Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #562012 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-12 20:23 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-14 14:11 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 101 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 20:23 -0800
Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 11:20 -0700
Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 11:27 -0700
Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Anonymous <anonymous@foto.nl1.torservers.net> - 2016-03-19 13:44 -0400
Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 15:20 -0700
Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-03-13 17:06 -0700
Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 09:55 -0500
Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-03-14 08:09 -0700
Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 10:38 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 13:27 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 19:07 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 08:29 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 17:19 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 08:44 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 19:39 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 21:42 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 06:25 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 08:55 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 08:59 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 08:49 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 09:15 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 09:51 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 12:13 -0500
camsZor noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 10:30 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 12:59 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 12:40 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 18:49 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 08:43 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Cesare Pancratius <cesarepanc@porphyriocontext.org> - 2016-03-19 14:18 +0000
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-19 17:05 +0000
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 15:08 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:34 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 23:38 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 11:51 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 15:29 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 16:38 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 18:41 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 17:46 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 08:09 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 22:21 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 14:26 -0700
numbers as quotients etc. (fractions as exponents e.g noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 17:15 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 14:59 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 06:12 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 08:49 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 07:35 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 09:43 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 08:20 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 09:03 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 11:28 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 10:19 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 16:25 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 07:05 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 09:22 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 11:53 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 20:20 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 03:02 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 11:41 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 14:54 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 16:58 -0500
forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 11:26 -0700
forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 20:54 -0700
Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 10:57 -0700
Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 21:21 -0700
Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Snowshoe <no@spam.please> - 2016-04-04 01:13 -0400
Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 06:26 -0700
Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 14:12 -0700
Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Snowshoe <no@spam.please> - 2016-04-05 13:26 -0400
linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 14:17 -0700
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 17:15 -0500
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 10:47 -0700
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 13:10 -0500
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 12:32 -0700
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 15:41 -0500
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 15:42 -0500
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 12:57 -0700
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 16:27 -0500
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 13:12 -0700
Feynmann's liposarcoma and death at 69 age, 1988 Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 11:42 -0700
Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma and death at 69 age, 1988 R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-04-10 21:57 +0000
