Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #700215 > unrolled thread
| Started by | alal65536@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-08-28 02:09 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-09-02 20:08 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 135 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
The Quark Religion alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 02:09 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 02:30 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 04:04 -0700
The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 05:25 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 09:55 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-08-28 10:25 -0700
Re:The Quark Religion Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-08-28 14:36 +0200
Re:The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 06:11 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-28 11:07 -0500
Re: The Quark Religion alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 03:42 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-29 09:29 -0500
Re: The Quark Religion alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 07:53 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-29 10:18 -0500
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 00:36 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 03:30 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 13:12 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 06:26 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 13:40 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 06:55 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 14:58 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 08:35 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 14:25 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 15:16 -0700
The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 15:56 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 16:09 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 16:15 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 17:54 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 22:46 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 15:29 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 16:05 -0700
The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 02:13 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 15:29 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 08:35 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 16:18 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-08-30 01:12 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 02:05 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-08-30 02:09 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 06:20 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-08-30 14:45 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 16:37 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 20:05 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 20:12 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 21:58 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 23:27 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 23:18 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 23:53 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-31 00:31 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-31 00:56 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 04:40 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-31 17:54 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 23:02 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-31 23:32 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-01 02:38 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-31 19:46 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-01 16:39 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-01 02:29 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-01 19:36 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-01 03:31 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-02 09:21 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-01 16:25 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 16:37 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-02 10:56 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 18:50 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 02:11 -0400
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-02 16:57 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 04:14 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 06:52 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-02 12:25 -0500
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-03 08:42 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 19:40 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 19:36 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 02:14 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 02:19 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-09-02 10:19 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 19:30 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-02 19:54 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 06:49 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-03 08:44 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 19:51 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 13:52 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-09-02 14:18 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-03 08:46 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 15:50 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-03 09:11 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 17:23 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-03 11:55 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 09:59 -0400
Re: The Quark Religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 11:09 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-09-03 18:02 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-04 12:09 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 05:24 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 05:41 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 06:29 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 12:47 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-09-04 12:57 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 15:07 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 00:02 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 17:06 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 00:33 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 17:59 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 13:04 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 07:00 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 10:28 -0400
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 15:51 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 13:17 -0400
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 19:48 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 15:51 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 16:58 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 17:30 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 18:06 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 20:15 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 20:53 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-05 21:00 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-06 08:21 -0500
Re: The Quark Religion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 10:38 -0400
