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

Groups > sci.physics > #540443 > unrolled thread

Re: Do neutrinos really have masses?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-20 09:46 -0800
    Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 18:58 +0100
      Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-22 10:16 -0800
        Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-23 13:00 -0500
          Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-23 15:57 -0800
            Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-26 07:45 -0500
              Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-27 09:01 -0800
                Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 12:24 -0600
                  Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-27 16:51 -0800
                    Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 20:13 -0600
                      Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-27 23:58 -0800
                Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-28 06:55 -0500
                  Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-28 08:37 -0800
                    Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-28 20:31 -0500
                      Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 08:25 -0600
                        Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 08:30 -0600
                          Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-29 08:45 -0800
                            Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 10:50 -0600
                              Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-29 09:22 -0800
                                Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 11:28 -0600
                                  Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-29 09:59 -0800
                                    Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 10:34 -0800
                                    Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 12:48 -0600
                                      Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-29 11:38 -0800
                                        Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 13:52 -0600
                                Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 11:50 -0600
                                  Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-29 10:18 -0800
                                    Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 12:50 -0600
                                      Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-29 11:45 -0800
                                        Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 13:54 -0600
                                          Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-29 13:20 -0800
                                          Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 16:53 -0500
                                            Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 16:13 -0600
                                              Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-29 16:20 -0800
                                                Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 18:23 -0600
                                                  Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 17:49 -0800
                                                    Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? "Sam Jones" <invalid@example.com> - 2015-12-30 20:38 -0800
                                                      Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 05:55 -0800
                                                  Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-31 09:45 -0800
                                                    Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 13:04 -0600
                                            Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 16:25 -0600
                                          Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-30 11:31 -0800
                                    Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 10:55 -0800
                                      Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 13:04 -0600
                                        Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? dobri karagorgov <dobrikarate.gov@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 11:24 -0800
                                        Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 09:14 -0800
                          Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 09:53 -0500
                        Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 09:49 -0500
                      Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-29 08:11 -0800
                        Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-30 11:40 -0500
                          Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-31 08:35 -0800
                            Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-12-31 16:11 -0500
                              Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2015-12-31 14:34 -0800
                                Re: Do neutrinos really have masses? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 02:57 -0500

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

#542117

On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 12:28:42 UTC-5, Sam Wormley  wrote:
> On 12/29/15 11:22 AM, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> > quantum mechanics is all based on empirical observations
> 
>    How so?
> 

well not all the way from the beginning when Einstein himself
solved the ultraviolet catastrophe with the photoelectric
effect paper but somewhere along the way when empirical 
science took off and experiments start to reveal natures
true colors thanks to the evolving methods of observation

r.y

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

#542124

On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 12:59:53 PM UTC-5, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 12:28:42 UTC-5, Sam Wormley  wrote:
> > On 12/29/15 11:22 AM, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> > > quantum mechanics is all based on empirical observations
> > 
> >    How so?
> > 
> well not all the way from the beginning when Einstein himself
> solved the ultraviolet catastrophe with the photoelectric
> effect paper but somewhere along the way when empirical 
> science took off and experiments start to reveal natures
> true colors thanks to the evolving methods of observation
> 
> r.y

http://electrons.wikidot.com/solving-ultraviolet-catastrophe

You so misspelled Max Planck himself as well ...youKnowWho.

-- Mahipal "IPMM... When autocorrect SW Apps simply never help."

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

#542129

On 12/29/2015 11:59 AM, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 12:28:42 UTC-5, Sam Wormley  wrote:
>> On 12/29/15 11:22 AM, Raymond Yohros wrote:
>>> quantum mechanics is all based on empirical observations
>>
>>     How so?
>>
>
> well not all the way from the beginning when Einstein himself
> solved the ultraviolet catastrophe with the photoelectric
> effect paper but somewhere along the way when empirical
> science took off and experiments start to reveal natures
> true colors thanks to the evolving methods of observation
>
> r.y
>

Please check history. The ultraviolet catastrophe was a confrontation 
between classical theory and an observed blackbody spectrum. This 
spectrum was first solved theoretically by Planck, not by Einstein.

