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 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 02:38 -0500 |
| Subject | Future Advances in Physics... |
| Message-ID | <_x8cy.4543$h27.3447@fx23.iad> |
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.
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.
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.
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!
Point is while strategic writers like HVAC and Odd try to ridicule any
mention of a forbidden topic and discourage any actual investigation,
this is exactly where the next advances will occur. They say, these
things can't be real (never looking at the actual data, of course)
because there is no theory to explain them! Ding! Ding! Ding!
It is the very FACT that there is no theory that "explains" them that
shows that they NEED to be studied! So today there is a HUGE list of
"forbidden topics" that are off-limits to official support and
publication and it is little wonder that official physics has lapsed
into some monster word game of people trying to "explain" the universe
using ever more and more illogical and meaningless "explanations".
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?
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J.B. Wood" <arl_123234@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 06:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n4rhc8$d1f$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539548 |
On 12/16/2015 02:38 AM, 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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! > > Point is while strategic writers like HVAC and Odd try to ridicule any > mention of a forbidden topic and discourage any actual investigation, > this is exactly where the next advances will occur. They say, these > things can't be real (never looking at the actual data, of course) > because there is no theory to explain them! Ding! Ding! Ding! > > It is the very FACT that there is no theory that "explains" them that > shows that they NEED to be studied! So today there is a HUGE list of > "forbidden topics" that are off-limits to official support and > publication and it is little wonder that official physics has lapsed > into some monster word game of people trying to "explain" the universe > using ever more and more illogical and meaningless "explanations". > > 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? > > Well, from a practical standpoint, without a follow-up by engineers it don't mean squat. IOW ya got the foundation but where's the house? Sincerely, -- J. B. Wood e-mail: arl_123234@hotmail.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 04:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2945e113-3197-46ef-884d-432dd54b85a8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #539564 |
They don't have a foundation. Remember? Electrons have no structure
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 13:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <VGhcy.127$uJ5.118@fx35.iad> |
| In reply to | #539564 |
On 12/16/2015 06:19 AM, J.B. Wood wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 02:38 AM, 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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!
>>
>> Point is while strategic writers like HVAC and Odd try to ridicule any
>> mention of a forbidden topic and discourage any actual investigation,
>> this is exactly where the next advances will occur. They say, these
>> things can't be real (never looking at the actual data, of course)
>> because there is no theory to explain them! Ding! Ding! Ding!
>>
>> It is the very FACT that there is no theory that "explains" them that
>> shows that they NEED to be studied! So today there is a HUGE list of
>> "forbidden topics" that are off-limits to official support and
>> publication and it is little wonder that official physics has lapsed
>> into some monster word game of people trying to "explain" the universe
>> using ever more and more illogical and meaningless "explanations".
>>
>> 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?
>>
>>
> Well, from a practical standpoint, without a follow-up by engineers it
> don't mean squat. IOW ya got the foundation but where's the house?
> Sincerely,
From a practical standpoint engineers work from a theory. Science
starts with the unknown and then (hopefully) provides a theory.
