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

Groups > sci.physics > #534689 > unrolled thread

Re: Finding Gravity Waves

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: Finding Gravity Waves Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 20:41 -0600
    Re: Finding Gravity Waves jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-23 06:15 +0000
    Re: Finding Gravity Waves Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-11-23 14:06 -0800
      Re: Finding Gravity Waves xxein1@att.net - 2015-11-23 19:50 -0800
        Re: Finding Gravity Waves Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 07:53 -0600
          Re: Finding Gravity Waves HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 07:22 -0800
            Re: Finding Gravity Waves Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 09:26 -0600
              Re: Finding Gravity Waves HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 07:45 -0800
                Re: Finding Gravity Waves benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 13:56 -0500
              Re: Finding Gravity Waves "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 15:15 -0800
                Re: Finding Gravity Waves "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 17:52 -0800
            Re: Finding Gravity Waves benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 13:54 -0500
        Re: Finding Gravity Waves Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-11-24 13:57 -0800
      Re: Finding Gravity Waves Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 07:47 -0600
        Re: Finding Gravity Waves jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-24 22:13 +0000

#534689 — Re: Finding Gravity Waves

On 7/2/15 2:57 PM, Double-A wrote:
> Everybody needs to make money.  Everybody's got their gig.  For Al
> Gore it's global warming.  For politicians it's elective office.  For
> con men it's some scam.  For researchers it's some intriguing topic
> they can get grant money to research.  I speak as somebody who tried
> to get along without money, and you know how that went.
>
> Double-A


   Science is funded by corporations, individuals, universities and
   governments. The funding is required to create the research
   instruments, fund the graduate students and researchers--moving
   forward in better understanding of physical principles.

   Without a good science backbone, things quickly deteriorate.



-- 

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#534722

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/2/15 2:57 PM, Double-A wrote:
>> Everybody needs to make money.  Everybody's got their gig.  For Al
>> Gore it's global warming.  For politicians it's elective office.  For
>> con men it's some scam.  For researchers it's some intriguing topic
>> they can get grant money to research.  I speak as somebody who tried
>> to get along without money, and you know how that went.
>>
>> Double-A
> 
> 
>   Science is funded by corporations, individuals, universities and
>   governments. The funding is required to create the research
>   instruments, fund the graduate students and researchers--moving
>   forward in better understanding of physical principles.
> 
>   Without a good science backbone, things quickly deteriorate.
 
It only took you 4 months to respond with this childish nonsense?

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#534917

On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 6:41:44 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 7/2/15 2:57 PM, Double-A wrote:
> > Everybody needs to make money.  Everybody's got their gig.  For Al
> > Gore it's global warming.  For politicians it's elective office.  For
> > con men it's some scam.  For researchers it's some intriguing topic
> > they can get grant money to research.  I speak as somebody who tried
> > to get along without money, and you know how that went.
> >
> > Double-A
> 
> 
>    Science is funded by corporations, individuals, universities and
>    governments. The funding is required to create the research
>    instruments, fund the graduate students and researchers--moving
>    forward in better understanding of physical principles.
> 
>    Without a good science backbone, things quickly deteriorate.
> 

It took you a while to read my post.  I will agree that a "good science backbone" is good. 

Double-A

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

#534973

On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 5:06:25 PM UTC-5, Double-A wrote:
> On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 6:41:44 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > On 7/2/15 2:57 PM, Double-A wrote:
> > > Everybody needs to make money.  Everybody's got their gig.  For Al
> > > Gore it's global warming.  For politicians it's elective office.  For
> > > con men it's some scam.  For researchers it's some intriguing topic
> > > they can get grant money to research.  I speak as somebody who tried
> > > to get along without money, and you know how that went.
> > >
> > > Double-A
> > 
> > 
> >    Science is funded by corporations, individuals, universities and
> >    governments. The funding is required to create the research
> >    instruments, fund the graduate students and researchers--moving
> >    forward in better understanding of physical principles.
> > 
> >    Without a good science backbone, things quickly deteriorate.
> > 
> 
> It took you a while to read my post.  I will agree that a "good science backbone" is good. 
> 
> Double-A

xxein:  You'll never find the true gravity if you rely on that "good science backbone" you think we have.  How do I know?  I found gravity and it's hardly anything like you could imagine with present science.  And yet it is compatible with all you think it should be.  And a little more - which, for present science, will be a lot.