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 15:54 -0500
Feynmann's liposarcoma Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 22:59 -0700
Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 07:23 -0500
Compression theory as a cause of cancer Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 13:51 -0700
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Snowshoe <no@spam.please> - 2016-04-06 00:13 -0400
Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 10:29 -0500
Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 10:22 -0500
gi'me a u. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 08:00 -0700
Re: gi'me a u. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 21:39 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 14:25 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 13:05 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 06:00 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 12:18 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 15:28 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:29 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:15 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 11:34 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 08:41 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 07:28 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 14:26 -0400
Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 14:11 -0500
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-12 20:23 -0800 |
| Subject | Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? |
| Message-ID | <e5d0daa7-6701-431a-be24-be10f3a18100@googlegroups.com> |
Still the easiest explanation for this 14 SEP 2015 ping at LIGO is that of Solar Wind. A quote from SCIENCE NEWS, page 23 : "But a gravitational wave stretches one tube while squeezing the other, altering the distance the two beams travel relative to each other. Because of this difference in distance, the recombining waves are no longer perfectly aligned and therefore don't cancel out. The detector picks up a faint glow, signaling a passing wave." "Now on page 6 it speaks of a distance for missed trough and crest as being 1/1000 the diameter of a proton." Now I suspect after the 14 SEP 2015 ping date of occurrence. I dare any physicist to do the math on how they can avoid a Solar Wind that disturbs the tubes by 1/1000 the diameter of a proton. I believe we can never even approach the accuracy of 1/1000 the diameter of proton in any material. Also, there is the question of how one can maintain two light beams to the accuracy called for. It is said there was a gamma ray burst on 14SEP and there is no way I see for LIGO to filter out that as noise. LIGO is an experiment that costs taxpayers huge sums and propels shoddy physics into the spotlight, not an experiment that creates value, but only creates flash fame and spending of money. We need to start funding experiments only which have some proposed social value-- such as say fusion experiments have the hopes of fusion. We need to stop these physics welfare experiments. AP
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 11:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5f1244f7-d6f9-4e58-a461-5ba2b8f71c7d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #562012 |
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:23:41 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Still the easiest explanation for this 14 SEP 2015 ping at LIGO is that of Solar Wind. > > A quote from SCIENCE NEWS, page 23 : "But a gravitational wave stretches one tube while squeezing the other, altering the distance the two beams travel relative to each other. Because of this difference in distance, the recombining waves are no longer perfectly aligned and therefore don't cancel out. The detector picks up a faint glow, signaling a passing wave." > > "Now on page 6 it speaks of a distance for missed trough and crest as being 1/1000 the diameter of a proton." > > Now I suspect after the 14 SEP 2015 ping date of occurrence. > > I dare any physicist to do the math on how they can avoid a Solar Wind that disturbs the tubes by 1/1000 the diameter of a proton. > > I believe we can never even approach the accuracy of 1/1000 the diameter of proton in any material. > > Also, there is the question of how one can maintain two light beams to the accuracy called for. It is said there was a gamma ray burst on 14SEP and there is no way I see for LIGO to filter out that as noise. > > LIGO is an experiment that costs taxpayers huge sums and propels shoddy physics into the spotlight, not an experiment that creates value, but only creates flash fame and spending of money. We need to start funding experiments only which have some proposed social value-- such as say fusion experiments have the hopes of fusion. We need to stop these physics welfare experiments. > > AP Now after 44 years of Micky Mouse shuttles,and GOPer Mafia stealing 2 billion each year NASA has to go with LIGO if GOPers are to have Swiss villas. Shuttles were their big winners put together by Nixon, Godfather Annenberg,and Kissenger They scraped the great Saturn V It got men to walk on the moon in 3 days safely. Shuttles killed 12,and could only go up 200 miles.GOPers have no shame.Take no blame and are crooks.Bush gave 13.5 trillion to bankers.Rick Scott stole 1.7 billion from medicare. USA now does not have good paper money. Trebert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 11:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1ff3dd66-33c4-45ae-9e4c-4d565ed4bb87@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #562128 |