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

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

#542150

On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 13:48:20 UTC-5, Odd Bodkin  wrote:
> On 12/29/2015 11:59 AM, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 12:28:42 UTC-5, Sam Wormley  wrote:
> >> On 12/29/15 11:22 AM, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> >>> quantum mechanics is all based on empirical observations
> >>
> >>     How so?
> >>
> >
> > well not all the way from the beginning when Einstein himself
> > solved the ultraviolet catastrophe with the photoelectric
> > effect paper but somewhere along the way when empirical
> > science took off and experiments start to reveal natures
> > true colors thanks to the evolving methods of observation
> >
> > r.y
> >
> 
> Please check history. The ultraviolet catastrophe was a confrontation 
> between classical theory and an observed blackbody spectrum. This 
> spectrum was first solved theoretically by Planck, not by Einstein.
> 

Plank was the mayor player of this and the only one at the time
who believe in what Einstein had to say

r.y

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

#542155

On 12/29/2015 1:38 PM, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 13:48:20 UTC-5, Odd Bodkin  wrote:
>> On 12/29/2015 11:59 AM, Raymond Yohros wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 12:28:42 UTC-5, Sam Wormley  wrote:
>>>> On 12/29/15 11:22 AM, Raymond Yohros wrote:
>>>>> quantum mechanics is all based on empirical observations
>>>>
>>>>      How so?
>>>>
>>>
>>> well not all the way from the beginning when Einstein himself
>>> solved the ultraviolet catastrophe with the photoelectric
>>> effect paper but somewhere along the way when empirical
>>> science took off and experiments start to reveal natures
>>> true colors thanks to the evolving methods of observation
>>>
>>> r.y
>>>
>>
>> Please check history. The ultraviolet catastrophe was a confrontation
>> between classical theory and an observed blackbody spectrum. This
>> spectrum was first solved theoretically by Planck, not by Einstein.
>>
>
> Plank was the mayor player of this and the only one at the time
> who believe in what Einstein had to say
>

The history between Einstein and Planck is interesting. Any of the 
decent biographies of Einstein tell the story. Max Planck was one of the 
earliest proponents of special relativity, including the E=mc^2 paper 
written in 1905. However, the photon paper was also written in 1905, and 
Max Planck hated the paper and thought it was misbegotten.


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

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

#542115

On 12/29/2015 11:22 AM, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 11:50:10 UTC-5, Odd Bodkin  wrote:
>> On 12/29/2015 10:45 AM, Raymond Yohros wrote:
>>> also the quark gluon plasma phenomena have add a lot to the knowledge
>>> of QCD and there are many unanswered questions on this observations.
>>> but like QM, it is more important to know the HOW before we know the WHY
>>> when it comes to empirical research
>>
>> I'm not sure what you're saying here. Please elaborate.
>>
>> My understanding is that the relationship between observation and theory
>> is a ratcheting exercise. Some observation, combined with pattern
>> recognition and the synthesis of disparate ideas, can lead to a theory.
>> Theory then tells you what observations to look for, to test the
>> predictions of the theory. If in that observation, you get a surprise,
>> then this suggests a new or revised theory.
>>
>
> well quantum mechanics is all based on empirical observations
> this observations seem to defy all common sense
> and most people don't understand the why at all
>
> Einstein had a lot of trouble with this
> he even lost an argument with Neil Bhor on the famous
> Copenhagen interpretation
>
> it is great if you imagine something that can be tested
> to be true but experiment always has the last word
> and the results help to eliminate all the mombo yombo
> people create most of the time

Well, I think there's a difference between saying that something is "not 
understood at all" and "understood to be much different than what we 
thought".

