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

Groups > sci.physics > #645726 > unrolled thread

Why is there something?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Why is there something? alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-08-13 09:45 -0700
    Re: Why is there something? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-13 12:20 -0500
      Re: Why is there something? poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-19 00:11 -0700
    Re: Why is there something? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 10:22 -0700
      Re: Why is there something? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-13 12:07 -0700
    Re: Why is there something? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-13 11:20 -0700
      Re: Why is there something? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-13 12:23 -0700
        Re: Why is there something? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-13 14:07 -0700
          Re: Why is there something? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-13 22:27 -0700
        Re: Why is there something? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-14 11:46 -0700
          Re: Why is there something? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-15 11:45 -0700
            Re: Why is there something? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-15 13:17 -0700
              Re: Why is there something? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-15 13:48 -0700
                Re: Why is there something? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-15 16:27 -0700
                  Re: Why is there something? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-15 16:33 -0700
      Re: Why is there something? alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-08-13 13:56 -0700
        Re: Why is there something? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-13 16:21 -0500
        Re: Why is there something? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 18:05 -0500
          Re: Why is there something? alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-08-14 00:06 -0700
            Re: Why is there something? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 11:33 +0000
            Re: Why is there something? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 05:00 -0700
              Re: Why is there something? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 12:38 +0000
                Re: Why is there something? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 05:42 -0700
                  Re: Why is there something? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 06:27 -0700
                  Re: Why is there something? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 08:44 -0500
                    Re: Why is there something? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 19:06 -0700
                      Re: Why is there something? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 13:00 -0500
                      Re: Why is there something? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-15 17:55 -0400
                        Re: Why is there something? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-15 16:17 -0700
                        Re: Why is there something? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 23:36 +0000
                          Re: Why is there something? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 17:38 -0700
                            Re: Why is there something? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 00:54 +0000
                              Re: Why is there something? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-15 21:36 -0400
                                Re: Why is there something? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-15 18:56 -0700
                                Re: Why is there something? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 03:34 +0000
                                  Re: Why is there something? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-16 16:40 -0400
                                    Re: Why is there something? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 01:04 +0000
                                      Re: Why is there something? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-16 21:54 -0400
                                        Re: Why is there something? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 02:28 +0000
                                          Re: Why is there something? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-17 17:24 -0400
                          Re: Why is there something? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 17:52 -0700
                            Re: Why is there something? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-15 21:34 -0400
                              Re: Why is there something? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-15 21:25 -0500
                                Re: Why is there something? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-16 16:38 -0400
                              Re: Why is there something? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 03:34 +0000
                              Re: Why is there something? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 08:14 -0700
                          Re: Why is there something? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-15 21:24 -0400
                            Re: Why is there something? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 01:30 +0000
            Re: Why is there something? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-14 07:45 -0500
        Re: Why is there something? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-13 22:28 -0700
    Re: Why is there something? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 18:04 -0500
    Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable. alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-08-13 17:25 -0700
      Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-13 21:02 -0500
      Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable. KCIR2 <rick_s7777777@yahoo.ca> - 2017-08-14 07:17 -0700
        Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 19:13 -0700
          Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-15 18:00 -0400
            Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 15:38 -0700
              Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-15 19:29 -0400
                Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 17:37 -0700
                  Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-15 21:41 -0400
                    Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 18:56 -0700
                Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 17:41 -0700
                  Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-15 21:33 -0400
                    Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 18:53 -0700
    Re: Why is there something? KCIR2 <rick_s7777777@yahoo.ca> - 2017-08-13 17:36 -0700
    Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable. "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2017-08-14 10:02 +0000
    Re: Why is there something? "Anthony Zen Pride Week" <sender@hotmail.com> - 2017-08-16 07:13 -0700
      Re: Why is there something? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-16 07:29 -0700
        Re: Why is there something? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-16 17:30 -0700
    Re: Why is there something? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 20:42 -0700
      Re: Why is there something? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-17 22:49 -0700
        Re: Why is there something? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 08:14 -0700

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#646104

On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 7:36:17 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> > On 8/14/2017 10:06 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 11:45:00 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>> On 8/14/17 7:42 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
<trim>
> >>>> Mumbo-jumbo.
> >>> 
> >>> No, it's not mumbo-jumbo. It's perfectly understandable, even to lay
> >>> readers.
> >> 
> >> If it is perfectly understandable to lay readers then explain it in a few lines.
> >> 
> > Sorry Banjo, But Odd doesn't do explanations. He just tells people to go 
> > look it up in some book.
> > 
> 
> Because for explanations that take 40 or 50 pages, it makes sense to find
> them in a book, not on usenet. Obviously. 

