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

Groups > sci.physics > #539548 > unrolled thread

Future Advances in Physics...

Started bybenj <nobody@gmail.com>
First post2015-12-16 02:38 -0500
Last post2015-12-26 22:22 -0800
Articles 20 on this page of 211 — 30 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  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 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11  Next page →

#539805

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-17 09:11 -0600
Message-ID<n4uja8$6pg$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to#539730
On 12/16/2015 8:42 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> I would say, that 'howling with the wolves' does not bring fun.
>
> If someone tries to achieve something in theoretical physics, he should
> try something really weird, not something 'normal'.
>
> Reason:
>
> the amount of work is similar if you research - say - ETs or Newton's
> law of gravity.
>
> But public attention is not, since Newton's law of gravity belongs
> already to Newton.
>
> So I would try to obtain such a list with 'forbidden subjects' and chose
> one of those subjects.
>
> This is much more promising, since -after all- they are not as
> overcrowded as everything else.
>
> Further I would like to mention, that I had developed that 'next big
> thing' already.

This would be your choice, but I think it also points out the difference 
in motivation between you and physicists. A physicist chooses subjects 
to research based on where he thinks there is the greatest likelihood of 
increase in verifiable knowledge, not on the basis of attention and fame.


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

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

#539818

FromHVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-17 07:52 -0800
Message-ID<223112db-a1f1-4900-aff9-aa5cbb770b42@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#539805
Not to be the materialistic one here, but most choose a career where they can make money.

Others are born into money and are independently wealthy.

This are the ones that can research into arcane subjects with no concern for pay. 

Me? I just want to go fishing and spend my days as I used to as a kid.... Fishing, swimming and enjoying the outdoors.

I still maintain all my old contacts, but work is a thing of the past for me.

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

#539823

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-17 10:06 -0600
Message-ID<n4umhh$f8i$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to#539818
On 12/17/2015 9:52 AM, HVAC wrote:
> Not to be the materialistic one here, but most choose a career where they can make money.

I beg to differ. Some do, but I would say that there's a lot of people 
who do something that interests them and keeps them happy, and then if 
they get good at it, the pay takes care of itself.

People who become school teachers are not in it for the money.
Those who enjoy acting and performance arts are definitely not in it for 
the money.
People who love music are definitely not in it for the money.

And I love what I do, and I didn't take it up because of the money. And 
I've eaten a lot of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese. Fortunately, I've gotten 
enough practice and enough people like the special things I do that I'm 
now comfortable enough financially.

>
> Others are born into money and are independently wealthy.
>
> This are the ones that can research into arcane subjects with no concern for pay.
>
> Me? I just want to go fishing and spend my days as I used to as a kid.... Fishing, swimming
> and enjoying the outdoors.
>
> I still maintain all my old contacts, but work is a thing of the past for me.
>


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

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

#539826

FromHVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-17 08:18 -0800
Message-ID<d431df85-c2d6-4909-8401-8307c526ebd8@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#539823
People who become school teachers are not in it for the money. 
--------

Academicians really don't work so I have discounted them.

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

#539832

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-17 10:44 -0600
Message-ID<n4uoq8$kpv$2@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to#539826
On 12/17/2015 10:18 AM, HVAC wrote:
>
> People who become school teachers are not in it for the money.
> --------
>
> Academicians really don't work so I have discounted them.
>

I think you need to head back to the bait shop and exchange those dead, 
rotting nightcrawlers for something more appealing.

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

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

#539909

FromThomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date2015-12-17 22:04 +0100
Message-ID<ddgma7F9gs0U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#539805
Am 17.12.2015 16:11, schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>> If someone tries to achieve something in theoretical physics, he should
>> try something really weird, not something 'normal'.
>>
>> Reason:
>>
>> the amount of work is similar if you research - say - ETs or Newton's
>> law of gravity.
>>
>> But public attention is not, since Newton's law of gravity belongs
>> already to Newton.
>>
>> So I would try to obtain such a list with 'forbidden subjects' and chose
>> one of those subjects.
>>
>> This is much more promising, since -after all- they are not as
>> overcrowded as everything else.
>>
>> Further I would like to mention, that I had developed that 'next big
>> thing' already.
>
> This would be your choice, but I think it also points out the difference
> in motivation between you and physicists. A physicist chooses subjects
> to research based on where he thinks there is the greatest likelihood of
> increase in verifiable knowledge, not on the basis of attention and fame.
>

This is kind of true, but I am not a physicist. What I have written is 
more like a hobby.

