking for an explanation of why the moon is made out of
> green cheese. YOU may assert it all you want. Just don't be surprised
> when reputable men of science like Mr. Bodkin and myself don't answer
> you except with derision.
>
> Note: See Velikovsky
Derision is all you've got because you have no data and have no facts.
So you go with "personalities". So low level. You think professional
wrestling is a great sport too, I suppose.
Velikovsly is an important point. As a forbidden topic you have to place
your derision there as well. You try to obscure what he was really
saying by lying about it at usual. His point, which is a very important
point, is that there MAY be truth in historical myth that is widely
regarded as fantasy. And thus, such myth is worthy of consideration.
You lie and say HE predicted things that proved not true. Perhaps, but
"he" also predicted some things that proved true. But those are not the
point. The point is that after untold years of science pooh-poohing the
"myth" of Troy, it was actually found right where Homer said it was!
>> So if you think that "remote viewing" or ESP or PK are not "real"
>> and are all hoaxes, it probably means you somehow are so lazy that
>> you just accept some anonymous voice on the INTERNET who proclaims
>> infallible omniscient truth because he says he does.
>
>
> ESP, ghosts, remote viewing and all of the rest of BJ's retarded
> 'science' are 100% fake. Absolutely nothing there for a scientist to
> investigate.
Does HVAC have any data? Has he even looked at any? Does a liar need to?
Hardly. Hopefully lots of scientists out there will understand that HVAC
is omniscient, infallible, and possesses superpowers so they will turn
their investigations to other more "productive" works like filling in
the few blank spots in tables. Wouldn't want H&V to blow his hot air all
over you by calling you a "retard", would you?
> Trust me on this.
He's omniscient and infallible! He says so himself. What more proof do
you need? (He's also Napoleon today)
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 13:40 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4seo9$ol9$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539548 |
On 12/16/2015 1:38 AM, benj wrote: > So if you think that "remote viewing" or ESP or PK are not "real" and > are all hoaxes, it probably means you somehow are so lazy that you just > accept some anonymous voice on the INTERNET who proclaims infallible > omniscient truth because he says he does. And that means you are NEVER > going to amount to diddly shit in science no matter how many people > swoon over your complex mathematics and how many editors make sure your > screed hits the "big" journals. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi. Got it? Every scientist does an instinctive risk vs benefit analysis. You can pour your life into investigating something that is *very likely* hokum but still stands a tiny chance of changing the world. The problem is that there are millions of candidates of ideas to pursue: - That atoms are tiny galaxies, containing microcosms each - That rocks are in fact alive, but at a metabolic rate that is ten billion times slower than animal life - That humans can communicate telepathically - That faster-than-light communication is possible - That gravity screening is possible and anti-gravity drives are accessible - That ghosts exist and souls speak to us after bodily death - That ETs regularly visit and quite likely walk among us incognito - That perpetual motion machines are feasible and the laws of thermodynamics can be broken - That perfectly rigid materials can be built - That humans can be shrunk whole to the size of blood cells and operate completely normally So which one to pursue? You can piss away your whole life floundering in some futile direction, and the only solace you'd bring yourself is "But I'm investigating the unknown, so I'm doing SCIENCE!" I think this is a matter of taste. I think scientists develop a knack for pursuing the unknown but usually in directions where there is some likelihood for it not being futile. And in fact, the successful scientists are the ones that are talented in pursuing a new direction that DOES pan out. And you can ask them, "How did you know to choose THAT direction vs. any of the other million other things you could have pursued?" And they'll probably say something about gut instinct or experience or maybe just luck. For the ones that seem to do it over and over and over again, it's not luck. But people like Ben can feel free to pursue any of the million possibilities they want to pursue, happily owning the risk, knowing that they're more likely to win the lottery than they are of hitting the jackpot. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 01:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5gscy.232$TE6.141@fx41.iad> |
| In reply to | #539643 |
On 12/16/2015 02:40 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 1:38 AM, benj wrote:
>> So if you think that "remote viewing" or ESP or PK are not "real" and
>> are all hoaxes, it probably means you somehow are so lazy that you just
>> accept some anonymous voice on the INTERNET who proclaims infallible
>> omniscient truth because he says he does. And that means you are NEVER
>> going to amount to diddly shit in science no matter how many people
>> swoon over your complex mathematics and how many editors make sure your
>> screed hits the "big" journals. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi. Got it?