Interesting. Very very VERY interesting. Usenet can't handle 40 or 50 pages. Hmmm...

> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#646116

On 8/15/2017 8:52 PM, Mahipal wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 7:36:17 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>> On 8/14/2017 10:06 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 11:45:00 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> On 8/14/17 7:42 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> <trim>
>>>>>> Mumbo-jumbo.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it's not mumbo-jumbo. It's perfectly understandable, even to lay
>>>>> readers.
>>>>
>>>> If it is perfectly understandable to lay readers then explain it in a few lines.
>>>>
>>> Sorry Banjo, But Odd doesn't do explanations. He just tells people to go
>>> look it up in some book.
>>>
>>
>> Because for explanations that take 40 or 50 pages, it makes sense to find
>> them in a book, not on usenet. Obviously.
> 
> Interesting. Very very VERY interesting. Usenet can't handle 40 or 50 pages. Hmmm...

WE both know our "moderator emeritus" would never allow 40-50 pages. But 
luckily he's off fishing again.

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

#646125

On 8/15/2017 8:34 PM, benj wrote:
> On 8/15/2017 8:52 PM, Mahipal wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 7:36:17 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>> On 8/14/2017 10:06 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 11:45:00 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/14/17 7:42 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> <trim>
>>>>>>> Mumbo-jumbo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it's not mumbo-jumbo. It's perfectly understandable, even to lay
>>>>>> readers.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it is perfectly understandable to lay readers then explain it in 
>>>>> a few lines.

>>>> Sorry Banjo, But Odd doesn't do explanations. He just tells people 
>>>> to go
>>>> look it up in some book.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because for explanations that take 40 or 50 pages, it makes sense to 
>>> find
>>> them in a book, not on usenet. Obviously.
>>
>> Interesting. Very very VERY interesting. Usenet can't handle 40 or 50 
>> pages. Hmmm...
> 
> WE both know our "moderator emeritus" would never allow 40-50 pages. But 
> luckily he's off fishing again.
> 
> 

    what about compression ?

take out all the words shorter than 5 letters, and then remove all the 
spaces, and punctuation ?

should get it down to about 15 to 20 pages,

demo sentance;

"moderatoremerituswouldneverallowpagesluckilyfishingagain"

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

#646197

On 8/15/2017 10:25 PM, Serg io wrote:
> On 8/15/2017 8:34 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 8/15/2017 8:52 PM, Mahipal wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 7:36:17 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 8/14/2017 10:06 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 11:45:00 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/14/17 7:42 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> <trim>
>>>>>>>> Mumbo-jumbo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it's not mumbo-jumbo. It's perfectly understandable, even to lay
>>>>>>> readers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it is perfectly understandable to lay readers then explain it 
>>>>>> in a few lines.
> 
>>>>> Sorry Banjo, But Odd doesn't do explanations. He just tells people 
>>>>> to go
>>>>> look it up in some book.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because for explanations that take 40 or 50 pages, it makes sense to 
>>>> find
>>>> them in a book, not on usenet. Obviously.
>>>
>>> Interesting. Very very VERY interesting. Usenet can't handle 40 or 50 
>>> pages. Hmmm...
>>
>> WE both know our "moderator emeritus" would never allow 40-50 pages. 
>> But luckily he's off fishing again.
>>
>>
> 
>     what about compression ?
> 
> take out all the words shorter than 5 letters, and then remove all the 
> spaces, and punctuation ?
> 
> should get it down to about 15 to 20 pages,
> 
> demo sentance;
> 
> "moderatoremerituswouldneverallowpagesluckilyfishingagain"

Excellent. "Perfectly Understandable even to lay readers".