Hobbyists follow other rules than professional researchers.

Professional must do, what the job requires, while hobbyists can do what 
they like.


TH

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

#539910

FromJürgen Großenbach <jurgengb@adenauer.org>
Date2015-12-17 21:07 +0000
Message-ID<n4v860$obu$4@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to#539909
Thomas Heger wrote:

> This is kind of true, but I am not a physicist. What I have written is
> more like a hobby. Hobbyists follow other rules than professional
> researchers.

You mean they aint followin any.

> Professional must do, what the job requires, while hobbyists can do what
> they like.

Nothing.

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

#539920

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-17 15:35 -0600
Message-ID<n4v9rn$tov$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to#539909
On 12/17/2015 3:04 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 17.12.2015 16:11, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>
>>> If someone tries to achieve something in theoretical physics, he should
>>> try something really weird, not something 'normal'.
>>>
>>> Reason:
>>>
>>> the amount of work is similar if you research - say - ETs or Newton's
>>> law of gravity.
>>>
>>> But public attention is not, since Newton's law of gravity belongs
>>> already to Newton.
>>>
>>> So I would try to obtain such a list with 'forbidden subjects' and chose
>>> one of those subjects.
>>>
>>> This is much more promising, since -after all- they are not as
>>> overcrowded as everything else.
>>>
>>> Further I would like to mention, that I had developed that 'next big
>>> thing' already.
>>
>> This would be your choice, but I think it also points out the difference
>> in motivation between you and physicists. A physicist chooses subjects
>> to research based on where he thinks there is the greatest likelihood of
>> increase in verifiable knowledge, not on the basis of attention and fame.
>>
>
> This is kind of true, but I am not a physicist. What I have written is
> more like a hobby.
>
> Hobbyists follow other rules than professional researchers.
>
> Professional must do, what the job requires, while hobbyists can do what
> they like.
>

This is true. You should do what you like as a hobby. If that means 
investigating water dowsing or ouija boards, go for it.

But I think you should also be a little honest with yourself about the 
likelihood to "achieve something in theoretical physics" and that being 
"more like a hobby". Don't you think it's pretty unlikely for a hobbyist 
to achieve anything notable in theoretical physics?


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

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

#539988

FromThomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date2015-12-18 05:17 +0100
Message-ID<ddhfmaFf8b3U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#539920
Am 17.12.2015 22:35, schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>>>> Further I would like to mention, that I had developed that 'next big
>>>> thing' already.
>>>
>>> This would be your choice, but I think it also points out the difference
>>> in motivation between you and physicists. A physicist chooses subjects
>>> to research based on where he thinks there is the greatest likelihood of
>>> increase in verifiable knowledge, not on the basis of attention and
>>> fame.
>>>
>>
>> This is kind of true, but I am not a physicist. What I have written is
>> more like a hobby.
>>
>> Hobbyists follow other rules than professional researchers.
>>
>> Professional must do, what the job requires, while hobbyists can do what
>> they like.
>>
>
> This is true. You should do what you like as a hobby. If that means
> investigating water dowsing or ouija boards, go for it.
>
> But I think you should also be a little honest with yourself about the
> likelihood to "achieve something in theoretical physics" and that being
> "more like a hobby". Don't you think it's pretty unlikely for a hobbyist
> to achieve anything notable in theoretical physics?
>

No, because the real physicists are kind of stuck in the middle between 
commercial and and political interests.

The entire terrain is full of land mines, fences and signs saying: keep 
away.

But you cannot create any progress, if certain subjects are forbidden.

Since hobbyists don't know such rules, they can do, whatever they find 
appropriate. (But only they can.)

I'm actually an engineer, but have some knowledge in adjacent fields: 
(Organic) chemistry, mathematics, electronics, thermodynamics and a few 
other.

