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

Groups > sci.physics > #687059 > unrolled thread

Particle Physics

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Particle Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-05-25 10:16 -0700
    Re: Particle Physics Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-25 15:54 -0400
      Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 19:52 -0700
        Re: Particle Physics poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-05-28 01:11 -0700
        Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 18:15 +0000
          Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 12:58 -0700
            Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 21:42 +0000
              Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 14:54 -0700
                Re: Particle Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-28 23:45 +0000
                Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 23:59 +0000
                  Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 05:44 -0700
                    Re: Particle Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-29 12:55 +0000
                      Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 06:07 -0700
                        Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 13:15 +0000
                          Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 06:51 -0700
                            Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 15:07 +0000
                              Re: Particle Physics poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-05-29 08:26 -0700
                                Re: Particle Physics poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-05-29 08:32 -0700
                                  Re: Particle Physics poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-05-29 08:38 -0700
                                    Re: Particle Physics poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-05-29 08:41 -0700
                              Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 08:34 -0700
                                Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 16:05 +0000
                        Re: Particle Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-29 16:48 +0000
                          Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 10:52 -0700
                            Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 18:09 +0000
                              Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 11:14 -0700
                                Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 18:33 +0000
                                  Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 11:54 -0700
                                    Re: Particle Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-29 19:07 +0000
                                      Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 12:34 -0700
                                        Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 19:53 +0000
                                          Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 13:33 -0700
                                            Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 21:11 +0000
                                              Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 15:42 -0700
                                                Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 23:03 +0000
                                                  Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 16:28 -0700
                                                    Re: Particle Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-30 04:48 +0000
                                                      Re: Particle Physics poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-05-29 22:39 -0700
                                                      Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 06:39 -0700
                                                        Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 14:42 +0000
                                                          Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 07:57 -0700
                                                            Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 15:39 +0000
                                                        Re: Particle Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-31 17:13 +0000
                                                          Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 03:15 -0700
                                                            Re: Particle Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-01 11:43 +0000
                                                              Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 05:47 -0700
                                                                Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 13:00 +0000
                                                                  Re: Particle Physics poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-06-01 23:54 -0700
                                            Re: Particle Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-30 04:37 +0000
                                              Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 06:58 -0700
                                    Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 19:47 +0000
                                      Re: Particle Physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 13:28 -0700
                                        Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 21:11 +0000
                                        Re: Particle Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-30 04:30 +0000
                                Re: Particle Physics poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-05-29 16:34 -0700
                              Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 18:32 +0000
                                Re: Particle Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-29 18:57 +0000
                                For most, SciFi is preferable. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-05-29 15:17 -0700
                            Re: Particle Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-29 18:12 +0000
                    Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 13:15 +0000
          Re: Particle Physics poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-05-28 21:13 -0700
        Re: Particle Physics mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-05-28 15:11 -0700
    Re: Particle Physics Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 14:55 -0700
      Re: Particle Physics poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-05-28 21:18 -0700
    Re: Particle Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-05-31 10:03 -0700
    Re: Particle Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-04 14:50 -0700
    Re: Particle Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-04 15:45 -0700

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

#687806

Odd
“’ll repeat: physics models do not have to be clear and transparent to the 
uneducated. Tha”
Yours is not up to snuff. Sorry, but you believe garbage. Standard Model is all but dead- it goes nowhere and comes from nowhere.
You can’t explain it.
You can’t illustrate it.
You can’t predict with it.
It’s garbage.
Good thing you devoted your life to wood, hey? And weren’t a physics teacher. THAT would feel awful

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

#687808

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “’ll repeat: physics models do not have to be clear and transparent to the 
> uneducated. Tha”
> Yours is not up to snuff. 

Whose snuff? Yours? Yours doesn’t count!

> Sorry, but you believe garbage. Standard Model is all but dead- it goes
> nowhere and comes from nowhere.
> You can’t explain it.

Yes I can. With lingo and math and after you know basics. Explain it to
someone with an 11-year-old’s grip if science? No. 

> You can’t illustrate it.

Right. So?

> You can’t predict with it.

Bullshit. There are literally THOUSANDS of predictions that the theory of
atoms make. Now I’m going to listen to you squawk “But those ones I don’t
care about. It doesn’t predict the things I want to ask about, like
predicting the trajectory.” Take your passive-aggressive blinders and go
elsewhere. 

> It’s garbage.
> Good thing you devoted your life to wood, hey? And weren’t a physics
> teacher. THAT would feel awful
> 

I would not want to teach someone who won’t study. 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#687963

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>MM
>">You don't HAVE a model.