SmellBert days Now after 44 years of Micky Mouse shuttles,and GOPer Mafia stealing 2 billion each year NASA has to go with LIGO if GOPers are to have Swiss villas. -------------- Partial list of technology Bert was opposed to: CERN Hubble All Mars rovers The wheel Fire
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anonymous <anonymous@foto.nl1.torservers.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-19 13:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <41ea19aedc49bfecfbad839083abb9df@foto.nl1.torservers.net> |
| In reply to | #562130 |
In article <1ff3dd66-33c4-45ae-9e4c-4d565ed4bb87@googlegroups.com> HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote: > > SmellBert days > Now after 44 years of Micky Mouse shuttles,and GOPer Mafia stealing 2 billion each year NASA has to go with LIGO if GOPers are to have Swiss villas. > -------------- > > Partial list of technology Bert was opposed to: > > CERN > Hubble > All Mars rovers > The wheel > Fire Deororant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-19 15:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7868c0b0-8393-4e35-97cb-f2d620ebdce3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #563658 |
Anonymous > Now after 44 years of Micky Mouse shuttles,and GOPer Mafia stealing 2 billion each year NASA has to go with LIGO if GOPers are to have Swiss villas. > -------------- > > Partial list of technology Bert was opposed to: > > CERN > Hubble > All Mars rovers > The wheel > Fire Deororant. ---------------- Bert Is SO old his birthstone is lava
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-13 17:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nc4v6o$ebh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #562128 |
<herbertglazier0@gmail.com> Sore & still sour "reber g=emc^2" wrote: Now after 44 years of Micky Mouse shuttles, and GOPers have scraped the great Saturn V ....(like Full-Swine Glazier scrapes the Shit out of his bucket into which Glazier shits in Glazier's 44 year old Minnie Mose van)... GOPer (Glazier On Pills) has no shame & takes no blame and is a crook. Glazier now does not have money, because of <http://tinyurl.com/Hebe-Herbies-SPACE-CRAPPER> > wherein it says: Glazier, you Cretin, so it still burns your wrinkled old ass that you fucked up on, for getting and much less closing the deal with NASA for your ever ONLY invention, > ... which would have made you truly famous and filthy rich, namely thru Hebe-Herbie's "Space-Water-Closet" that you could have sold to NASA, SPACE-X, BOEING, & to about 30 other Firms who need Full Swine Glazier's Space Crapper, but for which you, Loser Glazier, failed to close a Sale for the last 44 years... > But it's never too late. So listen up, Swine Glazier: > In the 1970's NASA commissioned the production of an onboard space toilet for the SpaceLab and the ISS that cost'em some $25 million, because its recycling was environmentally friendly enough and did not have the potential to cause AGW-CC & so it was adopted. > Enter G=EMC^2-Glazier, the Jewish Jailbird, along with the failed Cockroach-repellant-Peddler rect-Al Schwartz, the Uncle, both of who angrily jumped up & down, as that being a waste of taxpayers' money, & then this Dynamic Duo proposed to NASA a simple, hygienic, safe & CHEAP human-waste disposal gizmo.... > ... by making a single padded hole with an adjustable vacuum valve into the thin wall of the Space vehicle, into/onto which the astronauts could have placed their elimination orifices, from where the space's vacuum would have sucked, woofed-n-poofed their piss and shit out into space, .... > ... where UV radiation would have quickly sterilized it, even before it burned up as pretty meteorite flashes up-on reentry, which the 2 kikes intended to name "YSS", > ====== Yiddisher Shooting Stars ======= and they > copyrighted it on advice of their consultant, Yehiel Porat, who said that Yiddisher Shooting Stars are made of his "ONLY MASS", > ... and all 3 of these splendid kikes agreed that this would be THE inconvertible proof that == Jewish shit don't stink ==. > US space endeavors could have been so different, so grand! .... What a pity! What a shame!, "O Ya". > So Cretin Glazier, given your Jewish Superiority complex and your IQ of 122 and you knowing how how everything works, ... how come YOU ended up shitting into a bucket in a 25 year old van that you use as your residence on Wal-Mart's Parking Lot? ..... .... What went wrong, Glazier? > > <http://tinyurl.com/G-EMC2-Recall-Therapy> for the mental cripple aka <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier>. ... Shalom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 09:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nc6jdd$184n$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #562012 |
On 3/12/2016 10:23 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > I believe we can never even approach the accuracy of 1/1000 the diameter of proton in any material. Then why don't you read the papers written by the LIGO team that explain how this precision is achieved, rather than just relying on your gut feel? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 08:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <65c15eb2-1846-4476-8b72-20f6d8526909@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #562012 |