Organic chemistry is in my eyes a good foundation, since this is 
relatively close to Quantum mechanics and based on experiments, (similar 
electronics). And both I have done since school.

I was also quite good in mathematics and once won a (small) price.

And engineers study stuff as well, that is related to physics.


TH

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

#540020

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-18 07:45 -0600
Message-ID<n512mj$qeq$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to#539988
On 12/17/2015 10:17 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 17.12.2015 22:35, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>
>>>>> Further I would like to mention, that I had developed that 'next big
>>>>> thing' already.
>>>>
>>>> This would be your choice, but I think it also points out the
>>>> difference
>>>> in motivation between you and physicists. A physicist chooses subjects
>>>> to research based on where he thinks there is the greatest
>>>> likelihood of
>>>> increase in verifiable knowledge, not on the basis of attention and
>>>> fame.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is kind of true, but I am not a physicist. What I have written is
>>> more like a hobby.
>>>
>>> Hobbyists follow other rules than professional researchers.
>>>
>>> Professional must do, what the job requires, while hobbyists can do what
>>> they like.
>>>
>>
>> This is true. You should do what you like as a hobby. If that means
>> investigating water dowsing or ouija boards, go for it.
>>
>> But I think you should also be a little honest with yourself about the
>> likelihood to "achieve something in theoretical physics" and that being
>> "more like a hobby". Don't you think it's pretty unlikely for a hobbyist
>> to achieve anything notable in theoretical physics?
>>
>
> No, because the real physicists are kind of stuck in the middle between
> commercial and and political interests.

I'm not so sure of that. Physicists generally work at either 
institutions of higher learning or at government sponsored research 
labs, if they're doing basic research. In both cases, they're rather 
insulated from profit concerns or political objectives.

>
> The entire terrain is full of land mines, fences and signs saying: keep
> away.
>
> But you cannot create any progress, if certain subjects are forbidden.
>
> Since hobbyists don't know such rules, they can do, whatever they find
> appropriate. (But only they can.)

Well, as I said, you can study whatever you like. But that wasn't my 
question to you. The question was whether you seriously think a hobbyist 
can make a significant contribution to theoretical physics? I'm certain 
you are free to dabble in unusual areas, but that doesn't translate into 
making a significant contribution to theoretical physics.

>
> I'm actually an engineer, but have some knowledge in adjacent fields:
> (Organic) chemistry, mathematics, electronics, thermodynamics and a few
> other.
>
> Organic chemistry is in my eyes a good foundation, since this is
> relatively close to Quantum mechanics and based on experiments, (similar
> electronics). And both I have done since school.
>
> I was also quite good in mathematics and once won a (small) price.
>
> And engineers study stuff as well, that is related to physics.
>
>
> TH


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

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

#540044

FromMahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-18 08:24 -0800
Message-ID<0175e5e7-efc2-40b6-ac76-17137c50f11f@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#540020
On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 8:46:04 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/17/2015 10:17 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 17.12.2015 22:35, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> >
> >>>>> Further I would like to mention, that I had developed that 'next big
> >>>>> thing' already.
> >>>>
> >>>> This would be your choice, but I think it also points out the
> >>>> difference
> >>>> in motivation between you and physicists. A physicist chooses subjects
> >>>> to research based on where he thinks there is the greatest
> >>>> likelihood of
> >>>> increase in verifiable knowledge, not on the basis of attention and
> >>>> fame.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> This is kind of true, but I am not a physicist. What I have written is
> >>> more like a hobby.
> >>>
> >>> Hobbyists follow other rules than professional researchers.
> >>>
> >>> Professional must do, what the job requires, while hobbyists can do what
> >>> they like.
> >>>
> >>
> >> This is true. You should do what you like as a hobby. If that means
> >> investigating water dowsing or ouija boards, go for it.
> >>
> >> But I think you should also be a little honest with yourself about the
> >> likelihood to "achieve something in theoretical physics" and that being
> >> "more like a hobby". Don't you think it's pretty unlikely for a hobbyist
> >> to achieve anything notable in theoretical physics?
> >
> > No, because the real physicists are kind of stuck in the middle between
> > commercial and and political interests.
> 
> I'm not so sure of that. Physicists generally work at either 
> institutions of higher learning or at government sponsored research 
> labs, if they're doing basic research. In both cases, they're rather 
> insulated from profit concerns or political objectives.