The argument (often presented here) that since there is no theory then
the effects can't exist is clearly nonsense. If followed throughout
science NOTHING new would have ever been figured out!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 07:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4rpvm$2hk$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539548 |
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. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 16:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n4ruhb$5eo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #539578 |
On 12/16/2015 02:46 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 12/16/2015 1:38 AM, benj wrote: >> >> In a way it's just an imitation of Einstein who everyone imagines just >> cranked out a complex mathematical theory that nobody understands off >> the top of his genius head. > > Speak for yourself, Ben. > I do not believe that the theory of relativity is all that complex. > I do not believe that nobody understands it. > I do not believe it takes a genius to understand it. > > Now, it might be that YOU think nobody understands it. It might be that > YOU think it's complex. It might be that YOU imagine that Einstein just > cranked it out so that it would be above everyone's head. But that's > just YOU, and you don't speak for anyone else but you. > If anybody claims all what he does not understand is useless nonsense and word salad, it helps keeping him big in his eyes. If he admitted it might be true but out of his league, he would have also admit he is not as smart as he thought or claimed. Such idea is impossible to withstand. So as a Parthian withdrawal, there is recommended back-shooting of arrows of personal offences to distract people from his lack of knowledge. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 09:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4rvj0$hlt$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539587 |
On 12/16/2015 9:06 AM, Poutnik wrote: > On 12/16/2015 02:46 PM, 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. >> > > If anybody claims > all what he does not understand is useless nonsense and word salad, > it helps keeping him big in his eyes. > > If he admitted > it might be true but out of his league, > he would have also admit > he is not as smart as he thought or claimed. > > Such idea is impossible to withstand. So as a Parthian withdrawal, > there is recommended back-shooting of arrows of personal offences > to distract people from his lack of knowledge. > Right. Ben Jacoby is tired of people telling him he doesn't understand some things. And so when someone else claims to understand something he doesn't then Ben overreacts, saying "Oh, so you're claiming to be some kind of GENIUS!" No. Understanding something that Ben doesn't understand doesn't require genius. Ben is also fond of overgeneralizing, saying that if he doesn't understand something, then NOBODY understands it either. And if he has a belief, then he's prone to say that EVERYONE believes the same thing. Which is nonsense. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 13:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <WMhcy.130$uJ5.45@fx35.iad> |
| In reply to | #539589 |
On 12/16/2015 10:22 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 9:06 AM, Poutnik wrote:
>> On 12/16/2015 02:46 PM, 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.
>>>
>>
>> If anybody claims
>> all what he does not understand is useless nonsense and word salad,
>> it helps keeping him big in his eyes.
>>
>> If he admitted
>> it might be true but out of his league,
>> he would have also admit
>> he is not as smart as he thought or claimed.
>>
>> Such idea is impossible to withstand. So as a Parthian withdrawal,
>> there is recommended back-shooting of arrows of personal offences
>> to distract people from his lack of knowledge.
>>
>
> Right. Ben Jacoby is tired of people telling him he doesn't understand
> some things. And so when someone else claims to understand something he
> doesn't then Ben overreacts, saying "Oh, so you're claiming to be some
> kind of GENIUS!" No. Understanding something that Ben doesn't understand
> doesn't require genius.
>
> Ben is also fond of overgeneralizing, saying that if he doesn't
> understand something, then NOBODY understands it either. And if he has a
> belief, then he's prone to say that EVERYONE believes the same thing.
> Which is nonsense.
Boinker has been in his Ivory tower so long he is totally unaware of the
media and public perception. In truth Einstein and relativity has been
so hyped by media for so long that the very IMAGE (including hairdoo) of
a science "genius" has been changed in the public mind!