I think it helps to go back to Galileo who made the statement that 
things in motion will continue in motion FOREVER unless there is some 
force applied to change that motion. Up until then, people had taken the 
Aristotelean view that the natural state of things is at rest and that 
it takes a continuous application of an external impetus to keep things 
moving. The Aristotelean view was very much intuitive at the time, and 
Galileo's statement (which we know know as conservation of momentum or 
Newton's first law of motion) was probably very much counter to "logic".

But you see, it's been 400 years since Galileo, and in that time we have 
acquired a NEW intuition about motion that has absorbed conservation of 
momentum, and it no longer strikes us as counterintuitive. And in fact, 
when we see something slow down and come to rest, we no longer take the 
Aristotelean view that rest is the object's natural state; instead, we 
(correctly) account for the observation by referring to friction that 
slows the object down.

So, it's true that it's not been 400 years since the advent of quantum 
mechanics; it's only been about 80 years. (When Feynman wrote some 
comments about quantum mechanics and how nobody really understands it, 
it had only been around for about 35 years.) Nevertheless, I think it's 
now true that physicists have absorbed quantum mechanics into their 
intuition, so that what amateurs (like you and me) find unexplainable 
are in fact perfectly explainable with those newer intuitions. It just 
takes "practice in the mind" to make quantum mechanics more 
natural-feeling. I found that it was in fact easier to accept quantum 
mechanics when I started trying to explain EVERYTHING in a quantum 
mechanical way, leaving behind classical ideas. This isn't so hard, as 
it turns out, and it's a great calisthenic for flexing new intuition.


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

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

#542120

On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 12:51:02 UTC-5, Odd Bodkin  wrote:
> On 12/29/2015 11:22 AM, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 11:50:10 UTC-5, Odd Bodkin  wrote:
> >> On 12/29/2015 10:45 AM, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> >>> also the quark gluon plasma phenomena have add a lot to the knowledge
> >>> of QCD and there are many unanswered questions on this observations.
> >>> but like QM, it is more important to know the HOW before we know the WHY
> >>> when it comes to empirical research
> >>
> >> I'm not sure what you're saying here. Please elaborate.
> >>
> >> My understanding is that the relationship between observation and theory
> >> is a ratcheting exercise. Some observation, combined with pattern
> >> recognition and the synthesis of disparate ideas, can lead to a theory.
> >> Theory then tells you what observations to look for, to test the
> >> predictions of the theory. If in that observation, you get a surprise,
> >> then this suggests a new or revised theory.
> >>
> >
> > well quantum mechanics is all based on empirical observations
> > this observations seem to defy all common sense
> > and most people don't understand the why at all
> >
> > Einstein had a lot of trouble with this
> > he even lost an argument with Neil Bhor on the famous
> > Copenhagen interpretation
> >
> > it is great if you imagine something that can be tested
> > to be true but experiment always has the last word
> > and the results help to eliminate all the mombo yombo
> > people create most of the time
> 
> Well, I think there's a difference between saying that something is "not 
> understood at all" and "understood to be much different than what we 
> thought".
> 
> I think it helps to go back to Galileo who made the statement that 
> things in motion will continue in motion FOREVER unless there is some 
> force applied to change that motion. Up until then, people had taken the 
> Aristotelean view that the natural state of things is at rest and that 
> it takes a continuous application of an external impetus to keep things 
> moving. The Aristotelean view was very much intuitive at the time, and 
> Galileo's statement (which we know know as conservation of momentum or 
> Newton's first law of motion) was probably very much counter to "logic".
> 
> But you see, it's been 400 years since Galileo, and in that time we have 
> acquired a NEW intuition about motion that has absorbed conservation of 
> momentum, and it no longer strikes us as counterintuitive. And in fact, 
> when we see something slow down and come to rest, we no longer take the 
> Aristotelean view that rest is the object's natural state; instead, we 
> (correctly) account for the observation by referring to friction that 
> slows the object down.
> 
> So, it's true that it's not been 400 years since the advent of quantum 
> mechanics; it's only been about 80 years. (When Feynman wrote some 
> comments about quantum mechanics and how nobody really understands it, 
> it had only been around for about 35 years.) Nevertheless, I think it's 
> now true that physicists have absorbed quantum mechanics into their 
> intuition, so that what amateurs (like you and me) find unexplainable 
> are in fact perfectly explainable with those newer intuitions. It just 
> takes "practice in the mind" to make quantum mechanics more 
> natural-feeling. I found that it was in fact easier to accept quantum 
> mechanics when I started trying to explain EVERYTHING in a quantum 
> mechanical way, leaving behind classical ideas. This isn't so hard, as 
> it turns out, and it's a great calisthenic for flexing new intuition.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