>
> Every scientist does an instinctive risk vs benefit analysis. You can
> pour your life into investigating something that is *very likely* hokum
> but still stands a tiny chance of changing the world. The problem is
> that there are millions of candidates of ideas to pursue:
> - That atoms are tiny galaxies, containing microcosms each
> - That rocks are in fact alive, but at a metabolic rate that is ten
> billion times slower than animal life
> - That humans can communicate telepathically
> - That faster-than-light communication is possible
> - That gravity screening is possible and anti-gravity drives are accessible
> - That ghosts exist and souls speak to us after bodily death
> - That ETs regularly visit and quite likely walk among us incognito
> - That perpetual motion machines are feasible and the laws of
> thermodynamics can be broken
> - That perfectly rigid materials can be built
> - That humans can be shrunk whole to the size of blood cells and operate
> completely normally
>
> So which one to pursue? You can piss away your whole life floundering in
> some futile direction, and the only solace you'd bring yourself is "But
> I'm investigating the unknown, so I'm doing SCIENCE!"
Obviously you pursue the ones that interest you. But to have hopes of
success one doesn't simply throw darts at a list to choose. One tries to
examine those where there seems to be data indicating that the candidate
has some hope of being something of value. If one starts with a
preconceived notion that all the data is just hoaxes and misguided
adventures, then clearly one has thrown away the very thing you need to
use to choose. On the other hand one also must have discernment. If you
use hoaxes to choose, then you will not choose wisely either.
> I think this is a matter of taste. I think scientists develop a knack
> for pursuing the unknown but usually in directions where there is some
> likelihood for it not being futile. And in fact, the successful
> scientists are the ones that are talented in pursuing a new direction
> that DOES pan out. And you can ask them, "How did you know to choose
> THAT direction vs. any of the other million other things you could have
> pursued?" And they'll probably say something about gut instinct or
> experience or maybe just luck. For the ones that seem to do it over and
> over and over again, it's not luck.
Not taste. It's a combination of evaluations and judgment as to what is
important. One CAN do science filling in the blank spots in tables of
parameters. And people do do that. One can argue that it has a certain
importance. But is it as important as demonstrating FTL transmissions?
> But people like Ben can feel free to pursue any of the million
> possibilities they want to pursue, happily owning the risk, knowing that
> they're more likely to win the lottery than they are of hitting the
> jackpot.
The Problem here is "people like Boinker" have no understanding of what
science is or how it is done. He only has his "liberal arts" descriptive
viewpoint that misses all the essence. He has no idea where even to
START a project like demonstrating low temperature fusion or
transmutations. He thinks you just sit down with an idea and let your
imagination run wild as if you are writing some novel. That's his world.
Not the world of science. In science one stands on the shoulders of
giants to see farther and that is where one begins.
Velikovsky merely suggested that one might find something of value in
the examination of old myths. And the Boinkers and HVACs of the world
all screamed with one voice: THEY ARE ALL MYTH! THEY ARE ALL FANTASY!
YOU HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF WINNING THE LOTTERY THAN FINDING MYTHICAL TROY!
But of course as usual, Boinker is an idiot and HVAC is ignorant and
troy was found right where Homer said it was. And now Boinker is sure to
say "I never doubted there was a real Troy for a minute!" That's how he
works.