Boinker really needs to get out more.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 12:36 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4savn$fac$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539617 |
On 12/16/2015 12:08 PM, benj wrote: > Boinker has been in his Ivory tower so long he is totally unaware of the > media and public perception. I'm a member of the public. I'm aware of media hype around Einstein. I do not share the vision hyped by the media, even though I'm a member of the public. I believe there are lots of intelligent people who are also unaffected by the media hype, and that they know better to go find better sources than the media hype. People who are swayed by media hype deserve exactly the misinformation they get. I see no reason to bitch about media hype and those who are swayed by it. There are lots of intelligent people who don't give a flying flip about Kim Kartrashian, Donald Dumb-as-a-Stump, Classless Hilton, Whoever-the-hell-left One Direction, or who's on the chopping block at Dancing With the Stars. And these people don't care about the lip-foamers about Einstein, either. Did you know that after 1919, when Einstein published a paper, there would be department store owners who would paste his paper up in the display windows so that window-shoppers could read the paper? Do you know how stupid that is? > In truth Einstein and relativity has been > so hyped by media for so long that the very IMAGE (including hairdoo) of > a science "genius" has been changed in the public mind! > > Boinker really needs to get out more. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 13:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n4scea$isd$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539617 |
On 12/16/2015 12:08 PM, benj wrote: > In truth Einstein and relativity has been > so hyped by media for so long that the very IMAGE (including hairdoo) of > a science "genius" has been changed in the public mind! So, really the question is: why should anyone care? Why do YOU care this has happened? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jürgen Großenbach <jurgengb@adenauer.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 20:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n4sgco$se3$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539632 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 12/16/2015 12:08 PM, benj wrote: >> In truth Einstein and relativity has been so hyped by media for so long >> that the very IMAGE (including hairdoo) of a science "genius" has been >> changed in the public mind! > > So, really the question is: why should anyone care? > Why do YOU care this has happened? LHC sees hint of boson heavier than Higgs http://www.nature.com/news/lhc-sees-hint-of-boson-heavier-than-higgs-1.19036 Amazing how wrong they can be. LHC is already an old obsolete apparatus, ha ha ha.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jürgen Großenbach <jurgengb@adenauer.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 20:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n4sghd$se3$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539648 |
Jürgen Großenbach wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 12/16/2015 12:08 PM, benj wrote: >>> In truth Einstein and relativity has been so hyped by media for so long >>> that the very IMAGE (including hairdoo) of a science "genius" has been >>> changed in the public mind! >> >> So, really the question is: why should anyone care? >> Why do YOU care this has happened? > > LHC sees hint of boson heavier than Higgs > http://www.nature.com/news/lhc-sees-hint-of-boson-heavier-than- higgs-1.19036 > > Amazing how wrong they can be. LHC is already an old obsolete > apparatus, ha ha ha. ha ha ha "Corrected: An earlier version of this article stated, incorrectly, that the two photons have masses of about 750 GeV each and that the new particle would have a mass of 1,500 GeV."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 22:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4090326.tIYEUPOZxQ@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #539649 |
The ‘nym-shifting troll posted as “Jürgen Großenbach”: >> LHC sees hint of boson heavier than Higgs >> http://www.nature.com/news/lhc-sees-hint-of-boson-heavier-than-> higgs-1.19036 >> >> Amazing how wrong they can be. LHC is already an old obsolete >> apparatus, ha ha ha. > > ha ha ha "Corrected: An earlier version of this article stated, > incorrectly, that the two photons have masses of about 750 GeV each and > that the new particle would have a mass of 1,500 GeV." And *that* is science, too. *PLONK* PointedEars -- Q: Why is electricity so dangerous? A: It doesn't conduct itself. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 22:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <8486258.UNWtVgUWtI@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #539648 |
The ’nym-shifting troll posted as “Jürgen Großenbach”: > LHC sees hint of boson heavier than Higgs > http://www.nature.com/news/lhc-sees-hint-of-boson-heavier-than-higgs-1.19036 > > Amazing how wrong they can be. That is *science*, which you will probably never understand, ’nym-shifting troll. *The very purpose* of science (from Latin «scientia» „knowledge“) is learning things that you did *not* know before. That includes learning that what you thought you knew before is not quite correct or outright wrong because now you have found something that contradicts it. Science is the falsification or confirmation of ideas through experiment or application of logic. > LHC is already an old obsolete apparatus, ha ha ha. It is not. PointedEars -- Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door when he went camping? A: 'Gone fission'. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 22:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n4sk5r$dh5$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #539663 |