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

#535028

On 11/23/15 9:50 PM, xxein1@att.net wrote:
> I found gravity and it's hardly anything like you could imagine with present science

   Some have a harder time than others.

   Newton's gravitational law (pretty dang excellent BTW) is fairly
   easy for most students to grasp. Einstein's gravity is harder for
   students to warp their minds around, but is a better model of how
   nature behaves.

-- 

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

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

#535057

Almost every major scientific idea is at its heart, simple and beautiful. Yet it is this very simplicity that makes it anathema to kooks here. BJ, John and others simply can and will not accept reality. Why? Because reality and science don't include their kooky beliefs and notions. 

Let's start with the kooks belief in ghosts. BJ is positive they are real, but gets mad because science demands evidence. There is absolutely zero evidence for ghosts. Matter of fact, there is no modality in which consciousness can exist after brain death.

Why do kooks love such things?

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

#535059

On 11/24/15 9:22 AM, HVAC wrote:
> Almost every major scientific idea is at its heart, simple and
> beautiful. Yet it is this very simplicity that makes it anathema to
> kooks here. BJ, John and others simply can and will not accept
> reality. Why? Because reality and science don't include their kooky
> beliefs and notions.

   You make BJ, John and Boit sound like the three stooges! I keep them
   in my ploncker's cellar -- outta sight -- outta mind

>
> Let's start with the kooks belief in ghosts. BJ is positive they are
> real, but gets mad because science demands evidence. There is
> absolutely zero evidence for ghosts. Matter of fact, there is no
> modality in which consciousness can exist after brain death.
>
> Why do kooks love such things?
>

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

#535062

Âs Moderator I am tasked with monitoring every post.

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

#535102

On 11/24/2015 10:45 AM, HVAC wrote:
> Âs Moderator I am tasked with monitoring every post.
>
Just as I said! Today must be Thursday! So he thinks he's Moderator.
Tomorrow he'll be Napoleon.

What a nutjob! Is there ANYONE here ignorant enough to believe anything 
this kook says?

-- 

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

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

#535234

On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 7:26:17 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 11/24/15 9:22 AM, HVAC wrote:
> > Almost every major scientific idea is at its heart, simple and
> > beautiful. Yet it is this very simplicity that makes it anathema to
> > kooks here. BJ, John and others simply can and will not accept
> > reality. Why? Because reality and science don't include their kooky
> > beliefs and notions.
> 
>    You make BJ, John and Boit sound like the three stooges! I keep them
>    in my ploncker's cellar -- outta sight -- outta mind
> 
> >
> > Let's start with the kooks belief in ghosts. BJ is positive they are
> > real, but gets mad because science demands evidence. There is
> > absolutely zero evidence for ghosts. Matter of fact, there is no
> > modality in which consciousness can exist after brain death.
> >
> > Why do kooks love such things?
> >

Lots of time and money for 100 years went trying to detect gravity waves. What went wrong? How close did they come? What went wrong with LIGO? What has LIGO cost so far? How long can it last? Is it screwed up and Mafia GOPer NASA covering it up? Their experts on that. Who is keeping the books? Did they copy any of Rube Goldberg's comic engineering? I think a hearing should be done on LIGO to clear the air. Don't the taxpayers have any say?  TreBert