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

#646129

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 8/15/2017 8:52 PM, Mahipal wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 7:36:17 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>> On 8/14/2017 10:06 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 11:45:00 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/14/17 7:42 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> <trim>
>>>>>>> Mumbo-jumbo.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> No, it's not mumbo-jumbo. It's perfectly understandable, even to lay
>>>>>> readers.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If it is perfectly understandable to lay readers then explain it in a few lines.
>>>>> 
>>>> Sorry Banjo, But Odd doesn't do explanations. He just tells people to go
>>>> look it up in some book.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Because for explanations that take 40 or 50 pages, it makes sense to find
>>> them in a book, not on usenet. Obviously.
>> 
>> Interesting. Very very VERY interesting. Usenet can't handle 40 or 50 pages. Hmmm...
> 
> WE both know our "moderator emeritus" would never allow 40-50 pages. But 
> luckily he's off fishing again.
> 
> 
> 

Nobody is going to type in 40-50 pages on usenet unless they are nuts to
begin with. Like McGinn. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#646167

On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 9:34:56 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
> On 8/15/2017 8:52 PM, Mahipal wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 7:36:17 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> >>> On 8/14/2017 10:06 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 11:45:00 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>> On 8/14/17 7:42 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > <trim>
> >>>>>> Mumbo-jumbo.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, it's not mumbo-jumbo. It's perfectly understandable, even to lay
> >>>>> readers.
> >>>>
> >>>> If it is perfectly understandable to lay readers then explain it in a few lines.
> >>>>
> >>> Sorry Banjo, But Odd doesn't do explanations. He just tells people to go
> >>> look it up in some book.
> >>
> >> Because for explanations that take 40 or 50 pages, it makes sense to find
> >> them in a book, not on usenet. Obviously.
> > 
> > Interesting. Very very VERY interesting. Usenet can't handle 40 or 50 pages. Hmmm...
> 
> WE both know our "moderator emeritus" would never allow 40-50 pages. But 
> luckily he's off fishing again.

Odd is strange/orange, he doesn't even give a reference to which pages to read.

Fishing? HVAC will be back! I don't need/want HVAC to be back, but he'll be back!

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes... Enjo(y)!”   
Enjo(y)... Salute… Cheers... Open your M I N D… Time it is Is IS 3PM somePlace. 

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

#646110

On 8/15/2017 7:36 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>> On 8/14/2017 10:06 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 11:45:00 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 8/14/17 7:42 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 10:38:24 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 5:06:42 PM UTC+10, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 4:35:50 AM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/17 3:56 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I didn't want to read the book, as last time I read a book on
>>>>>>>>>> cosmology, it wasted my time by discussing quarks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've asked you what evidence you have that everything about quarks has
>>>>>>>>> been fabricated. You've produced nothing, absolutely nothing. So is
>>>>>>>>> there a reason you believe what you do?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I may be lazy, but I am not a liar.  Over time, perhaps you will learn
>>>>>>>> to trust me.  How solid is the evidence you have seen on quarks?  How
>>>>>>>> reliant are you on other people?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Abhinav Lal
>>>>>>>> Writer & Investor
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any theory worth anything must make valid predictions if that theory is
>>>>>>> to be considered scientific.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which the theory of quarks does, many times over, verified in experiment
>>>>>> many times over.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jet production in lepton and hadron colliders.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mumbo-jumbo.
>>>>
>>>> No, it's not mumbo-jumbo. It's perfectly understandable, even to lay
>>>> readers.
>>>
>>> If it is perfectly understandable to lay readers then explain it in a few lines.
>>>
>> Sorry Banjo, But Odd doesn't do explanations. He just tells people to go
>> look it up in some book.
>>
> 
> Because for explanations that take 40 or 50 pages, it makes sense to find
> them in a book, not on usenet. Obviously.
> 
Odd, Banjo is absolutely right that if it takes 40-50 pages then it is 
NOT "perfectly understandable". Einstein says that if you really 
understood it you could explain in a couple of lines on the Internet.