Użytkownik "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:8486258.UNWtVgUWtI@PointedEars.de... |because now you have found something that contradicts it. Science is the |falsification or confirmation of ideas through experiment or application of |logic. No, it is not. Science is something, what you will surely never understand, poor idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jürgen Großenbach <jurgengb@adenauer.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 21:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n4skll$71c$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539666 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:8486258.UNWtVgUWtI@PointedEars.de... > > |because now you have found something that contradicts it. Science is > the |falsification or confirmation of ideas through experiment or > application of |logic. > > No, it is not. Science is something, what you will surely never > understand, poor idiot. Ahaha, good one Maciek, thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jürgen Großenbach <jurgengb@adenauer.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 21:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n4skd9$71c$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #539663 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > *The very purpose* of science (from Latin «scientia» „knowledge“) is Scientia is rather a verb, to sciente, which means *to know* >> LHC is already an old obsolete apparatus, ha ha ha. > > It is not. Overdimensionated, overcostly, overpaid accumulation of complexity of totally nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 22:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6f037254-0596-4d62-b6bc-74a7559a3065@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #539617 |
On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 8:08:58 PM UTC+2, benj wrote: > On 12/16/2015 10:22 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 12/16/2015 9:06 AM, Poutnik wrote: > >> On 12/16/2015 02:46 PM, 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. > >>> > >> > >> If anybody claims > >> all what he does not understand is useless nonsense and word salad, > >> it helps keeping him big in his eyes. > >> > >> If he admitted > >> it might be true but out of his league, > >> he would have also admit > >> he is not as smart as he thought or claimed. > >> > >> Such idea is impossible to withstand. So as a Parthian withdrawal, > >> there is recommended back-shooting of arrows of personal offences > >> to distract people from his lack of knowledge. > >> > > > > Right. Ben Jacoby is tired of people telling him he doesn't understand > > some things. And so when someone else claims to understand something he > > doesn't then Ben overreacts, saying "Oh, so you're claiming to be some > > kind of GENIUS!" No. Understanding something that Ben doesn't understand > > doesn't require genius. > > > > Ben is also fond of overgeneralizing, saying that if he doesn't > > understand something, then NOBODY understands it either. And if he has a > > belief, then he's prone to say that EVERYONE believes the same thing. > > Which is nonsense. > > Boinker has been in his Ivory tower so long he is totally unaware of the > media and public perception. In truth Einstein and relativity has been > so hyped by media for so long that the very IMAGE (including hairdoo) of > a science "genius" has been changed in the public mind! > > Boinker really needs to get out more. > > > -- > ___ ___ ___ ___ >============================= you can say it much simpler : anonymous !! again anonymous ' Bodkin ie PAUL DRAPER (P D ) is one of the greatest pigs and shameless thieves here ====================== Y.Porat ==========================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-17 06:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ba3bd92d-f09a-401c-83ba-fab579c50728@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #539617 |
Four angry/insane posts in a row. I think that constitutes a rant. Good thing you're not mad
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-16 22:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bc01ed2b-63a9-46b4-9ef1-28a4551af581@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #539589 |
On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 5:22:14 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 12/16/2015 9:06 AM, Poutnik wrote: > > On 12/16/2015 02:46 PM, 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. > >> > > > > If anybody claims > > all what he does not understand is useless nonsense and word salad, > > it helps keeping him big in his eyes. > > > > If he admitted > > it might be true but out of his league, > > he would have also admit > > he is not as smart as he thought or claimed. > > > > Such idea is impossible to withstand. So as a Parthian withdrawal, > > there is recommended back-shooting of arrows of personal offences > > to distract people from his lack of knowledge. > > > > Right. Ben Jacoby is tired of people telling him he doesn't understand > some things. And so when someone else claims to understand something he > doesn't then Ben overreacts, saying "Oh, so you're claiming to be some > kind of GENIUS!" No. Understanding something that Ben doesn't understand > doesn't require genius. > > Ben is also fond of overgeneralizing, saying that if he doesn't > understand something, then NOBODY understands it either. And if he has a > belief, then he's prone to say that EVERYONE believes the same thing. > Which is nonsense. > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables ===================== and we are tired of nasty pigs who pose that they understand every think for just a little instance: if spce curves TO WHICH DIRECTION DOES IT CURVE : A to left side b to right side c to up d to down side and if to one of them WHY ????!! TIA Y.Porat =================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web