>You should talk. You haven't come up with any science model yet, not even
>after you've been asked for one for YEARS. All you have ar"
>All I have is the Universal Fractal, where galaxies are made out of 
>self-similar structures called atoms and atoms are made out of 
>self-similar structures called...what should we call them Michael?

How about stupid?

So so far you have an IDEA, from which you are unable to develop a
scientific model, despite people asking you for one for years!

>I also have the pattern for all Matter: the 1:2 rotation:

Another idea not developed into a model. Specifically it explains
NOTHING and creates all sorts of unnecessary physics laws violations.
(which need to be addressed in your model, if you ever develop one)

>I also have the pattern for all photons:
> http://users.accescpmm.ca/sefton/PHOTON.GIF
> which is a 1:1 rotation

Again, another idea not developed into a model. Also with more physics
laws violations that need to be addressed in your never-forthcoming model.

>I also found the math underlying the 1:2 pattern if you want to see it?

Make it part of your model (if you ever create it!), sure, but your model
will have to be good enough such that it isn't immediately rejected as
unworkable.

>But that-all isn't a model to you, is it?

Nope, no explanations, no problems supposedly fixed, no explanation about
apparent physics law violations, no proposed experiments that would show
your proposal correct and standard physics incorrect (or vice versa)
Remember, any NEW model has to be AT LEAST AS GOOD as existing models
at explaining what we can already see/measure/test for. For example, any
NEW model of gravity doesn't just have to describe the path of a baseball,
it would need to predict the precession of Mercury accurately.


> Obscure probability math 
>and a bunch (1000s) of bubble chamber somethings are what you like.

But there, someone noticed a pattern, and developed a preliminary model
where he predicted if you do certain explicit parameters, you'll see a NEW
particle with a particular mass, charge and particular other properties.
Well guess what. They did use those particular parameters and shortly they
DID discover a new particle with the predicted mass, charge etc. The
Omega-. Look up "Omega Minus" and "Eightfold Way" for more details (if you
are brave enough to actually read anything)

> And you can't even draw a picture of how you think they fit together, 

You mentioned bubble chambers. Why not print out a few bubble chamber
photos and you can color them?

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

#688077

MM
“You mentioned bubble chambers. Why not print out a few bubble chamber 
photos and you can color them? ”
No, I’ll stick with the 1:2 wave and explore it more.

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

#688080

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>MM
>"You mentioned bubble chambers. Why not print out a few bubble chamber
>photos and you can color them? "
>No, I'll stick with the 1:2 wave and explore it more.

Rats. I was hoping you had advanced to the coloring book stage by now.

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

#688082

MM
“Rats. I was hoping you had advanced to the coloring book stage by now. ”
Well, I’m pretty intimidated by your great works, actually, Michael

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

#688084

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> MM
> “Rats. I was hoping you had advanced to the coloring book stage by now. ”
> Well, I’m pretty intimidated by your great works, actually, Michael
> 

That much is clear, John. I’ve asked myself many times why anybody who is
interested in a subject would steadfastly steer away from learning about it
through reading or whatever. I mean, what’s the risk? Library books are
free, the time is your own. 

As you say, it’s paralysis from intimidation. It’s opening up a book,
giving it two pages, and then putting it down with the thought “I can’t do
this.” Or worse, not even opening up the book, just to avoid that feeling. 

It’s a terrible way to live, confined to the narrow space where you feel
confident in your ability, no matter how meager. It’s “I’m fascinated with
physics, but I’m only willing to think about it at the level I feel
comfortable.” 

What’s it like day to day living with no guts?

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#688265

On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 4:00:39 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> > MM
> > “Rats. I was hoping you had advanced to the coloring book stage by now. ”
> > Well, I’m pretty intimidated by your great works, actually, Michael
> > 
> 
> That much is clear, John. I’ve asked myself many times why anybody who is
> interested in a subject would steadfastly steer away from learning about it
> through reading or whatever. I mean, what’s the risk? Library books are
> free, the time is your own. 
> 
> As you say, it’s paralysis from intimidation. It’s opening up a book,
> giving it two pages, and then putting it down with the thought “I can’t do
> this.” Or worse, not even opening up the book, just to avoid that feeling. 
> 
> It’s a terrible way to live, confined to the narrow space where you feel
> confident in your ability, no matter how meager. It’s “I’m fascinated with
> physics, but I’m only willing to think about it at the level I feel
> comfortable.” 
> 
> What’s it like day to day living with no guts?
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
=====================
I am very happy to hear that
Bodkin Draper
has guts ….

may be too much buts …..
may be with ''appendix ''
=====
Y.Porat
===========================

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

#687769

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Odd
>"to be right. And the whole business about science REQUIRING quantitative
>calculations and comparison with measurement data he deemed unfair.
>"
>You're the idiot for sticking with DM, volumeless whatevers, handwaving 
>just-because-it's-there Gravity,
>and the rest of your hogwash.