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

#646111

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 8/15/2017 7:36 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>> On 8/14/2017 10:06 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 11:45:00 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> On 8/14/17 7:42 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 10:38:24 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 5:06:42 PM UTC+10, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 4:35:50 AM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/17 3:56 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't want to read the book, as last time I read a book on
>>>>>>>>>>> cosmology, it wasted my time by discussing quarks.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I've asked you what evidence you have that everything about quarks has
>>>>>>>>>> been fabricated. You've produced nothing, absolutely nothing. So is
>>>>>>>>>> there a reason you believe what you do?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I may be lazy, but I am not a liar.  Over time, perhaps you will learn
>>>>>>>>> to trust me.  How solid is the evidence you have seen on quarks?  How
>>>>>>>>> reliant are you on other people?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Abhinav Lal
>>>>>>>>> Writer & Investor
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Any theory worth anything must make valid predictions if that theory is
>>>>>>>> to be considered scientific.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Which the theory of quarks does, many times over, verified in experiment
>>>>>>> many times over.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Really.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jet production in lepton and hadron colliders.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Mumbo-jumbo.
>>>>> 
>>>>> No, it's not mumbo-jumbo. It's perfectly understandable, even to lay
>>>>> readers.
>>>> 
>>>> If it is perfectly understandable to lay readers then explain it in a few lines.
>>>> 
>>> Sorry Banjo, But Odd doesn't do explanations. He just tells people to go
>>> look it up in some book.
>>> 
>> 
>> Because for explanations that take 40 or 50 pages, it makes sense to find
>> them in a book, not on usenet. Obviously.
>> 
> Odd, Banjo is absolutely right that if it takes 40-50 pages then it is 
> NOT "perfectly understandable". 

Well, I have to pity the lay person who is not literate to read 40-50 pages
and keep it straight in his head. 

> Einstein says that if you really 
> understood it you could explain in a couple of lines on the Internet.

That is not worth responding to and you know it, troll. 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#645856

On 8/14/2017 2:06 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 4:35:50 AM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/13/17 3:56 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I didn't want to read the book, as last time I read a book on cosmology, it wasted my time by discussing quarks.
>>
>> I've asked you what evidence you have that everything about quarks has
>> been fabricated. You've produced nothing, absolutely nothing. So is
>> there a reason you believe what you do?
> 
> I may be lazy, but I am not a liar.  Over time, perhaps you will learn to trust me.  How solid is the evidence you have seen on quarks?  How reliant are you on other people?
> 
> Abhinav Lal
> Writer & Investor


quarks?
       google for it

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/qevid.html

https://astarmathsandphysics.com/a-level-physics-notes/particle-physics/2946-evidence-for-quarks.html

http://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/top-quark-first-evidence.html

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

#645829

alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 11:50:12 PM UTC+5:30, The Starmaker wrote:
> > alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > A book asked, why is there something rather than nothing?  I ask, why is there something rather than everything?  I didn't read the book.  So please answer the questions.  Why is there something?
> > >
> > > Abhinav Lal
> > > Writer & Investor
> >
> >
> > It is not a physics question.
> 
> There is a book by Lawrence M. Krauss, "A universe from nothing: why there is something rather than nothing".  I didn't want to read the book, as last time I read a book on cosmology, it wasted my time by discussing quarks.
> 
> Abhinav Lal
> Writer & Investor



I would not trust a single word Lawrence M. Krauss has to say or write.

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

#645789

On 8/13/17 11:45 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> A book asked, why is there something rather than nothing?  I ask, why is there something rather than everything?  I didn't read the book.  So please answer the questions.  Why is there something?
> 
> Abhinav Lal
> Writer & Investor
> 

Spontaneous symmetry breaking.
Now, that's the answer you get for free. If you want details, then read 
the book and don't ask people to cater to your laziness.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#645802 — Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable.

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 2:54:50 AM UTC+5:30, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> I meant:  The future is just as fixed as the past.

I don't believe that time is a dimension, or that the future is fixed.  According to QM, events are random.  The human mind is free to create the future.

Abhinav Lal 
Writer & Investor 

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

#645808 — Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable.

On 8/13/2017 7:25 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 2:54:50 AM UTC+5:30, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>> I meant:  The future is just as fixed as the past.
> 
> I don't believe that time is a dimension, 

disagree.

> or that the future is fixed.  

Agree.

> events are random.  

partly agree, some are random some are not.


> The human mind is free to create the future.

free to dream about a "future"

creating is a whole nother thing



> 
> Abhinav Lal
> Writer & Investor
> 

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

#645869 — Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable.

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 1:25:27 AM UTC+1, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 2:54:50 AM UTC+5:30, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> > I meant:  The future is just as fixed as the past.
> 
> I don't believe that time is a dimension, or that the future is fixed.  According to QM, events are random.  The human mind is free to create the future.
> 
> Abhinav Lal 
> Writer & Investor

I agree with you to a certain extent.
There is no such thing as random but the level of complexity so great that it appears random.
By nature cause and effect tells us there is no random.
And you can pretend through quantum mechanics or any quantum theory that cause and effect do not exist but of course the facts are the facts.