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 11:23:41 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Still the easiest explanation for this 14 SEP 2015 ping at LIGO is that of Solar Wind. > > A quote from SCIENCE NEWS, page 23 : "But a gravitational wave stretches > one tube while squeezing the other, altering the distance the two beams > travel relative to each other. Because of this difference in distance, > the recombining waves are no longer perfectly aligned and therefore don't > cancel out. The detector picks up a faint glow, signaling a passing wave." > > "Now on page 6 it speaks of a distance for missed trough and crest as > being 1/1000 the diameter of a proton." > > Now I suspect after the 14 SEP 2015 ping date of occurrence. > > I dare any physicist to do the math on how they can avoid a > Solar Wind that disturbs the tubes by 1/1000 the diameter of a proton. > > I believe we can never even approach the accuracy of 1/1000 the > diameter of proton in any material. > > Also, there is the question of how one can maintain two light beams > to the accuracy called for. You are kidding, right? You have never worked with lasers to make holograms or run an interferometer. I will not say it is easy, but it is very much easier than you you are complaining about. You can believe what you want, that doesn't make it true.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 10:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <0d5d77ae-6460-44a7-af95-ada6d8216899@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #562012 |
On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:23:41 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Still the easiest explanation for this 14 SEP 2015 ping at LIGO is that of Solar Wind. > > A quote from SCIENCE NEWS, page 23 : "But a gravitational wave stretches one tube while squeezing the other, altering the distance the two beams travel relative to each other. Because of this difference in distance, the recombining waves are no longer perfectly aligned and therefore don't cancel out. The detector picks up a faint glow, signaling a passing wave." > > "Now on page 6 it speaks of a distance for missed trough and crest as being 1/1000 the diameter of a proton." > > Now I suspect after the 14 SEP 2015 ping date of occurrence. > > I dare any physicist to do the math on how they can avoid a Solar Wind that disturbs the tubes by 1/1000 the diameter of a proton. > > I believe we can never even approach the accuracy of 1/1000 the diameter of proton in any material. > > Also, there is the question of how one can maintain two light beams to the accuracy called for. It is said there was a gamma ray burst on 14SEP and there is no way I see for LIGO to filter out that as noise. > > LIGO is an experiment that costs taxpayers huge sums and propels shoddy physics into the spotlight, not an experiment that creates value, but only creates flash fame and spending of money. We need to start funding experiments only which have some proposed social value-- such as say fusion experiments have the hopes of fusion. We need to stop these physics welfare experiments. > > There is a phenomenon in physics called the Casimir effect that two plates will automatically attract towards one another as if "gravity". I am sure it is far larger than the 1//1000 the diameter of a proton. And so for the tubes involved in LIGO, there never was any Casimir compensation. It could even be so innocent of a causal effect of 14 SEP as a worldwide seasonal shift so that the tubes of LIGO experience worldwide every 4 times a year a season shift which instruments devoted to 1/1000 proton diameter are swept up in the temperature humidity shift. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 13:27 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <nc6vre$1r2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #562356 |
On 3/14/2016 12:38 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > There is a phenomenon in physics called the Casimir effect that two plates will > automatically attract towards one another as if "gravity". I am sure it is far > larger than the 1//1000 the diameter of a proton. And so for the tubes involved > in LIGO, there never was any Casimir compensation. > > It could even be so innocent of a causal effect of 14 SEP as a worldwide seasonal > shift so that the tubes of LIGO experience worldwide every 4 times a year a season > shift which instruments devoted to 1/1000 proton diameter are swept up in the > temperature humidity shift. > > AP > Archimedes, you seem pretty hell bent on finding some reason that the LIGO results should be discredited. I'm not sure what the motivation is. Can you explain your motivation? But while you respond to that question, let me point out a few things here. First of all, the signal being detected was not just a change in length of 1/1000th the diameter of a proton. The signal is a lot more distinctive than that. 1. It is a oscillation. (Rules out Casimir and any thermal sources.) 2. It is an oscillation that lengthens one arm while it shortens the other, and then vice versa. (Rules out solar wind and other effects that would affect the arms the same way.) 3. It has a very particular profile predicted from theory, the oscillation being in the 10^2 - 10^3 Hz range, rising in amplitude and frequency, and then suddenly dropping to nothing. (Rules out any phenomena without those profiles, such as seismic or electromagnetic interference effects or diurnal or seasonal effects.) 4. Is seen at distant sites simultaneously. (Rules out any local sources of noise.) Once you actually read the published paper, you'd see that the signal does not resemble any of the possible sources of background that you've proposed. Separating out the signal from what would be expected from those other sources of background, has been fully accounted for by the experimenters. All you need to know is what kind of signal your proposed background would produce (time profiles, frequency, isotropy, geographic range) and then see how that has been suppressed by the LIGO setup. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 19:07 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <0ea0fcda-58c0-4eaf-af15-b6fab5f59ab7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #562362 |