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 16:52 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 12:39 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 15:44 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 17:13 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 09:16 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-05 16:32 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-06 08:23 -0500
Re: The Quark Religion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-05 20:23 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-05 08:33 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 16:52 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 10:56 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-09-07 11:17 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 03:04 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 17:41 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-03 11:56 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-02 23:16 -0500
Re: The Quark Religion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 19:17 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 11:06 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-09-03 17:59 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-09-02 20:08 -0700
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 08:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3354f045-5c79-4f0a-aaeb-dc3eed388641@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700240 |
On Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 4:40:35 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > > Odd > > “What element of true physics do you think quarks > > lack? ” > > What do you call “true physics”? > > Following suck Gravity to a theoretical black hole and then naming > > anything in the cosmos with extreme gravity as being such? > > Smashing atoms to the smallest bits you can and then naming the bits ‘quark’ etc? > > > > What do you call “true physics”, Odd? > > Swarming gravitrons? > > Virtual particles? > > Volume less particles? > > > > True physics is what YOU call true, Odd. > > True physics is what physicists say physics is. > Not what you want it to be, maybe, but who cares? > > > > > Soon to be replaced. > > How soon? > > >======================= quarks are stupidity the Proton Neutron are much more than 3 quarks see Google http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract ==================== TIA Y.P ======================================= > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-29 14:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <07a1d503-6c66-4b12-8c65-4491533a316f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700215 |
On Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 2:09:42 AM UTC-7, alal...@gmail.com wrote: > How many followers does it have? Quarks are not science/physics. > > Abhinav Lal > Writer & Investor > > “What fools be these men” What if the man that invented them sees a better theory Roy Masters? You are a hypocrite. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-29 15:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3f2f8319-ad28-4d68-a961-dc1ef158bb41@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700215 |
On Tuesday, August 28, 2018 at 2:09:42 AM UTC-7, alal...@gmail.com wrote: > How many followers does it have? Quarks are not science/physics. If you are a non physicist how are you defining science/physics? Mitchell Raemsch > > Abhinav Lal > Writer & Investor > > “What fools be these men”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-29 15:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <43b752dc-90d8-4fa8-9abd-d88d2e1ba635@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700215 |
All modern physics based upon relativity and quantum theories are disastrous rubbish leading to dead ends and even greater nonsensical stuff as quarks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-29 16:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <48785445-c1e5-477f-9c50-da037f4bf216@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700416 |
On Thursday, August 30, 2018 at 1:56:06 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > All modern physics based upon relativity and quantum theories are disastrous rubbish leading to dead ends and even greater nonsensical stuff as quarks. ======================= right ==Y.P ================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-29 16:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1ed5263d-693c-4ccd-8ade-3e22e036b5ac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700416 |
On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 3:56:06 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > All modern physics based upon relativity and quantum theories are disastrous rubbish leading to dead ends and even greater nonsensical stuff as quarks. How would we know?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-29 17:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5c4b6279-baa1-4b05-a158-7acdc2f69685@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700420 |
On Thursday, 30 August 2018 09:15:38 UTC+10, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 3:56:06 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > All modern physics based upon relativity and quantum theories are disastrous rubbish leading to dead ends and even greater nonsensical stuff as quarks. > > How would we know? One clue - how has all the billions poured into fusion research, colliders, black hole generators, etc. done any good for the advancement of sound knowledge leading to practical engineering? Surely there has to be a basic flaw somewhere that has led to such massive failure. If indeed the Sun worked on fusion then fusion generators would have been realised long ago, given the time and money spent. How are the conservation laws of energy (mass&energy) valid when perpetual motion machines are realised using Perendev simulation using permanent magnets; when solar farms can produce unlimited energy along with other renewables?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-29 22:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <27d4c36d-a101-4238-aec5-e62fe6acc57d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700422 |
On Thursday, August 30, 2018 at 3:54:15 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Thursday, 30 August 2018 09:15:38 UTC+10, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 3:56:06 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > All modern physics based upon relativity and quantum theories are disastrous rubbish leading to dead ends and even greater nonsensical stuff as quarks. > > > > How would we know? > > One clue - how has all the billions poured into fusion research, colliders, black hole generators, etc. done any good for the advancement of sound knowledge leading to practical engineering? > > Surely there has to be a basic flaw somewhere that has led to such massive failure. > > If indeed the Sun worked on fusion then fusion generators would have been realised long ago, given the time and money spent. > > How are the conservation laws of energy (mass&energy) valid when perpetual motion machines are realised using Perendev simulation using permanent magnets; when solar farms can produce unlimited energy along with other renewables? =========================== in order of making effective fusion see the 3D structure of matter agin ~!3D !! at the abstract of my model ..... and that was just a hint !.. === TIA Y.P =====================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 15:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pm92gr$2mg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #700422 |
Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, 30 August 2018 09:15:38 UTC+10, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 3:56:06 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> All modern physics based upon relativity and quantum theories are >>> disastrous rubbish leading to dead ends and even greater nonsensical stuff as quarks. >> >> How would we know? > > One clue - how has all the billions poured into fusion research, > colliders, black hole generators, etc. done any good for the advancement > of sound knowledge leading to practical engineering? > > Surely there has to be a basic flaw somewhere that has led to such massive failure. I think that is a common bias of engineers by their nature. They don’t believe in investing in fundamental research that has no aim of practical application and is focused solely on exploration and understanding. Like you, they consider any work that does not produce practical gains to be either failures or wastes. However, the stance of engineers is by no means universal nor even correct. There is value in exploration and discovery in fundamental research that has no practical application, which is why there is investment in it. I think there is also something to be said about scale here. You toss out numbers about billions, but the reality is that the a TOTAL investment in fundamental physics research is an order of magnitude smaller than what is spent in this country on lawn care. > > If indeed the Sun worked on fusion then fusion generators would have been > realised long ago, given the time and money spent. Now you are heaping blame on technologists who fail to deliver practical solutions based in fundamental research on a timeline that pleases you — perhaps within your lifetime. But history has precedence here. Mendelian genetics had no practical application for over a century, as did Newtonian gravity. Just because we understand how nature does something does not guarantee that we can replicate it or manipulate it for practical advantage on a brief timeline. > > How are the conservation laws of energy (mass&energy) valid when > perpetual motion machines are realised using Perendev simulation using > permanent magnets; when solar farms can produce unlimited energy along > with other renewables? > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 16:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a93c4cf0-82da-4e52-a487-4a1cff294109@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700463 |
On Friday, 31 August 2018 01:29:37 UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, 30 August 2018 09:15:38 UTC+10, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 3:56:06 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> All modern physics based upon relativity and quantum theories are > >>> disastrous rubbish leading to dead ends and even greater nonsensical stuff as quarks. > >> > >> How would we know? > > > > One clue - how has all the billions poured into fusion research, > > colliders, black hole generators, etc. done any good for the advancement > > of sound knowledge leading to practical engineering? > > > > Surely there has to be a basic flaw somewhere that has led to such massive failure. > > I think that is a common bias of engineers by their nature. They don’t > believe in investing in fundamental research that has no aim of practical > application and is focused solely on exploration and understanding. Like > you, they consider any work that does not produce practical gains to be > either failures or wastes. No, engineers have a great deal of respect for fundamental research, when it makes sense. When it does not make any sense, when it is based upon wrong and ridiculous principles, when it is used to perpetuate wrong ideas, then such "fundamental research" is rejected. For instance, there is no point today in joining dead people's bodies and trying to make it live using electricity, as was done to Frankenstein's monster. It does not make sense to turn water into wine. This sort of fundamental research is universally rejected. One expects all the e=mcc=hv research will have a similar fate, soon. What is worst is that the "fundamental researcher" will persist with his work and ignore other options, as he is no longer a scientist but a lobotomised dogmatic creature. Exactly as those who say that one must believe in e=mcc=hv to be considered a physicist. Which means, accepting a whole lot of nonsense as the supreme sense. This attitude is naturally revolting to the engineer. Engineering in the practical sense depends upon NOT bullshitting. If engineers started to bullshit as e=mcc=hv physicists do, nothing would work. Whatever did work, would stop working. Tragedies, from plane crashes to bridges falling down, would be daily occurrences. > > However, the stance of engineers is by no means universal nor even correct. > There is value in exploration and discovery in fundamental research that > has no practical application, which is why there is investment in it. > > I think there is also something to be said about scale here. You toss out > numbers about billions, but the reality is that the a TOTAL investment in > fundamental physics research is an order of magnitude smaller than what is > spent in this country on lawn care. > > > > > If indeed the Sun worked on fusion then fusion generators would have been > > realised long ago, given the time and money spent. > > Now you are heaping blame on technologists who fail to deliver practical > solutions based in fundamental research on a timeline that pleases you — > perhaps within your lifetime. But history has precedence here. Mendelian > genetics had no practical application for over a century, as did Newtonian > gravity. Just because we understand how nature does something does not > guarantee that we can replicate it or manipulate it for practical advantage > on a brief timeline. > > > > > How are the conservation laws of energy (mass&energy) valid when > > perpetual motion machines are realised using Perendev simulation using > > permanent magnets; when solar farms can produce unlimited energy along > > with other renewables? > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 02:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d811359b-683a-45a0-95e6-87ec4d2e03a4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700416 |
Ari “All modern physics based upon relativity and quantum theories are disastrous rubbish leading to dead ends and even greater nonsensical stuff as quarks. ” Knowledge can be derived from their flailings, although precious little for the money put into it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 15:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pm92gs$2mg$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #700444 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Ari > “All modern physics based upon relativity and quantum theories are > disastrous rubbish leading to dead ends and even greater nonsensical stuff as quarks. ” > Knowledge can be derived from their flailings, although precious little > for the money put into it. > If by “knowledge” you mean practical application, that isn’t even the purpose of fundamental science research. If you mean that even the unschooled will natively understand it, that’s a pipe dream that will never happen. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 08:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8a79f6b5-e415-42c2-ab9e-817722b2f4f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700464 |