As physicists we create our reality to a large degree. Not the phgysical universe here so much directly but we do.
For instance by getting together and agreeing that inflationary theory is valid, we are creating our own stage.
In fact there is nothing in inflationary theory which is provable.
It defies the laws of physics completely and in doing so we permit ourselves to diverge from the laws and make an exception.

That makes it work, so we assume it might be right and in lieu of better theory adhere to it.
I know because at the time we adopted it formally I was there.

And in doing so it brought us up to a fraction of a second after the big bang.
Without it we were looking at something entirely different.

For one thing consider that inflationary theory means that the universe expanded to a very large place exponentially which means surpassing the speed of light.

So we had to say that under those conditions it was still relative in some way that we today do not yet fully understand.

It has to do with how quickly things multiply exponentially.

Math.

Consider 2 + 2 = 4 4+ 4 = 8 slow curve still 8 +8 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096

In 11 operations you have 4,096 operations if things were splitting like cells.
 
Where will another 11 take us?
4096 +4096 = 8192 
...
in 11 steps we are at
8,388,608

11 more?
17,179,869,184

Hence why we called it the expanding man model of the universe since the quantum foam appears to be splitting like cells.

That's a very large number.
Isn't it?

If you think it is, then listen to Bill Bryson's a Brief History of Nearly Everything revised edition (With a proper British Narrator although the original is almost as good) but if you think that is a large number, then Bill will soon point out to you that you have that many mites, living in your eye brows.

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

#645957 — Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable.

On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 12:17:36 AM UTC+10, KCIR2 wrote:
> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 1:25:27 AM UTC+1, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 2:54:50 AM UTC+5:30, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> > > I meant:  The future is just as fixed as the past.
> > 
> > I don't believe that time is a dimension, or that the future is fixed.  According to QM, events are random.  The human mind is free to create the future.
> > 
> > Abhinav Lal 
> > Writer & Investor
> 
> I agree with you to a certain extent.
> There is no such thing as random but the level of complexity so great that it appears random.

No, there is such a thing as random. 

> By nature cause and effect tells us there is no random.

When one event happens as a result of a given cause, out of a multiplicity of 
possible causes, then that event is called a random event.

> And you can pretend through quantum mechanics or any quantum theory that cause and effect do not exist but of course the facts are the facts.

Sometimes to one effect there is one cause, and that is not a random event
but a deterministic one.
> 
> As physicists we create our reality to a large degree. Not the phgysical universe here so much directly but we do.

In other words, modern physicists make up fairy tales using strange ideas
and maths.

> For instance by getting together and agreeing that inflationary theory is valid, we are creating our own stage.

Especially when the public pays for all that. If they did not pay they would
actually write some fairy tales and sold them.

> In fact there is nothing in inflationary theory which is provable.
> It defies the laws of physics completely and in doing so we permit ourselves to diverge from the laws and make an exception.

In other words, you have given up on the scientific method. And reduced science
to the level of voodoo on the one hand, and fiction on the other.

Ugh.

Arindam Banerjee

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

#646065 — Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable.

On 8/14/2017 10:13 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 12:17:36 AM UTC+10, KCIR2 wrote:
>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 1:25:27 AM UTC+1, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 2:54:50 AM UTC+5:30, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>>>> I meant:  The future is just as fixed as the past.
>>>
>>> I don't believe that time is a dimension, or that the future is fixed.  According to QM, events are random.  The human mind is free to create the future.
>>>
>>> Abhinav Lal
>>> Writer & Investor
>>
>> I agree with you to a certain extent.
>> There is no such thing as random but the level of complexity so great that it appears random.
> 
> No, there is such a thing as random.

Rolf doesn't believe in random, Banjo. He says the universe is big 
machine god wound up and now it runs.

>> By nature cause and effect tells us there is no random.
> 
> When one event happens as a result of a given cause, out of a multiplicity of
> possible causes, then that event is called a random event.



>> And you can pretend through quantum mechanics or any quantum theory that cause and effect do not exist but of course the facts are the facts.
> 
> Sometimes to one effect there is one cause, and that is not a random event
> but a deterministic one.
>>
>> As physicists we create our reality to a large degree. Not the phgysical universe here so much directly but we do.
> 
> In other words, modern physicists make up fairy tales using strange ideas
> and maths.