The future of physics and science does NOT lie with the Bonkers of the
world...at least not unless it is going to crash and burn.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 10:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4uoo7$kpv$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539758 |
On 12/17/2015 12:04 AM, benj wrote: > On 12/16/2015 02:40 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 12/16/2015 1:38 AM, benj wrote: >>> So if you think that "remote viewing" or ESP or PK are not "real" and >>> are all hoaxes, it probably means you somehow are so lazy that you just >>> accept some anonymous voice on the INTERNET who proclaims infallible >>> omniscient truth because he says he does. And that means you are NEVER >>> going to amount to diddly shit in science no matter how many people >>> swoon over your complex mathematics and how many editors make sure your >>> screed hits the "big" journals. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi. Got it? >> >> Every scientist does an instinctive risk vs benefit analysis. You can >> pour your life into investigating something that is *very likely* hokum >> but still stands a tiny chance of changing the world. The problem is >> that there are millions of candidates of ideas to pursue: >> - That atoms are tiny galaxies, containing microcosms each >> - That rocks are in fact alive, but at a metabolic rate that is ten >> billion times slower than animal life >> - That humans can communicate telepathically >> - That faster-than-light communication is possible >> - That gravity screening is possible and anti-gravity drives are >> accessible >> - That ghosts exist and souls speak to us after bodily death >> - That ETs regularly visit and quite likely walk among us incognito >> - That perpetual motion machines are feasible and the laws of >> thermodynamics can be broken >> - That perfectly rigid materials can be built >> - That humans can be shrunk whole to the size of blood cells and operate >> completely normally >> >> So which one to pursue? You can piss away your whole life floundering in >> some futile direction, and the only solace you'd bring yourself is "But >> I'm investigating the unknown, so I'm doing SCIENCE!" > > Obviously you pursue the ones that interest you. But to have hopes of > success one doesn't simply throw darts at a list to choose. One tries to > examine those where there seems to be data indicating that the candidate > has some hope of being something of value. If one starts with a > preconceived notion that all the data is just hoaxes and misguided > adventures, then clearly one has thrown away the very thing you need to > use to choose. On the other hand one also must have discernment. If you > use hoaxes to choose, then you will not choose wisely either. I couldn't have said it better. > >> I think this is a matter of taste. I think scientists develop a knack >> for pursuing the unknown but usually in directions where there is some >> likelihood for it not being futile. And in fact, the successful >> scientists are the ones that are talented in pursuing a new direction >> that DOES pan out. And you can ask them, "How did you know to choose >> THAT direction vs. any of the other million other things you could have >> pursued?" And they'll probably say something about gut instinct or >> experience or maybe just luck. For the ones that seem to do it over and >> over and over again, it's not luck. > > Not taste. It's a combination of evaluations and judgment as to what is > important. One CAN do science filling in the blank spots in tables of > parameters. And people do do that. One can argue that it has a certain > importance. But is it as important as demonstrating FTL transmissions? Not just important. Promising. That means weighing both the impact if true vs. the risk that it's just trash. > >> But people like Ben can feel free to pursue any of the million >> possibilities they want to pursue, happily owning the risk, knowing that >> they're more likely to win the lottery than they are of hitting the >> jackpot. > > The Problem here is "people like Boinker" have no understanding of what > science is or how it is done. He only has his "liberal arts" descriptive > viewpoint that misses all the essence. I don't think you have the right to prejudge me. > He has no idea where even to > START a project like demonstrating low temperature fusion or > transmutations. He thinks you just sit down with an idea and let your > imagination run wild as if you are writing some novel. That's his world. > Not the world of science. In science one stands on the shoulders of > giants to see farther and that is where one begins. > > Velikovsky merely suggested that one might find something of value in > the examination of old myths. And the Boinkers and HVACs of the world > all screamed with one voice: THEY ARE ALL MYTH! THEY ARE ALL FANTASY! > YOU HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF WINNING THE LOTTERY THAN FINDING MYTHICAL TROY! Here's where you have exhibited prejudice, lumping me in with a class of people, a class of your own manufacture, when I have said nothing whatsoever about Velikovsky. So mind your tongue and your manners, Ben. On the other hand, "one might find something of value" is the kind of thing that doesn't seem very promising to me. It might to you, though. To me, it's of the sort "one might find gemstones 4 inches below the surface in the backyard", to which I'm sure some people would promptly pick up a shovel and spend the next two weeks tearing up their backyard. Because the "importance" of the possibility seems to outweigh the likelihood that it's going to turn up nothing. Each to his own, Ben. You go ahead and pursue ESP and Roswell technology. Maybe you'll find something earth-shaking. Let us know when something pans out. > > But of course as usual, Boinker is an idiot and HVAC is ignorant and > troy was found right where Homer said it was. And now Boinker is sure to > say "I never doubted there was a real Troy for a minute!" That's how he > works. > > The future of physics and science does NOT lie with the Bonkers of the > world...at least not unless it is going to crash and burn. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 20:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <A7Jcy.5166$Xk5.2053@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #539831 |
On 12/17/2015 11:43 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/17/2015 12:04 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 12/16/2015 02:40 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2015 1:38 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> So if you think that "remote viewing" or ESP or PK are not "real" and
>>>> are all hoaxes, it probably means you somehow are so lazy that you just
>>>> accept some anonymous voice on the INTERNET who proclaims infallible
>>>> omniscient truth because he says he does. And that means you are NEVER
>>>> going to amount to diddly shit in science no matter how many people
>>>> swoon over your complex mathematics and how many editors make sure your
>>>> screed hits the "big" journals. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi. Got it?