On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 1:28:11 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: (snipped) > > Archimedes, you seem pretty hell bent on finding some reason that the > LIGO results should be discredited. I'm not sure what the motivation is. > Can you explain your motivation? > Your motivation is that your mind wants to be with the mainstream and attack any of those that are not. Your mind is of the past century of a Big Bang, Einstein, GR are superior. My mind is in the new century where Maxwell theory rules everything and all forces end up being a Coulomb force, where the Universe is not a Big Bang but a Atom Totality of a big Plutonium atom that grew from a previous Atom Totality of Uranium atom. Where our night sky are a view of the last 6 electrons of 5f6, where a electron dot cloud is a night sky of galaxies and stars. So, for me to see silliness in physics, such as flat Earth or heliocentric and experiments that further entrench this garbage physics, is the reason I lambast and show the errors of these duping experiments. > But while you respond to that question, let me point out a few things > here. First of all, the signal being detected was not just a change in > length of 1/1000th the diameter of a proton. The signal is a lot more > distinctive than that. > 1. It is a oscillation. (Rules out Casimir and any thermal sources.) > 2. It is an oscillation that lengthens one arm while it shortens the > other, and then vice versa. (Rules out solar wind and other effects that > would affect the arms the same way.) Not really, what is at play in LIGO is merely a traveling band of light, and light is EM and EM force is 10^40 stronger than gravity. And so a tiny tiny EM force can easily produce all the phony claims of LIGO scientists. You make up things as you go along. > 3. It has a very particular profile predicted from theory, the > oscillation being in the 10^2 - 10^3 Hz range, rising in amplitude and > frequency, and then suddenly dropping to nothing. (Rules out any > phenomena without those profiles, such as seismic or electromagnetic > interference effects or diurnal or seasonal effects.) > 4. Is seen at distant sites simultaneously. (Rules out any local sources > of noise.) > > Once you actually read the published paper, you'd see that the signal > does not resemble any of the possible sources of background that you've > proposed. Separating out the signal from what would be expected from > those other sources of background, has been fully accounted for by the > experimenters. All you need to know is what kind of signal your proposed > background would produce (time profiles, frequency, isotropy, geographic > range) and then see how that has been suppressed by the LIGO setup. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Defenders of the old and fake, often accuse others of not reading and other irrelevancies. You are subjective and defensive, not what a scientist should be -- objective and probing and reasoning. When have you ever said EM is 10^40 stronger than gravity, and how the hell would you be able to suppress all noise when EM is 10^40 stronger. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 08:29 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <nc92o8$r7r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #562485 |
On 3/14/2016 9:07 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 1:28:11 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > (snipped) >> >> Archimedes, you seem pretty hell bent on finding some reason that the >> LIGO results should be discredited. I'm not sure what the motivation is. >> Can you explain your motivation? >> > > Your motivation is that your mind wants to be with the mainstream and attack > any of those that are not. Your mind is of the past century of a Big Bang, > Einstein, GR are superior. > > My mind is in the new century where Maxwell theory rules everything and all > forces end up being a Coulomb force, where the Universe is not a Big Bang but > a Atom Totality of a big Plutonium atom that grew from a previous Atom Totality > of Uranium atom. Where our night sky are a view of the last 6 electrons of 5f6, > where a electron dot cloud is a night sky of galaxies and stars. > > So, for me to see silliness in physics, such as flat Earth or heliocentric and > experiments that further entrench this garbage physics, is the reason I lambast > and show the errors of these duping experiments. Well, thanks for explaining your motivation. Rest assured that I have no interest in attacking you. I also have no interest in attacking your theory about a big plutonium atom. Rather, it will be interesting to see if your idea has any testable predictions that can be compared to experiment, especially data we do not have in hand. > >> But while you respond to that question, let me point out a few things >> here. First of all, the signal being detected was not just a change in >> length of 1/1000th the diameter of a proton. The signal is a lot more >> distinctive than that. >> 1. It is a oscillation. (Rules out Casimir and any thermal sources.) >> 2. It is an oscillation that lengthens one arm while it shortens the >> other, and then vice versa. (Rules out solar wind and other effects that >> would affect the arms the