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

#535268

On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 3:15:35 PM UTC-8, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 7:26:17 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > On 11/24/15 9:22 AM, HVAC wrote:
> > > Almost every major scientific idea is at its heart, simple and
> > > beautiful. Yet it is this very simplicity that makes it anathema to
> > > kooks here. BJ, John and others simply can and will not accept
> > > reality. Why? Because reality and science don't include their kooky
> > > beliefs and notions.
> > 
> >    You make BJ, John and Boit sound like the three stooges! I keep them
> >    in my ploncker's cellar -- outta sight -- outta mind
> > 
> > >
> > > Let's start with the kooks belief in ghosts. BJ is positive they are
> > > real, but gets mad because science demands evidence. There is
> > > absolutely zero evidence for ghosts. Matter of fact, there is no
> > > modality in which consciousness can exist after brain death.
> > >
> > > Why do kooks love such things?
> > >
> 
> Lots of time and money for 100 years went trying to detect gravity waves. What went wrong? How close did they come? What went wrong with LIGO? What has LIGO cost so far? How long can it last? Is it screwed up and Mafia GOPer NASA covering it up? Their experts on that. Who is keeping the books? Did they copy any of Rube Goldberg's comic engineering? I think a hearing should be done on LIGO to clear the air. Don't the taxpayers have any say?  TreBert

This Treb just came up with."How can a particle(graviton) have no mass" and still have a wave going for it? Maybe Sam can answer that.O Ya  TreBert

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

#535101

On 11/24/2015 10:22 AM, HVAC wrote:
> Almost every major scientific idea is at its heart, simple and
> beautiful. Yet it is this very simplicity that makes it anathema to
> kooks here. BJ, John and others simply can and will not accept
> reality. Why? Because reality and science don't include their kooky
> beliefs and notions.
>
> Let's start with the kooks belief in ghosts. BJ is positive they are
> real, but gets mad because science demands evidence. There is
> absolutely zero evidence for ghosts. Matter of fact, there is no
> modality in which consciousness can exist after brain death.
>
> Why do kooks love such things?
>
We have FROTH! Spin, Kook, SPIN!

H&V just hums along in his own little fantasy world where he uses his 
superpowers to "know" what everyone believes. He can't find out any 
other way because he knows too little science to actually discuss a 
scientific subject.  On Thursdays he thinks he NewsGroup moderator, and 
on Fridays he "knows" he's Napoleon!  Nutjob!

-- 

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

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

#535194

On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 7:50:54 PM UTC-8, xxe...@att.net wrote:
> On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 5:06:25 PM UTC-5, Double-A wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 6:41:44 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > > On 7/2/15 2:57 PM, Double-A wrote:
> > > > Everybody needs to make money.  Everybody's got their gig.  For Al
> > > > Gore it's global warming.  For politicians it's elective office.  For
> > > > con men it's some scam.  For researchers it's some intriguing topic
> > > > they can get grant money to research.  I speak as somebody who tried
> > > > to get along without money, and you know how that went.
> > > >
> > > > Double-A
> > > 
> > > 
> > >    Science is funded by corporations, individuals, universities and
> > >    governments. The funding is required to create the research
> > >    instruments, fund the graduate students and researchers--moving
> > >    forward in better understanding of physical principles.
> > > 
> > >    Without a good science backbone, things quickly deteriorate.
> > > 
> > 
> > It took you a while to read my post.  I will agree that a "good science backbone" is good. 
> > 
> > Double-A
> 
> xxein:  You'll never find the true gravity if you rely on that "good science backbone" you think we have.  How do I know?  I found gravity and it's hardly anything like you could imagine with present science.  And yet it is compatible with all you think it should be.  And a little more - which, for present science, will be a lot.


I eagerly await your paper on the subject!

Double-A

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

#535025

On 11/23/15 4:06 PM, Double-A wrote:
> I will agree that a "good science backbone" is good.


   Thanks.


-- 

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

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

#535208

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/23/15 4:06 PM, Double-A wrote:
>> I will agree that a "good science backbone" is good.
> 
> 
>   Thanks.
 
Good lord, you are dense.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web