your are talking about one of newtons laws

Galileo did a lot of experiments also and that all things
fall to the ground at the same time no matter what
was one of the most famous ones together with the 
refraction telescope. he was a great inspiration to
Newton who is one of the greatest minds in history.

i'm sure we will understand a lot more about the why of
quantum mechanics soon but in the mean time we get to enjoy
all it's benefits with teknology

r.y

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

#542130

On 12/29/2015 12:18 PM, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> your are talking about one of newtons laws
>
> Galileo did a lot of experiments also and that all things
> fall to the ground at the same time no matter what
> was one of the most famous ones together with the
> refraction telescope. he was a great inspiration to
> Newton who is one of the greatest minds in history.
>
> i'm sure we will understand a lot more about the why of
> quantum mechanics soon but in the mean time we get to enjoy
> all it's benefits with teknology
>
> r.y

I believe we would not be as adept as designing things with quantum 
mechanics if we did not understand the why's of quantum mechanics. There 
are lots of books out on the why's of quantum mechanics. What have you 
read in that category?

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

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

#542152

On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 13:50:03 UTC-5, Odd Bodkin  wrote:
> On 12/29/2015 12:18 PM, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> > your are talking about one of newtons laws
> >
> > Galileo did a lot of experiments also and that all things
> > fall to the ground at the same time no matter what
> > was one of the most famous ones together with the
> > refraction telescope. he was a great inspiration to
> > Newton who is one of the greatest minds in history.
> >
> > i'm sure we will understand a lot more about the why of
> > quantum mechanics soon but in the mean time we get to enjoy
> > all it's benefits with teknology
> >
> > r.y
> 
> I believe we would not be as adept as designing things with quantum 
> mechanics if we did not understand the why's of quantum mechanics. There 
> are lots of books out on the why's of quantum mechanics. What have you 
> read in that category?
> 

not much actually, are this books about philosophy?
i've read a lot about the how and it blows my mind every time
something wird comes along

r.y

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

#542156

On 12/29/2015 1:45 PM, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 13:50:03 UTC-5, Odd Bodkin  wrote:

>>
>> I believe we would not be as adept as designing things with quantum
>> mechanics if we did not understand the why's of quantum mechanics. There
>> are lots of books out on the why's of quantum mechanics. What have you
>> read in that category?
>>
>
> not much actually, are this books about philosophy?
> i've read a lot about the how and it blows my mind every time
> something wird comes along
>

The books about philosophy are not what I have in mind. There are really 
good books by Mermin and Baggott.


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

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

#542169

On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 14:54:06 UTC-5, Odd Bodkin  wrote:
> On 12/29/2015 1:45 PM, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> > not much actually, are this books about philosophy?
> > i've read a lot about the how and it blows my mind every time
> > something wird comes along
> >
> 
> The books about philosophy are not what I have in mind. There are really 
> good books by Mermin and Baggott.
> 

i was aware of the "shot up and calculate" quote but not that 
Mermin was the one who said it. cool scientist
he is involved in many of the things i'm very interested in
but they are still about the how and not the why

r.y

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

#542175

On 12/29/2015 02:54 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/29/2015 1:45 PM, Raymond Yohros wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 13:50:03 UTC-5, Odd Bodkin  wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I believe we would not be as adept as designing things with quantum
>>> mechanics if we did not understand the why's of quantum mechanics. There
>>> are lots of books out on the why's of quantum mechanics. What have you
>>> read in that category?
>>>
>>
>> not much actually, are this books about philosophy?
>> i've read a lot about the how and it blows my mind every time
>> something wird comes along
>>
>
> The books about philosophy are not what I have in mind. There are really
> good books by Mermin and Baggott.