No fairytale, banjo. The moon does not exist until some physicist looks 
at at. That is truth.

>> For instance by getting together and agreeing that inflationary theory is valid, we are creating our own stage.
> 
> Especially when the public pays for all that. If they did not pay they would
> actually write some fairy tales and sold them.
> 
>> In fact there is nothing in inflationary theory which is provable.
>> It defies the laws of physics completely and in doing so we permit ourselves to diverge from the laws and make an exception.
> 
> In other words, you have given up on the scientific method. And reduced science
> to the level of voodoo on the one hand, and fiction on the other.
> 
> Ugh.

Banjo, Rolf is into computers. He understands little else. All computers 
(except quantum computers that don't work) are deterministic. Hence, 
Rolf's world is deterministic and he pushes his world onto everyone else 
as well. Ugh.

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

#646079 — Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable.

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 8:00:52 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> On 8/14/2017 10:13 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 12:17:36 AM UTC+10, KCIR2 wrote:
> >> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 1:25:27 AM UTC+1, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 2:54:50 AM UTC+5:30, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> >>>> I meant:  The future is just as fixed as the past.
> >>>
> >>> I don't believe that time is a dimension, or that the future is fixed.  According to QM, events are random.  The human mind is free to create the future.
> >>>
> >>> Abhinav Lal
> >>> Writer & Investor
> >>
> >> I agree with you to a certain extent.
> >> There is no such thing as random but the level of complexity so great that it appears random.
> > 
> > No, there is such a thing as random.
> 
> Rolf doesn't believe in random, Banjo. He says the universe is big 
> machine god wound up and now it runs.

Fair enough, and a bigger version of my call centre simulator PACT. Which made
a major part of my living in Australia. However in that program I used random
number generation algorithms following Knuth. Given a seed there can be a 
particular random number sequence as all know.

> >> By nature cause and effect tells us there is no random.
> > 
> > When one event happens as a result of a given cause, out of a multiplicity of
> > possible causes, then that event is called a random event.
> 
> 
> 
> >> And you can pretend through quantum mechanics or any quantum theory that cause and effect do not exist but of course the facts are the facts.
> > 
> > Sometimes to one effect there is one cause, and that is not a random event
> > but a deterministic one.
> >>
> >> As physicists we create our reality to a large degree. Not the phgysical universe here so much directly but we do.
> > 
> > In other words, modern physicists make up fairy tales using strange ideas
> > and maths.
> 
> No fairytale, banjo. The moon does not exist until some physicist looks 
> at at. That is truth.

Science has to be subjective at the creative level, but that is initial. To 
make it subjective there has to be objectivity solidified by learned opinion.
Which could be wrong. Objective opinion may have been that the Moon was a piece
of green cheese. 
> 
> >> For instance by getting together and agreeing that inflationary theory is valid, we are creating our own stage.
> > 
> > Especially when the public pays for all that. If they did not pay they would
> > actually write some fairy tales and sold them.
> > 
> >> In fact there is nothing in inflationary theory which is provable.
> >> It defies the laws of physics completely and in doing so we permit ourselves to diverge from the laws and make an exception.
> > 
> > In other words, you have given up on the scientific method. And reduced science
> > to the level of voodoo on the one hand, and fiction on the other.
> > 
> > Ugh.
> 
> Banjo, Rolf is into computers. He understands little else. All computers 
> (except quantum computers that don't work) are deterministic. Hence, 
> Rolf's world is deterministic and he pushes his world onto everyone else 
> as well. Ugh.

He may have heard of fuzzy logic. To model reality one has to get into the 
randomness. Then the answers are not deterministic, but cover a spread, which
then gets subjected to statistics. The money from such modelling comes when
something anomalous is found and its cause tracked (then in real life, 
amplified or rectified for more profits). Doing such has been my career.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

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

#646087 — Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable.