And you STILL can't come up with ANY reason what's wrong with volumeless
particles, dark matter etc. other than it somehow offends "John (il)logic".
Nor can you defend inserting retarded precessing spinny things just about
everywhere you can, even when they would just make things worse.

So who the hell are you calling Odd an idiot when you can't even come up
with a single reason why that "hogwash" is idiotic?

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

#687803

MM 
“>You don't HAVE a model. 

You should talk. You haven't come up with any science model yet, not even 
after you've been asked for one for YEARS. All you have ar”
All I have is the Universal Fractal, where galaxies are made out of self-similar structures called atoms and atoms are made out of self-similar structures called...what should we call them Michael? 
I also have the pattern for all Matter: the 1:2 rotation: 
 http://users.accesscomm.ca/sefton/2electronorbital.GIF 
I also have the pattern for all photons: 
 http://users.accesscomm.ca/sefton/PHOTON.GIF 
 which is a 1:1 rotation 
I also found the math underlying the 1:2 pattern if you want to see it? 

But that-all isn’t a model to you, is it? Obscure probability math and a bunch (1000s) of bubble chamber somethings are what you like. And you can’t even draw a picture of how you think they fit together, because in QM, everybody’s is everywhere all the time and nobody can know anything until they look. Right Michael?

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

#687694

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “thing as “qualified” people. There are people who have learned the basics, 
> learned the lingo, learned the math; and there are people who haven’t. ”
> Lingo for blowing smoke.
> You haven’t got clue one.
> QM is PROBABILITY MATH.

Bullshit, John. These are empty words you’ve attached to denigrate
something you don’t understand.  

> Have you taken probability? I’m sure you have when learning your ‘woodworking’. 

Yes I took math courses in school. And yes I’ve read a bunch on QM, which
you are apparently averse to. 

> You can make it argue whichever side of an argument you want.
> 
> If. You. Can’t. Explain. It. Simply. You. Don’t. Understand. It.

John, this is a pipe dream. If everything could be explained simply to
people even without training, there would be NO NEED for higher education,
no need for licenses and certifications, no need for people to spend 10,000
hours to become competent in a subject. Give it up and grow up. 

> 
> You can’t. And you don’t.
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#687712

Odd
“everything could be explained simply to 
people even without training, there would be NO NEED for higher education, ”
ABSOLUTELY total bullshit!!!!!
EVERYONE competent at their job can explain EXACTLY what and why they are doing to ANYONE!!!
A surgeon can comment on every cut he makes, but he sure isn’t going to hand YOU the scalpel.
Watch the guy on TV paint his picture- now you think YOU can? ???

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

#687722

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “everything could be explained simply to 
> people even without training, there would be NO NEED for higher education, ”
> ABSOLUTELY total bullshit!!!!!
> EVERYONE competent at their job can explain EXACTLY what and why they are
> doing to ANYONE!!!

I disagree. 

A surgeon can explain what he’s doing but not why in the detail that offers
understanding. Same is true for a chemical engineer or an architect or an
applied mathematician. 

There are of course popularizations that try to make some things marginally
understandable. Like Brian Greene’s books or Lisa Randall’s. But those are
BOOKS, which you won’t spend the time to read. 

If you ask ANY expert what they’re doing in a way that offers decent
understanding and in a paragraph or less, you’re going to get a brief
statement shrouded in a significant amount of mystery along with a big dose
of “you’re going to have to trust me”.

You apparently have no concept why advanced training in these subjects is
needed. It’s not because they are practicing simple things until they’re
good at them. It’s because there’s a lot of stuff to LEARN. 

Did you go to college, John? Do you have a degree in any particular
subject? With that degree do you think you could be a professional in that
area? If not, what do you think marks the difference for those who can be a
pro?  

> A surgeon can comment on every cut he makes, but he sure isn’t going to
> hand YOU the scalpel.
> Watch the guy on TV paint his picture- now you think YOU can? ???
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#687768

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Odd
>EVERYONE competent at their job can explain EXACTLY what and why they are
>doing to ANYONE!!!

No, John, it would be extremely difficult for me to explain exactly what I
am up to in my work to a novice, which includes everything from computer
file systems, computer clustering, networking, 4 levels of x86 page tables
just to name some I've dealt with recently. These all need a rather
lengthly design spec to explain what's going on.

