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

Groups > sci.physics > #540020 > unrolled thread

Re: Future Advances in Physics...

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: 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

#540020 — Re: Future Advances in Physics...

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] | [next] | [standalone]

#540044

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

#540750

Am 21.12.2015 07:51, schrieb benj:
> 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.

The idea is kind of difficult to understand, since space-time has 
several aspects and one is space. So 'space' (vacuum, void) means the 
opposite to matter.

'Void' means 'nothing there but empty space'.

This is a human abstraction, since humans think in terms of matter 
('things'), hence need an opposite (void), to have an appropriate 'stage'.

But in relativity space is 'relative', hence matter is 'relative', too.

And this is a concept, the human mind vehemently rejects and does not 
like at all.

But lets assume a small version of the big band ('small bang') and than 
we have the opposite to a black hole (white hole).

The white hole could be understood as 'the other side from the black 
hole' or as 'black hole time reverted'.

Now I take two timelines in opposite directions and let them interact 
like rotation around opposite axis'.

This rotation is antisymmetric and parallel axis (of opposite 
directions) leave absolutely nothing. If they get an angle to each 
other, then things seem to pop out of nowhere ('big/small bang').

Now these things are still 'nothing', but kind of patterns, that emerge 
and stay like material objects.

The difference between spacetime and space is, that space is composed of 
points without features. Space is meant as set of all possible coordinates.

The 'real thing' is not like void or vacuum, but as a space, where 
points have a direction. These 'elements' are connected like one would 
multiply quaternions, what is a certain kind of rotation. This rotation 
has a normal 'pointer' and this is, what gives such an 'element of 
spacetime' it's features.

And there are two, since actually we have bi-quaternions (or 
complex-four-vectors), that have a structure like a star-tetrahedron, 
where axes point in opposite directions.

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


TH

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

#540233

On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 10:23:57 PM UTC+2, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 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,
=====================
wrong just from that pint:
TAKE A FRIENDLY ADVICE: 

IF YOU BELIEVE IN 'CURVED SPACE
YOU ARE WASTING YOUR LIFE ON NONSENSE PHYSICS !!

AB
Y.PORAT
================================================


 

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

#540188

On 12/18/2015 08:45 AM, 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.

Thomas, have you EVER seen a human being so throughly out of touch with 
reality as Boinker? Utterly amazing! He is totally oblivious to the fact 
that virtually all research in universities and government labs is 
sponsored by... you guessed it. He who pays the piper calls the tune. 
Even in industry where products are sold to government same control gets 
exerted through money.

>>
>> 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.

Take it up a notch. Do you think an autodidact genius can make a 
significant contribution to Theoretical physics even if he already HAS 
that contribution worked out in all details.  Those who control 
publication will see you don't. Take it up even on step higher! Do you 
think full professors with tenure are capable of making a contribution 
if the topic is "forbidden"? We have some excellent examples of where 
they not only were prevented, but also lost their jobs.

So much for tenure protection from politics!

>>
>> 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.

And even better than that, engineers have to build crap that actually 
works in the real world. Word games like "probability waves in nothing 
at all" may fly in amongst the dogma purveyors that Boinker so 
desperately believes in. but among engineers it's obviously babbling 
insanity.



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

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

#540266

- show quoted text -
Thomas, have you EVER seen a human being so throughly out of touch with 
reality as Boinker? Utterly amazing! He is totally oblivious to the fact 
that virtually all research in universities and government labs is 
sponsored by... you guessed it. He 
--------

Anyone ever wonder exactly WHY BJ is mad all the time?

It's got to be more that having his kooky ghost physics debunked and ridiculed here on a daily basis.

I think that the lab where he worked as a janitor got it's funding cut in order to spend more money on people like me. As one may expect, this didn't sit very well with BJ. Soon he was on the government dole. 

Now he is old and his spirit is broken...His dreams, shattered.

His love of all things kook remains however. These days BJ spend his time looking for proof of ghosts on YouTube.

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

#540290

On 12/19/2015 10:48 AM, HVAC wrote:
> - show quoted text - Thomas, have you EVER seen a human being so
> throughly out of touch with reality as Boinker? Utterly amazing! He
> is totally oblivious to the fact that virtually all research in
> universities and government labs is sponsored by... you guessed it.
> He --------
>
> Anyone ever wonder exactly WHY BJ is mad all the time?

We have Strategic writer Froth about to Begin!

> It's got to be more that having his kooky ghost physics debunked and
> ridiculed here on a daily basis.
>
> I think that the lab where he worked as a janitor got it's funding
> cut in order to spend more money on people like me. As one may
> expect, this didn't sit very well with BJ. Soon he was on the
> government dole.
>
> Now he is old and his spirit is broken...His dreams, shattered.
>
> His love of all things kook remains however. These days BJ spend his
> time looking for proof of ghosts on YouTube.

Told you so!

Hey, H&V, you forgot "never married" and "has no children"! And what 
about "gay" too? Oh wait. That's YOU!

And yeah, I am on the dole. SS is the dole, right? They call it a "trust 
fund" but every conspiracy theorist knows that's hogwash.
Yep. DOLE!

PS. in spite of your best efforts to the contrary, I am happy as a clam! 
It must be hell to have a job like yours where you have to pretend to be 
mad all the time.

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

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

#540413

On Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 5:48:07 PM UTC+2, HVAC wrote:
> - show quoted text -
> Thomas, have you EVER seen a human being so throughly out of touch with 
> reality as Boinker? Utterly amazing! He is totally oblivious to the fact 
> that virtually all research in universities and government labs is 
> sponsored by... you guessed it. He 
> --------
> 
> Anyone ever wonder exactly WHY BJ is mad all the time?
> 
> It's got to be more that having his kooky ghost physics debunked and ridiculed here on a daily basis.
> 
> I think that the lab where he worked as a janitor got it's funding cut in order to spend more money on people like me. As one may expect, this didn't sit very well with BJ. Soon he was on the government dole. 
> 
> Now he is old and his spirit is broken...His dreams, shattered.
> 
> His love of all things kook remains however. These days BJ spend his time looking for proof of ghosts on YouTube.

============================
G F Y M !!
================================

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web