On 8/15/2017 6:38 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 8:00:52 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>> On 8/14/2017 10:13 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 12:17:36 AM UTC+10, KCIR2 wrote:
>>>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 1:25:27 AM UTC+1, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 2:54:50 AM UTC+5:30, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>>>>>> I meant:  The future is just as fixed as the past.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe that time is a dimension, or that the future is fixed.  According to QM, events are random.  The human mind is free to create the future.
>>>>>
>>>>> Abhinav Lal
>>>>> Writer & Investor
>>>>
>>>> I agree with you to a certain extent.
>>>> There is no such thing as random but the level of complexity so great that it appears random.
>>>
>>> No, there is such a thing as random.
>>
>> Rolf doesn't believe in random, Banjo. He says the universe is big
>> machine god wound up and now it runs.
> 
> Fair enough, and a bigger version of my call centre simulator PACT. Which made
> a major part of my living in Australia. However in that program I used random
> number generation algorithms following Knuth. Given a seed there can be a
> particular random number sequence as all know.

Algorithms do not generate random numbers. Hey, you know I went to 
school with Knuth. He never mentioned PACT to me.

>>>> By nature cause and effect tells us there is no random.
>>>
>>> When one event happens as a result of a given cause, out of a multiplicity of
>>> possible causes, then that event is called a random event.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> And you can pretend through quantum mechanics or any quantum theory that cause and effect do not exist but of course the facts are the facts.
>>>
>>> Sometimes to one effect there is one cause, and that is not a random event
>>> but a deterministic one.
>>>>
>>>> As physicists we create our reality to a large degree. Not the phgysical universe here so much directly but we do.
>>>
>>> In other words, modern physicists make up fairy tales using strange ideas
>>> and maths.
>>
>> No fairytale, banjo. The moon does not exist until some physicist looks
>> at at. That is truth.
> 
> Science has to be subjective at the creative level, but that is initial. To
> make it subjective there has to be objectivity solidified by learned opinion.
> Which could be wrong. Objective opinion may have been that the Moon was a piece
> of green cheese.

Actually there is data (if you believe the Moon shots were nor faked) 
that the green cheese theory is false.

>>>> For instance by getting together and agreeing that inflationary theory is valid, we are creating our own stage.
>>>
>>> Especially when the public pays for all that. If they did not pay they would
>>> actually write some fairy tales and sold them.
>>>
>>>> In fact there is nothing in inflationary theory which is provable.
>>>> It defies the laws of physics completely and in doing so we permit ourselves to diverge from the laws and make an exception.
>>>
>>> In other words, you have given up on the scientific method. And reduced science
>>> to the level of voodoo on the one hand, and fiction on the other.
>>>
>>> Ugh.
>>
>> Banjo, Rolf is into computers. He understands little else. All computers
>> (except quantum computers that don't work) are deterministic. Hence,
>> Rolf's world is deterministic and he pushes his world onto everyone else
>> as well. Ugh.
> 
> He may have heard of fuzzy logic. To model reality one has to get into the
> randomness. Then the answers are not deterministic, but cover a spread, which
> then gets subjected to statistics. The money from such modelling comes when
> something anomalous is found and its cause tracked (then in real life,
> amplified or rectified for more profits). Doing such has been my career.
> 
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
> 

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

#646100 — Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable.

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 9:29:44 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> On 8/15/2017 6:38 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 8:00:52 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> >> On 8/14/2017 10:13 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 12:17:36 AM UTC+10, KCIR2 wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 1:25:27 AM UTC+1, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 2:54:50 AM UTC+5:30, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> >>>>>> I meant:  The future is just as fixed as the past.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't believe that time is a dimension, or that the future is fixed.  According to QM, events are random.  The human mind is free to create the future.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Abhinav Lal
> >>>>> Writer & Investor
> >>>>
> >>>> I agree with you to a certain extent.
> >>>> There is no such thing as random but the level of complexity so great that it appears random.
> >>>
> >>> No, there is such a thing as random.
> >>
> >> Rolf doesn't believe in random, Banjo. He says the universe is big
> >> machine god wound up and now it runs.
> > 
> > Fair enough, and a bigger version of my call centre simulator PACT. Which made
> > a major part of my living in Australia. However in that program I used random
> > number generation algorithms following Knuth. Given a seed there can be a
> > particular random number sequence as all know.
> 
> Algorithms do not generate random numbers. Hey, you know I went to 
> school with Knuth. He never mentioned PACT to me.