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

#687742

On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 9:14:11 PM UTC+3, john wrote:
> Odd
> “Why do you think you are so entitled? Seriously, I’d like you to ”
> Everybody is entitled to a proper understanding of atoms. You don’t have one, but claim that you do and it’s counterintuitive and it can only be understood by qualified people and we should just trust you? You’re blowing smoke, dude.
> Put up or shut up- you’ll never do either

==============================
John
yo are absolutely right !!

Bodkinn shmodkin (Paul Draper )
by the very fact that he is coming as anonymous 
means  he is a sabotage crock !!
as a found an say again and again 

THE NUCKEUS IS NOT JUST A PORRIDGE OF SUB PARTRICLES !!

if you like metaphorically:

the way that the Human genome
is not just a porridge of sub particles !
each sub particle has its exact 
3D location !!!
as I show the nucleus in my historic model

no*** abstract** mathematics shmetemetics 
can do it!!!

and a remark to Michael Moroney  :
stop being a 
'Sancho Pantcho'  of Bodkin Draper
(are you in the same ''business /interest
as Bodkin ?)
==============
Y.P
=============================
 
  

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

#687685

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
>> MM
>> “
>> For the third time, find a Feynman diagram of nucleon-nucleon interaction. 
>> ”
>> Scribble and hand waving
>> 
> 
> It is TO YOU because you’ve not read up on what a Feynman diagram
> represents. 
> 
> But you (nor anybody) aren’t entitled to a description that meets you where
> you are. Why do you think you are so entitled? Seriously, I’d like you to
> try to answer that question. 
> 

You may be aware of Ken Seto in sci.physics.relativity 

Like you, he cannot do any math, in his case even at third grade level.
Like you, he does not know what most physics terms mean, and he guesses
badly. And like you, he has certain expectations of what should be features
of a physical model, including a couple things you want but a number of
other things where you don’t overlap. 

And like you, he is frustrated by physics not presenting things in a way
that makes sense TO HIM. And out of that frustration he wrote a book with
his idea of a model that makes sense to him. The boom has no sales of
course, which further frustrated him. 

Among the things he is off the mark about: 
- that calculations and comparison to experiment are irrelevant and aren’t
nearly as important as having things make intuitive, visual sense
- that if it violates common sense then it is wrong
- that if his theory is simpler, then it is more right
- that if only scientists would treat seriously the ideas of the untrained,
then world problems could be solved
- that if it involves things that aren’t everyday matter (like fields) then
all those things are fictional nonsense and the idea is useless 

Sound familiar? So you see, John, not only are you a crank but you’re an
ORDINARY crank, not even particularly original in your beliefs. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#687689

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:

>You may be aware of Ken Seto in sci.physics.relativity 

>Like you, he cannot do any math, in his case even at third grade level.
[]

Exactly.

The purpose of science is to figure out how Nature works, so we can
perhaps use that knowledge to create cool things like computers and
GPS systems.

Nature NEVER gave us any promises.

In particular, nature never promised the math would be easy.
Nature never promised the physics itself would be easy.
Nature never promised it would be consistent with common sense
 (especially your "common sense", John!)
 Much of what we have learned seem truly bizarre at first.
Nature never promised all rules would have equal weight at all scales.
(for example, at macroscopic scales, quantization is almost irrelevant,
but at the atomic scale it is VERY important!)

Remember, we humans evolved in a world where the only thing that we saw
moving at relativistic speeds was light itself, and to us, its speed was
infinite. We also did not observe anything quantized. So "common sense"
is of no help dealing with that type of stuff.

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

#687735 — For most, SciFi is preferable.

Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Ken Seto in "sci.physics.relativity" says
> - if it violates common sense then it is wrong.

The common man can't relate to Relativity ( nor does he need to );
so, in a way, it defies "common sense".

But, if " the ultra big and the ultra small " interest you,
as they well might, then you _should_ know it ( for fun );
for most, however, SciFi is preferable.

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

#687682

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>MM
>For the third time, find a Feynman diagram of nucleon-nucleon interaction.

>Scribble and hand waving

Maybe if you actually took the time to learn what everything means,
you won't think that way.

Meanwhile, get out your crayons and enjoy coloring it.

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

#687639

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “
> I was talking about Yukawa mesons in whole atoms. 
> 
> Try reading instead of guessing and floundering. ”
> 
> Draw me a picture and label the parts and reference me to the microscope they saw it with.
> 

Light microscopes don’t work at scales of 100 nm or less for a very simple
physics reason. You know what that is?

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[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