same way.) > > Not really, what is at play in LIGO is merely a traveling band of light, and > light is EM and EM force is 10^40 stronger than gravity. And so a tiny tiny > EM force can easily produce all the phony claims of LIGO scientists. > > You make up things as you go along. I'm really not making up a thing. Each of these are characteristics of the signal. You can look this up. > > > >> 3. It has a very particular profile predicted from theory, the >> oscillation being in the 10^2 - 10^3 Hz range, rising in amplitude and >> frequency, and then suddenly dropping to nothing. (Rules out any >> phenomena without those profiles, such as seismic or electromagnetic >> interference effects or diurnal or seasonal effects.) >> 4. Is seen at distant sites simultaneously. (Rules out any local sources >> of noise.) >> >> Once you actually read the published paper, you'd see that the signal >> does not resemble any of the possible sources of background that you've >> proposed. Separating out the signal from what would be expected from >> those other sources of background, has been fully accounted for by the >> experimenters. All you need to know is what kind of signal your proposed >> background would produce (time profiles, frequency, isotropy, geographic >> range) and then see how that has been suppressed by the LIGO setup. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Defenders of the old and fake, often accuse others of not reading and other > irrelevancies. How is your not reading about the design of LIGO and about the character of the observed signal irrelevant to your criticism of the design and the signal? > > You are subjective and defensive, not what a scientist should be -- objective > and probing and reasoning. I don't think I'm presenting anything other than facts about the signal. If you have information from the LIGO papers that shows these to be wrong, feel free to elaborate. > > When have you ever said EM is 10^40 stronger than gravity, and how the hell > would you be able to suppress all noise when EM is 10^40 stronger. Because of the characteristics above. Electromagnetic noise would not produce the oscillation where one arm gets shorter and the other arm gets longer, and vice versa. Local electromagnetic sources are easily removed by looking for the same signals appearing in distant locations within 10 ms. Electromagnetic sources do not have the signal profile found. > > AP > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 17:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <a784b7c8-7768-4380-b799-4c1b8df9143c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #562593 |
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 8:29:55 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: (snipped) > > Well, thanks for explaining your motivation. Rest assured that I have no > interest in attacking you. I also have no interest in attacking your > theory about a big plutonium atom. Rather, it will be interesting to see > if your idea has any testable predictions that can be compared to > experiment, especially data we do not have in hand. > Well, yes a true theory has to make some testable predictions and one prediction of an Atom Totality is a Nucleus where most of the mass of the Cosmos lies. Another prediction is that Space, the night sky is the last 6 electrons of 231Pu as the 5f6 and so some of the sky is electron 93rd and some 94th. But then you fail to realize that in science, a true theory means not just prediction, but a true theory means able to conform or agree with existing facts and knowns. In your case, your Big Bang, your Einstein General Relativity cannot conform to the known fact that the Cosmos is a Blackbody cavity in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation CMBR. There is nothing logical in Big Bang or GR to support this blackbody cosmos, which should tell you your beliefs of physics are of the absurd. Another fact that Big Bang, Einstein GR fails miserably is solid body rotation for which the Cosmos is widespread of this rotation. What can support solid body rotation is Maxwell EM theory, telling us again, that the Cosmos as a whole is a structure, an entity and it must thus be a big atom. Another detail fact is the Bell Inequality for which Einstein physics lost and which tells us the Big Bang GR cannot support. So, your problem is that you accept physics theories by bandwagon acceptance and never by analysis using LOGIC. Can a Big Bang, GR support a idea that the Cosmos is a structure? Of course not, for what Big Bang is, is an amorphous nonentity. I am not going to try to persuade you to the Atom Totality theory, but pointing out the flaws gaps and errors of your belief system. I don't think you ever made a LOGICAL attempt of assessing what it is you believe in physics, and that your entire running around in physics has been a blanket acceptance of what others say is true in print. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 08:44 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <ncbnvu$pg5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #562731 |