Don't believe Boinker, Raymond. He's read a couple books with a bunch of 
hand-waving and few facts and now thinks he knows it all. I studied 
Graduate level QM for a year under Mills (of Yang and Mills fame) And 
learned very little to convince me it was anything other than mostly 
fantasy.

To give you a feeling for Boinker, let me point out that that Mermin and 
Baggott have never written a book together. Especially one on Quantum 
Mechanics. Furthermore Jim Baggott is just a science writer and a 
chemist to boot! You start believing anonymous voices on the INTERNET, 
especially like Boinker who is just an idiot publisher (and maker of 
wooden toys) you can expect your understanding of science to crash and 
burn.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#542179

On 12/29/2015 3:53 PM, benj wrote:

>
> Don't believe Boinker, Raymond. He's read a couple books with a bunch of
> hand-waving and few facts and now thinks he knows it all. I studied
> Graduate level QM for a year under Mills (of Yang and Mills fame) And
> learned very little to convince me it was anything other than mostly
> fantasy.

Well, that's a pity. And you blame QM for that? After all, he believes 
it, and he's pretty well known as a physicist. So why do you think you 
know better?

>
> To give you a feeling for Boinker, let me point out that that Mermin and
> Baggott have never written a book together.

Nor did I say they did. I suggested a book by Mermin and a book by Baggott.
Jim Baggot wrote a lovely book called The Meaning of Quantum Mechanics.


> Especially one on Quantum
> Mechanics. Furthermore Jim Baggott is just a science writer and a
> chemist to boot! You start believing anonymous voices on the INTERNET,
> especially like Boinker who is just an idiot publisher

???

> (and maker of
> wooden toys)

And furniture and tools.

> you can expect your understanding of science to crash and
> burn.
>


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

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

#542203

On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 17:14:05 UTC-5, Odd Bodkin  wrote:
> On 12/29/2015 3:53 PM, benj wrote:
> 
> >
> > Don't believe Boinker, Raymond. He's read a couple books with a bunch of
> > hand-waving and few facts and now thinks he knows it all. I studied
> > Graduate level QM for a year under Mills (of Yang and Mills fame) And
> > learned very little to convince me it was anything other than mostly
> > fantasy.
> 
> Well, that's a pity. And you blame QM for that? After all, he believes 
> it, and he's pretty well known as a physicist. So why do you think you 
> know better?
> 
> >
> > To give you a feeling for Boinker, let me point out that that Mermin and
> > Baggott have never written a book together.
> 
> Nor did I say they did. I suggested a book by Mermin and a book by Baggott.
> Jim Baggot wrote a lovely book called The Meaning of Quantum Mechanics.
> 
> 
> > Especially one on Quantum
> > Mechanics. Furthermore Jim Baggott is just a science writer and a
> > chemist to boot! You start believing anonymous voices on the INTERNET,
> > especially like Boinker who is just an idiot publisher
> 
> ???
> 
> > (and maker of
> > wooden toys)
> 
> And furniture and tools.
> 
> > you can expect your understanding of science to crash and
> > burn.
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

i'm not seeing benj posts in my browser
only your response to him
why is that?

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

#542205

On 12/29/15 6:20 PM, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> i'm not seeing benj posts in my browser
> only your response to him
> why is that?