They are not insulated from profit concerns or political objectives.

> > The entire terrain is full of land mines, fences and signs saying: keep
> > away.
> >
> > But you cannot create any progress, if certain subjects are forbidden.
> >
> > Since hobbyists don't know such rules, they can do, whatever they find
> > appropriate. (But only they can.)
> 
> Well, as I said, you can study whatever you like. But that wasn't my 
> question to you. The question was whether you seriously think a hobbyist 
> can make a significant contribution to theoretical physics? I'm certain 
> you are free to dabble in unusual areas, but that doesn't translate into 
> making a significant contribution to theoretical physics.

Three simple questions:

Since you speak a lot Odd Bodkin, who is it that you exactly speak for?
Who elected you to represent them here on Usenet?
Hiding your real parents' given name serves you well in anonymity?

> >
> > I'm actually an engineer, but have some knowledge in adjacent fields:
> > (Organic) chemistry, mathematics, electronics, thermodynamics and a few
> > other.
> >
> > Organic chemistry is in my eyes a good foundation, since this is
> > relatively close to Quantum mechanics and based on experiments, (similar
> > electronics). And both I have done since school.
> >
> > I was also quite good in mathematics and once won a (small) price.
> >
> > And engineers study stuff as well, that is related to physics.
> >
> > TH
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

-- Mahipal "IPMM... Why do anonymous posters serve The Status Quo?!"

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

#540302

From"Mapple Babble" <invalid@example.com>
Date2015-12-19 11:28 -0800
Message-ID<n54b4q$9ab$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to#540044
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
> I'm not welcome.

> So goodbye Goodbye GOODBYE.

> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sci.physics/UIfOYtrXEMc/DCrgBtWzmxUJ 
>    -> this one

Goodbye, you insane moron.

Everything you post is stupid and boring.

Goodbye GOODBYE

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

#540305

FromMahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-19 11:59 -0800
Message-ID<81095545-430e-49d9-a8b8-733883c0dff7@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#540302
On Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 2:28:32 PM UTC-5, Mapple Babble 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
> > I'm not welcome.
> 
> > So goodbye Goodbye GOODBYE.
> 
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sci.physics/UIfOYtrXEMc/DCrgBtWzmxUJ 
> >    -> this one

Yawn yawn YAWN! Again, read that whole post, from subject line to signature line.

> Goodbye, you insane moron.
> 
> Everything you post is stupid and boring.
> 
> Goodbye GOODBYE

Tell your Dad Mr. Babble, I presume, about your posting history:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/sci.physics/MSzTxq12DAAJ

you nym shifting mind wasting piece of useless humanity. Voting for Trump?

-- Mahipal "IPMM... Mapple, show your mom Mrs. Babble, your contributions."

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

#540307

FromMahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-19 12:15 -0800
Message-ID<6b4e0323-c0f6-40f6-883f-fb91031db02b@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#540044
On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 11:24:26 AM UTC-5, Mahipal wrote:
> On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 8:46:04 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > On 12/17/2015 10:17 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
[trim]
> > > The entire terrain is full of land mines, fences and signs saying: keep
> > > away.
> > >
> > > But you cannot create any progress, if certain subjects are forbidden.
> > >
> > > Since hobbyists don't know such rules, they can do, whatever they find
> > > appropriate. (But only they can.)
> > 
> > Well, as I said, you can study whatever you like. But that wasn't my 
> > question to you. The question was whether you seriously think a hobbyist 
> > can make a significant contribution to theoretical physics? I'm certain 
> > you are free to dabble in unusual areas, but that doesn't translate into 
> > making a significant contribution to theoretical physics.
> 
> Three simple questions:
> 
> Since you speak a lot Odd Bodkin, who is it that you exactly speak for?
> Who elected you to represent them here on Usenet?
> Hiding your real parents' given name serves you well in anonymity?

Day 1, Strike 1. 