Okay they generate pseudo random number sequences. 
When they take in external inputs then it is the equivalent of a natural
random process.
PACT took in 64000 external variables. Could take in more.
I  made it to simulate the teletraffic performances of complex call centre
network, the routing strategies, all leading to reducing call wait time and 
adjust staffing and other matters.
That was back in 1995. It was a separate application, stand alone, and was a
showpiece project for many years.
> 
> >>>> By nature cause and effect tells us there is no random.
> >>>
> >>> When one event happens as a result of a given cause, out of a multiplicity of
> >>> possible causes, then that event is called a random event.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> And you can pretend through quantum mechanics or any quantum theory that cause and effect do not exist but of course the facts are the facts.
> >>>
> >>> Sometimes to one effect there is one cause, and that is not a random event
> >>> but a deterministic one.
> >>>>
> >>>> As physicists we create our reality to a large degree. Not the phgysical universe here so much directly but we do.
> >>>
> >>> In other words, modern physicists make up fairy tales using strange ideas
> >>> and maths.
> >>
> >> No fairytale, banjo. The moon does not exist until some physicist looks
> >> at at. That is truth.
> > 
> > Science has to be subjective at the creative level, but that is initial. To
> > make it subjective there has to be objectivity solidified by learned opinion.
> > Which could be wrong. Objective opinion may have been that the Moon was a piece
> > of green cheese.
> 
> Actually there is data (if you believe the Moon shots were nor faked) 
> that the green cheese theory is false.
> 
> >>>> For instance by getting together and agreeing that inflationary theory is valid, we are creating our own stage.
> >>>
> >>> Especially when the public pays for all that. If they did not pay they would
> >>> actually write some fairy tales and sold them.
> >>>
> >>>> In fact there is nothing in inflationary theory which is provable.
> >>>> It defies the laws of physics completely and in doing so we permit ourselves to diverge from the laws and make an exception.
> >>>
> >>> In other words, you have given up on the scientific method. And reduced science
> >>> to the level of voodoo on the one hand, and fiction on the other.
> >>>
> >>> Ugh.
> >>
> >> Banjo, Rolf is into computers. He understands little else. All computers
> >> (except quantum computers that don't work) are deterministic. Hence,
> >> Rolf's world is deterministic and he pushes his world onto everyone else
> >> as well. Ugh.
> > 
> > He may have heard of fuzzy logic. To model reality one has to get into the
> > randomness. Then the answers are not deterministic, but cover a spread, which
> > then gets subjected to statistics. The money from such modelling comes when
> > something anomalous is found and its cause tracked (then in real life,
> > amplified or rectified for more profits). Doing such has been my career.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee
> >

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

#646119 — Re: Everything is nothing because the (4-D) timescape is static, immutable.

On 8/15/2017 8:37 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 9:29:44 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>> On 8/15/2017 6:38 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 8:00:52 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>>>> On 8/14/2017 10:13 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 12:17:36 AM UTC+10, KCIR2 wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 1:25:27 AM UTC+1, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 2:54:50 AM UTC+5:30, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>>>>>>>> I meant:  The future is just as fixed as the past.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't believe that time is a dimension, or that the future is fixed.  According to QM, events are random.  The human mind is free to create the future.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Abhinav Lal
>>>>>>> Writer & Investor
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain extent.
>>>>>> There is no such thing as random but the level of complexity so great that it appears random.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, there is such a thing as random.
>>>>
>>>> Rolf doesn't believe in random, Banjo. He says the universe is big
>>>> machine god wound up and now it runs.
>>>
>>> Fair enough, and a bigger version of my call centre simulator PACT. Which made
>>> a major part of my living in Australia. However in that program I used random
>>> number generation algorithms following Knuth. Given a seed there can be a
>>> particular random number sequence as all know.
>>
>> Algorithms do not generate random numbers. Hey, you know I went to
>> school with Knuth. He never mentioned PACT to me.
> 
> Okay they generate pseudo random number sequences.
> When they take in external inputs then it is the equivalent of a natural
> random process.
> PACT took in 64000 external variables. Could take in more.
> I  made it to simulate the teletraffic performances of complex call centre
> network, the routing strategies, all leading to reducing call wait time and
> adjust staffing and other matters.
> That was back in 1995. It was a separate application, stand alone, and was a
> showpiece project for many years.

Yeah, Pseudorandom good enough for traffic simulation. Lots of call 
centers (centres) could use improvement...even now.

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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web