On 3/15/2016 7:19 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 8:29:55 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > (snipped) > >> >> Well, thanks for explaining your motivation. Rest assured that I have no >> interest in attacking you. I also have no interest in attacking your >> theory about a big plutonium atom. Rather, it will be interesting to see >> if your idea has any testable predictions that can be compared to >> experiment, especially data we do not have in hand. >> > > Well, yes a true theory has to make some testable predictions and one prediction > of an Atom Totality is a Nucleus where most of the mass of the Cosmos lies. Another > prediction is that Space, the night sky is the last 6 electrons of 231Pu as the 5f6 > and so some of the sky is electron 93rd and some 94th. And so what are the suggested measurements that you would make to test these predictions? > > But then you fail to realize that in science, a true theory means not just prediction, > but a true theory means able to conform or agree with existing facts and knowns. Yes. > In > your case, your Big Bang, your Einstein General Relativity cannot conform to the known > fact that the Cosmos is a Blackbody cavity in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation > CMBR. I beg to differ. The CMBR was a *prediction* of the Big Bang theory. How can the Big Bang theory make a prediction of something it would be incompatible with? > There is nothing logical in Big Bang or GR to support this blackbody cosmos, > which should tell you your beliefs of physics are of the absurd. Another fact that Big > Bang, Einstein GR fails miserably is solid body rotation for which the Cosmos is > widespread of this rotation. What can support solid body rotation is Maxwell EM theory, > telling us again, that the Cosmos as a whole is a structure, an entity and it must thus > be a big atom. Another detail fact is the Bell Inequality for which Einstein physics > lost and which tells us the Big Bang GR cannot support. Here you have wandered away from comparison with experimental observations and are trying to make an argument on some grounds other than comparison with observation. That's not how science works. > > So, your problem is that you accept physics theories by bandwagon acceptance and never > by analysis using LOGIC. Can a Big Bang, GR support a idea that the Cosmos is a > structure? Of course not, for what Big Bang is, is an amorphous nonentity. I'm sorry, but the presumption that the Cosmos has a structure is not a law that has to be respected. It is your hypothesis which you believe should be true, but you have no basis for rejecting all other theories that don't include your hypothesis. The only -- I repeat, ONLY -- viable measure of validity of a theory is comparison with experimental observation. Consistency with your privately held hypotheses is not a viable measure of validity. > > I am not going to try to persuade you to the Atom Totality theory, but pointing out the > flaws gaps and errors of your belief system. > > I don't think you ever made a LOGICAL attempt of assessing what it is you believe in > physics, and that your entire running around in physics has been a blanket acceptance > of what others say is true in print. I certainly don't have any reason to believe that what's in print is a lie. > > AP > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 19:39 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <8d23f78c-5d3d-4e10-b1e3-ef42826d5521@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #562810 |
Big Bang predicts a CMBR that is an explosion amorphous with a cosmos of no structure. A black body CMBR is a structure, never an explosion. But by the time it was realized as black body the physics community was too far brainwashed to ever apply logic. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 21:42 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <IOqdnbMHWbIHhHfLnZ2dnUU7-TGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #562993 |
On 3/16/16 9:39 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Big Bang predicts a CMBR that is an explosion amorphous with a cosmos of no structure. A black body CMBR is a structure, never an explosion. But by the time it was realized as black body the physics community was too far brainwashed to ever apply logic. > > AP > Thank the Lord. -- 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]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 06:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <bb81c188-c9d4-4b0c-9ef8-8105f8c4c41b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #562995 |
A Big Bang theory explosion cannot be a structure as black body radiation. A Atom Totality must be a black body structure. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 08:55 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <KoOdnWbuRsCjKnfLnZ2dnUU7-Y-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #563057 |
On 3/17/16 8:25 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > A Big Bang theory explosion cannot be a structure as black body radiation. A Atom Totality must be a black body structure. > > AP > Please note that the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is a key prediction of the hot Big Bang model. > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB.html > The most important observation that discriminates between the Big > Bang and the Steady State models. So it is an interesting historical > anomaly that this prediction was not put forward and tested by the > inventors of either theory, and that the first observers of the CMB > were completely unaware of its cosmological significance. > > The CMB has the spectrum of a blackbody. A blackbody spectrum is > produced by an isothermal, opaque and non-reflecting object. Usually > a cavity with a small hole is used in the laboratory to make an > opaque and non-reflective object. Radiation that enters the cavity > through the hole will have to bounce off many walls before it returns > to the outside, so even if the walls are only somewhat dark, the hole > will appear to be completely black. The diagram at right shows such a > cavity, with