You Odd may answer anytime now. Before others begin to ask you for
your credentials. For others will. I predict it.

Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server

Same as from Mapple Babble, as demonstrated by its:
Organization: Stop reading my headers you retarded faggot!

-- Mahipal "IPMM... Why do anonymous posters post?!"

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

#540088

FromThomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date2015-12-18 20:29 +0100
Message-ID<ddj54pFsc8vU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#540020
Am 18.12.2015 14:45, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
  ...
>>
>> But you cannot create any progress, if certain subjects are forbidden.
>>
>> Since hobbyists don't know such rules, they can do, whatever they find
>> appropriate. (But only they can.)
>
> Well, as I said, you can study whatever you like. But that wasn't my
> question to you. The question was whether you seriously think a hobbyist
> can make a significant contribution to theoretical physics? I'm certain
> you are free to dabble in unusual areas, but that doesn't translate into
> making a significant contribution to theoretical physics.


I  don't know.

Sure, I think my idea is:
a) new
b) unique
c) mine
d) the best in the world

But d) is not necessarily the case.

TH

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

#540091

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-18 13:52 -0600
Message-ID<n51o4u$hhl$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to#540088
On 12/18/2015 1:29 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 18.12.2015 14:45, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>   ...
>>>
>>> But you cannot create any progress, if certain subjects are forbidden.
>>>
>>> Since hobbyists don't know such rules, they can do, whatever they find
>>> appropriate. (But only they can.)
>>
>> Well, as I said, you can study whatever you like. But that wasn't my
>> question to you. The question was whether you seriously think a hobbyist
>> can make a significant contribution to theoretical physics? I'm certain
>> you are free to dabble in unusual areas, but that doesn't translate into
>> making a significant contribution to theoretical physics.
>
>
> I  don't know.
>
> Sure, I think my idea is:
> a) new
> b) unique
> c) mine
> d) the best in the world
>
> But d) is not necessarily the case.

That's right. New, unique, and yours are freebies. I can take a piece of 
wood and make it into something completely different than anything else 
that has been made, and it will be new, unique, and mine. But that 
doesn't make it valuable, even if *I* treasure it.

The significance of your contribution to theoretical physics would be 
something attributed by others, not by you.

When you do your own quality assessment, you end up with same kind of 
self-delusion that Ken Fischer indulged himself. He gave himself some 
passing of idle time, but did he accomplish anything? Doesn't appear 
that he did, no.

>
> TH


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

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

#540093

FromThomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date2015-12-18 21:23 +0100
Message-ID<ddj8alFt66sU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#540091
Am 18.12.2015 20:52, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> On 12/18/2015 1:29 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 18.12.2015 14:45, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> ...
>>>>
>>>> But you cannot create any progress, if certain subjects are forbidden.
>>>>
>>>> Since hobbyists don't know such rules, they can do, whatever they find
>>>> appropriate. (But only they can.)
>>>
>>> Well, as I said, you can study whatever you like. But that wasn't my
>>> question to you. The question was whether you seriously think a hobbyist
>>> can make a significant contribution to theoretical physics? I'm certain
>>> you are free to dabble in unusual areas, but that doesn't translate into
>>> making a significant contribution to theoretical physics.
>>
>>
>> I don't know.
>>
>> Sure, I think my idea is:
>> a) new
>> b) unique
>> c) mine
>> d) the best in the world
>>
>> But d) is not necessarily the case.
>
> That's right. New, unique, and yours are freebies. I can take a piece of
> wood and make it into something completely different than anything else
> that has been made, and it will be new, unique, and mine. But that
> doesn't make it valuable, even if *I* treasure it.
>
> The significance of your contribution to theoretical physics would be
> something attributed by others, not by you.
>


So: what do you think?

Here is what I have to offer:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

It's truly amateurish and most likely not of any practical usefulness.

But I describe a possible way to connect GRT to QM and in this realm 
there ain't much competition.

The way I came to my conclusion is this :

I take GR and QM as more or less valid, but do not cover these subjects. 
What I try to find is a 'path' to connect both.

This could be understood as finding a way from point 'A' to point 'B'. 
Consider: there is a path, but you don't know where that is and how it 
may look like.