   I don't either -- I kill filed him many moons ago.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#542214

On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 7:23:15 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 12/29/15 6:20 PM, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> > i'm not seeing benj posts in my browser
> > only your response to him
> > why is that?
> 
>    I don't either -- I kill filed him many moons ago.

So how has that helped you Sam WormLiar?

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

#542419

Mahipal, 14 August 2015:

> A lot of posters do not like me. Apparently. By a
> lot, I mean a lot Lot LOT of people. I hurt their
> sensibilities. It's like I was once married to them
> all. Regardless... I am leaving Usenet now and
> forever. It's their playground and I obviously
> am not welcome.

> Also, I eat ballsacks.

> So goodbye Goodbye GOODBYE.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sci.physics/UIfOYtrXEMc/DCrgBtWzmxUJ

Goodbye, you boring idiot.

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

#542440

On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 11:38:27 PM UTC-5, Sam Jones wrote:
> Mahipal, 14 August 2015:
> 
> > A lot of posters do not like me. Apparently. By a
> > lot, I mean a lot Lot LOT of people. I hurt their
> > sensibilities. It's like I was once married to them
> > all. Regardless... I am leaving Usenet now and
> > forever. It's their playground and I obviously
> > am not welcome.
> 
> > Also, I eat ballsacks.

You say that if that's a bad thing. Shame on you.
 
> > So goodbye Goodbye GOODBYE.

I also wrote The Bible! The USA Constitution. And Hamlet! I invented
Gravity! I solved the Barber's Beard Paradox. I walked on Wine!

> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sci.physics/UIfOYtrXEMc/DCrgBtWzmxUJ
> 
> Goodbye, you boring idiot.

You get what you pay for?! Try learn how not to read someone.

In NYC, where I am tired of rejecting advances from gay guys, and
exhausted from sexy girls slapping my face raw when I make advances at
them... thank printable to paper InGodWeTrust@# there's money in many
colours or else I'd never get ...youKnow.

I take it, per all your "Sam Jones" posts, you like all others posting
to Usenet. Save me. Hmmm... here's your history of saying nothing:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/sci.physics/oIYFOhL1DwAJ

Anonymous nymshifting Gay Stalker, who contributes less than nothing,
can't read for content, finds me boring yet continues to read all my
meanderings, ... and then they have the nerve to ask me why I drink!
Oye O(y)e! Aribha he he... andre Andre ANDRE... Dance Puppet Dance.

You stalker, my Sorry Stalker, purposefully never read the included
link to my article. Why? Read what Fabian finds incongruent regards my
choice of feigned departing song. I am leaving, I am leaving, though
the fighter still remains... Simon Garfunkel Boxer.

If comprehension was your thing, then you might understand. Alas...

Fwiw, nobody is going to hire you just because you're gay. They will
fire you because you are getting old. It's the old USA forced early
retirement plan. They got a chart of Profits versus Age, Weight, and
everything. In colourful 3D like it be on Bloomberg's channels. Get
with the program. Age Conveyor ExitBelt (ACE) line begins @yourFeet#.

-- Mahipal "IPMM... Nobody is forcing you to read me. Period. Bitch!"

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

#542470

On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 19:23:15 UTC-5, Sam Wormley  wrote:
> On 12/29/15 6:20 PM, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> > i'm not seeing benj posts in my browser
> > only your response to him
> > why is that?
> 
> 
>    I don't either -- I kill filed him many moons ago.
> 

i can see why
happy new year

r.y

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

#542488

On 12/31/15 11:45 AM, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 19:23:15 UTC-5, Sam Wormley  wrote:
>> On 12/29/15 6:20 PM, Raymond Yohros wrote:
>>> i'm not seeing benj posts in my browser
>>> only your response to him
>>> why is that?
>>
>>
>>     I don't either -- I kill filed him many moons ago.
>>
>
> i can see why
> happy new year
>
> r.y
>

   Happy New Year to you too, Raymond.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web