>>>
>>> Every scientist does an instinctive risk vs benefit analysis. You can
>>> pour your life into investigating something that is *very likely* hokum
>>> but still stands a tiny chance of changing the world. The problem is
>>> that there are millions of candidates of ideas to pursue:
>>> - That atoms are tiny galaxies, containing microcosms each
>>> - That rocks are in fact alive, but at a metabolic rate that is ten
>>> billion times slower than animal life
>>> - That humans can communicate telepathically
>>> - That faster-than-light communication is possible
>>> - That gravity screening is possible and anti-gravity drives are
>>> accessible
>>> - That ghosts exist and souls speak to us after bodily death
>>> - That ETs regularly visit and quite likely walk among us incognito
>>> - That perpetual motion machines are feasible and the laws of
>>> thermodynamics can be broken
>>> - That perfectly rigid materials can be built
>>> - That humans can be shrunk whole to the size of blood cells and operate
>>> completely normally
>>>
>>> So which one to pursue? You can piss away your whole life floundering in
>>> some futile direction, and the only solace you'd bring yourself is "But
>>> I'm investigating the unknown, so I'm doing SCIENCE!"
>>
>> Obviously you pursue the ones that interest you. But to have hopes of
>> success one doesn't simply throw darts at a list to choose. One tries to
>> examine those where there seems to be data indicating that the candidate
>> has some hope of being something of value. If one starts with a
>> preconceived notion that all the data is just hoaxes and misguided
>> adventures, then clearly one has thrown away the very thing you need to
>> use to choose. On the other hand one also must have discernment. If you
>> use hoaxes to choose, then you will not choose wisely either.
>
> I couldn't have said it better.
>
>>
>>> I think this is a matter of taste. I think scientists develop a knack
>>> for pursuing the unknown but usually in directions where there is some
>>> likelihood for it not being futile. And in fact, the successful
>>> scientists are the ones that are talented in pursuing a new direction
>>> that DOES pan out. And you can ask them, "How did you know to choose
>>> THAT direction vs. any of the other million other things you could have
>>> pursued?" And they'll probably say something about gut instinct or
>>> experience or maybe just luck. For the ones that seem to do it over and
>>> over and over again, it's not luck.
>>
>> Not taste. It's a combination of evaluations and judgment as to what is
>> important. One CAN do science filling in the blank spots in tables of
>> parameters. And people do do that. One can argue that it has a certain
>> importance. But is it as important as demonstrating FTL transmissions?
>
> Not just important. Promising. That means weighing both the impact if
> true vs. the risk that it's just trash.
>
>>
>>> But people like Ben can feel free to pursue any of the million
>>> possibilities they want to pursue, happily owning the risk, knowing that
>>> they're more likely to win the lottery than they are of hitting the
>>> jackpot.
>>
>> The Problem here is "people like Boinker" have no understanding of what
>> science is or how it is done. He only has his "liberal arts" descriptive
>> viewpoint that misses all the essence.