But if these 'ends' are fixed and assumed valid, then a connection could 
be found by certain estimates.

The method is similar to a fractal: draw a line from 'A' to 'B' and 
search around the midpoint until you find something fitting.

Then take this point ('C') as new endpoint and repeat (with A and  C and 
with C and B).

This is a recursive process and will reveal the path (to some degree).

If the path is actually possible, a solution is found.

I have actually started at the 'GR side' and have tried to build 
particles out of spacetime.


TH

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

#540102

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-18 14:50 -0600
Message-ID<n51rj4$pl0$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to#540093
On 12/18/2015 2:23 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> So: what do you think?
>
> Here is what I have to offer:
>
> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>
> It's truly amateurish and most likely not of any practical usefulness.

To be honest, yes, it looks amateurish and does not look like a work of 
theoretical physics.

I notice there isn't much in the way of a prediction of measurable 
quantity to test it against.

>
> But I describe a possible way to connect GRT to QM and in this realm
> there ain't much competition.
>
> The way I came to my conclusion is this :
>
> I take GR and QM as more or less valid, but do not cover these subjects.
> What I try to find is a 'path' to connect both.
>
> This could be understood as finding a way from point 'A' to point 'B'.
> Consider: there is a path, but you don't know where that is and how it
> may look like.
>
> But if these 'ends' are fixed and assumed valid, then a connection could
> be found by certain estimates.
>
> The method is similar to a fractal: draw a line from 'A' to 'B' and
> search around the midpoint until you find something fitting.
>
> Then take this point ('C') as new endpoint and repeat (with A and  C and
> with C and B).
>
> This is a recursive process and will reveal the path (to some degree).
>
> If the path is actually possible, a solution is found.
>
> I have actually started at the 'GR side' and have tried to build
> particles out of spacetime.

Actually, it looks like you ASSUMED particles of spacetime, via some 
logic that reads, "Any physical system is composed of discrete elements, 
and since spacetime is a physical system, it must then be composed of 
discrete elements." Of course you then say something like "But spacetime 
is a continuum" (which of course completely denies the discreteness you 
just claimed) "and therefore the elements must be points with properties."

I think you would do well to look hard at some of the other attempts to 
unify GR and QM. There are quite a few of them, with a lot of variety. 
This might teach you how to more properly attack the problem.

>
>
> TH


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

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

#540420

FromThomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date2015-12-20 12:54 +0100
Message-ID<ddnj7mF12toU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#540102
Am 18.12.2015 21:50, schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>> I have actually started at the 'GR side' and have tried to build
>> particles out of spacetime.
>
> Actually, it looks like you ASSUMED particles of spacetime, via some
> logic that reads, "Any physical system is composed of discrete elements,
> and since spacetime is a physical system, it must then be composed of
> discrete elements." Of course you then say something like "But spacetime
> is a continuum" (which of course completely denies the discreteness you
> just claimed) "and therefore the elements must be points with properties."

The underlying principle are not pointlike particles, but pointlike 
'elements of spacetime', what are assumed to be the equivalent to a 
point, but with features.


TH

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

#540563

Frombenj <nobody@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-21 01:51 -0500
Message-ID<jkNdy.34147$IX3.14156@fx36.iad>
In reply to#540420
On 12/20/2015 06:54 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 18.12.2015 21:50, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>
>>> I have actually started at the 'GR side' and have tried to build
>>> particles out of spacetime.
>>
>> Actually, it looks like you ASSUMED particles of spacetime, via some
>> logic that reads, "Any physical system is composed of discrete elements,
>> and since spacetime is a physical system, it must then be composed of
>> discrete elements." Of course you then say something like "But spacetime
>> is a continuum" (which of course completely denies the discreteness you
>> just claimed) "and therefore the elements must be points with
>> properties."
>
> The underlying principle are not pointlike particles, but pointlike
> 'elements of spacetime', what are assumed to be the equivalent to a
> point, but with features.
>
>
> TH

Give up on Boinker, TH. The concept of the granularity of space that 
explains it all is WAY over his pointy little head. He makes wooden 
toys, you know.


-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

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

Page 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web