Odd “If by “knowledge” you mean practical application, that isn’t even the purpose of fundamental science research. If you mean that even the unschooled will natively understand it, that’s a pipe dream that will never happen. ” You have a lot of trouble figuring out what words mean?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 16:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pm95da$8dh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #700467 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “If by “knowledge” you mean practical application, that isn’t even the > purpose of fundamental science research. If you mean that even the > unschooled will natively understand it, that’s a pipe dream that will never > happen. ” > You have a lot of trouble figuring out what words mean? > In your case, yes, because your use of words is so different than what most people mean. You use “nonsense” to mean anything you don’t understand. You use “logic” to mean anything consistent with common experience. You use “model” to mean something you can watch move and see internal parts working. None of those are the meanings used by most people. Who knows what you mean by “knowledge”? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 01:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pm88u9$41j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #700215 |
On 8/28/2018 2:09 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: > How many followers does it have? Quarks are not science/physics. > > Abhinav Lal > Writer & Investor > > “What fools be these men” > Quark.. Ahhh. What about neutrinos? What is closer to zero?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 02:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <403cb364-ed2a-498a-bf1d-50b363d99dd0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700441 |
On Thursday, August 30, 2018 at 11:13:01 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 8/28/2018 2:09 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: > > How many followers does it have? Quarks are not science/physics. > > > > Abhinav Lal > > Writer & Investor > > > > “What fools be these men” > > > > Quark.. Ahhh. What about neutrinos? What is closer to zero? ====================== 'closer to the zero ' cannot be something that is only positive it must be or positive plus something negative or no 'chagrget at all but something else see http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract ====== TIA Y.P ======================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 02:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pm8c97$oa0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #700442 |
On 8/30/2018 2:05 AM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, August 30, 2018 at 11:13:01 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 8/28/2018 2:09 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: >>> How many followers does it have? Quarks are not science/physics. >>> >>> Abhinav Lal >>> Writer & Investor >>> >>> “What fools be these men” >>> >> >> Quark.. Ahhh. What about neutrinos? What is closer to zero? > ====================== > 'closer to the zero' > cannot be something that is only positive > it must be > or positive plus something negative > or no 'chagrget at all > but something else > see > http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > ====== > TIA > Y.P > ====================== > Signed zero? ;^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 06:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <39e4eaa1-c277-48bf-b9ff-dfb92ba260ee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700443 |
On Thursday, August 30, 2018 at 12:10:03 PM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 8/30/2018 2:05 AM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, August 30, 2018 at 11:13:01 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > >> On 8/28/2018 2:09 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: > >>> How many followers does it have? Quarks are not science/physics. > >>> > >>> Abhinav Lal > >>> Writer & Investor > >>> > >>> “What fools be these men” > >>> > >> > >> Quark.. Ahhh. What about neutrinos? What is closer to zero? > > ====================== > > 'closer to the zero' > > cannot be something that is only positive > > it must be > > or positive plus something negative > > or no 'chagrget at all > > but something else > > see > > http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > ====== > > TIA > > Y.P > > ====================== > > > > Signed zero? ;^) ================= speak physics !! and if you don t understand shut up !! === Y.P =======================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 14:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pm9oh0$t62$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #700449 |
On 8/30/2018 6:20 AM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, August 30, 2018 at 12:10:03 PM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 8/30/2018 2:05 AM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 30, 2018 at 11:13:01 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> On 8/28/2018 2:09 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> How many followers does it have? Quarks are not science/physics. >>>>> >>>>> Abhinav Lal >>>>> Writer & Investor >>>>> >>>>> “What fools be these men” >>>>> >>>> >>>> Quark.. Ahhh. What about neutrinos? What is closer to zero? >>> ====================== >>> 'closer to the zero' >>> cannot be something that is only positive >>> it must be >>> or positive plus something negative >>> or no 'chagrget at all >>> but something else >>> see >>> http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract >>> ====== >>> TIA >>> Y.P >>> ====================== >>> >> >> Signed zero? ;^) > ================= > speak physics !! > and if you don t understand > shut up !! > === > Y.P > ======================= > Sorry. I just thought of zero with signs when I read your reply.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 16:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4fd66fe1-28c3-4e0d-b1b6-a84b3f079c41@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700501 |
On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 12:45:08 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 8/30/2018 6:20 AM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, August 30, 2018 at 12:10:03 PM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > >> On 8/30/2018 2:05 AM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: > >>> On Thursday, August 30, 2018 at 11:13:01 AM UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > >>>> On 8/28/2018 2:09 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>> How many followers does it have? Quarks are not science/physics. > >>>>> > >>>>> Abhinav Lal > >>>>> Writer & Investor > >>>>> > >>>>> “What fools be these men” > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Quark.. Ahhh. What about neutrinos? What is closer to zero? > >>> ====================== > >>> 'closer to the zero' > >>> cannot be something that is only positive > >>> it must be > >>> or positive plus something negative > >>> or no 'chagrget at all > >>> but something else > >>> see > >>> http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > >>> ====== > >>> TIA > >>> Y.P > >>> ====================== > >>> > >> > >> Signed zero? ;^) > > ================= > > speak physics !! > > and if you don t understand > > shut up !! > > === > > Y.P > > ======================= > > > > Sorry. I just thought of zero with signs when I read your reply. ==================== ok thank you for clarifying so we agree that there is something smaller than say quarks 2 do you agree with me that all* forces** are created / and emitted by mass (i cant find the English word for that 'created and emitted '' ) TIA == Y.Porat ==================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web