>
> I don't think you have the right to prejudge me.
Boinker you are too funny! Anyone with a modicum of intellect can play
a tune on you like a fiddle! I'm sure most of the lurkers here are sharp
enough to note that my "People like Boinker" is nothing but a satire on
your "people like Ben"! <snort> And you think I "have not right"? You
maker of fine toys (I almost said idiot), you GAVE me the right!
>> He has no idea where even to
>> START a project like demonstrating low temperature fusion or
>> transmutations. He thinks you just sit down with an idea and let your
>> imagination run wild as if you are writing some novel. That's his world.
>> Not the world of science. In science one stands on the shoulders of
>> giants to see farther and that is where one begins.
>>
>> Velikovsky merely suggested that one might find something of value in
>> the examination of old myths. And the Boinkers and HVACs of the world
>> all screamed with one voice: THEY ARE ALL MYTH! THEY ARE ALL FANTASY!
>> YOU HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF WINNING THE LOTTERY THAN FINDING MYTHICAL
>> TROY!
>
> Here's where you have exhibited prejudice, lumping me in with a class of
> people, a class of your own manufacture, when I have said nothing
> whatsoever about Velikovsky.
>
> So mind your tongue and your manners, Ben.
So I guess HVAC has the day off as group "moderator" and you've taken
over. He must be Napoleon today!
> On the other hand, "one might find something of value" is the kind of
> thing that doesn't seem very promising to me. It might to you, though.
> To me, it's of the sort "one might find gemstones 4 inches below the
> surface in the backyard", to which I'm sure some people would promptly
> pick up a shovel and spend the next two weeks tearing up their backyard.
> Because the "importance" of the possibility seems to outweigh the
> likelihood that it's going to turn up nothing.
Your ignorance of science defies comprehension, Boinker! You wander in
your fantasy land without a logical, practical thought in your pretty
little head! One does not dig up the back yard simply because one
suddenly got the Lib fantasy that gems could be buried there 4 inches
below the surface. You might as well be cut and paste posting that
global warming "could" kill us all! You did the backyard because you
have some indication that doing such might be a valuable exercise
(treasure mape, a gem already found there, etc.) THAT is how science is
done. That "WHOOSH" noise was my remark about standing on the shoulders
of giants going right over top of your pointy little head!
> Each to his own, Ben. You go ahead and pursue ESP and Roswell
> technology. Maybe you'll find something earth-shaking. Let us know when
> something pans out.
It would be great if what you say were were true. But you have no idea
how forbidden science works any more than you do about how conventional
science works. HVAC can give you lessons on how to deal with preventing
any earth-shaking discoveries in the "wrong" areas and you can give him
lessons in the making of fine wooden toys.
>> But of course as usual, Boinker is an idiot and HVAC is ignorant and
>> troy was found right where Homer said it was. And now Boinker is sure to
>> say "I never doubted there was a real Troy for a minute!" That's how he
>> works.
>>
>> The future of physics and science does NOT lie with the Bonkers of the
>> world...at least not unless it is going to crash and burn.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-18 07:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0ba1a1b4-6add-4ae1-95c9-8711fb8a9cf9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #539982 |
It would be great if what you say were were true. But you have no idea how forbidden science works any more than you do about how conventional science works. HVAC can give you lessons on how to deal with preventing any earth-shaking discoveries in the "wrong" areas and you can give him lessons in the making of fine wooden toys. ---------- BJ might be born again, but he wasn't born again yesterday! BJ I am asking you a legit question. In your research into life after death, what compelling evidence have you found? Also, can you list any kooky ideas, or as you call them 'forbidden topics', that you DON'T believe in? So far I have you down as believing in ghosts, remote viewing, god, esp, telekinesis and the 9/11 conspiracy. But can you list any kook topics that you don't believe in? Maybe bigfoot? Or past life regression? (I forget what they call that but it was some milk company name I think). Let's get this all out in the open so we can discuss it like gentlemen. ~ Manners Maketh Man
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web