the blue incoming ray being absorbed completely while > the red rays show the outgoing thermal radiation. A simple gedanken > experiment shows that the spectrum emitted by a blackbody can only > depend on its temperature T. The proof first assumes that two > blackbodies have different spectra and then shows that this leads to > a contradiction. Let two blackbodies A & B, both at temperature T, > radiate different spectra. Then use a filter and aperture stops to > allow them to transfer heat only by radiation in a given passband. > Then the radiation of A is entirely absorbed by B, and the radiation > of B is entirely absorbed by A. Thus if their spectra are different, > there would be a net transfer of heat between A & B, but their > temperatures are the same. Since heat transfer between objects of the > same temperature does not occur, the spectra must be identical. The > choice of filter passband was arbitrary, so the spectra must be > identical at all frequencies. This universal blackbody spectrum was > clearly a very important topic in physics at the end of the 19th > century, and Planck was studying blackbody radiation when he > introduced the idea of quanta, and defined the quantum of action h > which we now know as Planck's constant. Because of the universality > of the blackbody spectrum, we can convert any spectral measurement > into a brightness temperature at the measured wavelength. The unique > character of a blackbody spectrum is that the brightness temperature > of a blackbody is the same at all wavelengths. When talking about the > CMB scientists always use the Kelvin scale of temperature, which is > just like the Celsius scale except the zero point is absolute zero > instead of the freezing point of water at Tice = 273.15 K. > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-Tb.gif > The graph above shows the measured brightness temperature TB of the > CMB at many different wavelengths. Clearly TB = 2.725 K is consistent > with all the data within the statistical scatter expected for the > stated errors. > In order to make a blackbody spectrum, an object as to be opaque, > non-reflective and isothermal. Thus a star, which is opaque, does not > produce a blackbody spectrum because we can see both cooler outer > layers and hotter deeper layers. But even though the temperature of > the Universe changes as it evolves, with TCMB = To (1+z), the > Universe looks isothermal because the redshifting of radiation makes > the warmer but redshifted distant Universe appear to have exactly the > same temperature as the Universe today. > > The FIRAS instrument on COBE had a large conical horn for collecting > the cosmic microwave background. There was only a small hole in the > end of the horn to let the radiation into the instrument. But FIRAS > also carried a microwave absorber, the external calibrator or XCAL, > that could be inserted into the horn like a trumpet mute, and heaters > that could make the whole horn+plus absorber cavity isothermal. When > the XCAL was in the horn FIRAS observed a very good blackbody cavity, > but when the XCAL was out FIRAS observed the CMB. No signifcant > difference could be seen. The CMB is very close to a blackbody with > temperature 2.725 K. The FIRAS results are shown below in units of > intensity (power per unit area per unit frequency per unit solid > angle) vs. frequency and/or wavelength. > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMBspect.gif > Eric Adelberger would like me to point out that the fundamental FIRAS > measurement is the residual plot at the bottom. This is what FIRAS > actually measured: the difference between the CMB and the best > fitting blackbody. The plot at top shows this residual added to the > theoretical blackbody spectrum at the best fitting XCAL temperature, > based on the function derived by Planck in 1900. The three curves in > the bottom correspond to three fairly likely non-blackbody spectra: > the grey curve shows a body with a reflectivity of 100 parts per > million instead of zero, and the red and blue curves show the effect > of hot electrons adding an excess 60 parts per million of energy to > the CMB either before (blue) or after (red) 1000 years after the Big > Bang. These curves show the maximum distortions allowed by the FIRAS > data. -- 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]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 08:59 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <nced8h$15ke$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #563057 |
On 3/17/2016 8:25 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > A Big Bang theory explosion cannot be a structure as black body radiation. A Atom Totality must be a black body structure. > > AP > What is a "black body structure"? Got any references? I mean, other than something you've made up. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 08:49 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <nceclf$14ah$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #562993 |
On 3/16/2016 9:39 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Big Bang predicts a CMBR that is an explosion amorphous Actually, no. The Big Bang is not an explosion. It's not an explosion any more than the adiabatic expansion of an aerosol deodorant is an explosion. > with a cosmos of no structure. A black body CMBR is a structure, I really don't think there's a structure you can point to. > never an explosion. But by the time it was realized as black body > the physics community was too far brainwashed to ever apply logic. > > AP > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web