Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #609361 > unrolled thread
| Started by | steve7600@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-12-17 03:41 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-12-21 14:39 -0600 |
| Articles | 5 on this page of 45 — 10 participants |
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.
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb steve7600@gmail.com - 2016-12-17 03:41 -0800
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-17 06:44 -0800
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb steve7600@gmail.com - 2016-12-17 18:23 -0800
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-12-21 14:21 -0600
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-17 22:05 -0800
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb steve7600@gmail.com - 2016-12-18 05:27 -0800
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-18 16:52 -0800
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb steve7600@gmail.com - 2016-12-18 05:57 -0800
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-18 16:56 -0800
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb steve7600@gmail.com - 2016-12-18 20:02 -0800
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 22:39 -0800
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb grahamcooper7@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 22:42 -0800
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb steve7600@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 00:10 -0800
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-12-19 09:20 -0600
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 08:28 -0800
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 22:48 -0800
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 07:23 -0600
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 06:21 -0800
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 10:54 -0600
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 18:18 -0800
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 12:48 -0800
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 10:29 -0600
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 09:17 -0800
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 13:05 -0600
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 13:25 -0800
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 22:29 -0600
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 20:41 -0800
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 13:35 -0600
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 08:40 -0800
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 14:56 -0600
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-29 17:40 -0500
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 15:35 -0800
just kidding noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-03 17:00 -0800
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 13:30 -0800
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 16:28 -0800
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 20:57 -0800
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-12-20 10:18 -0600
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb steve7600@gmail.com - 2016-12-19 02:45 -0800
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-12-21 12:49 -0600
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 11:23 -0800
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-12-21 14:26 -0600
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-12-19 08:55 -0600
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 20:26 -0800
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-12-20 10:52 -0600
Re: Theoretical Phyics On A Limb Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-12-21 14:39 -0600
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-21 14:26 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o3eohn$11js$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #609874 |
On 12/21/2016 1:23 PM, john wrote: > Yuri > You must have a good explanation > of Gravity and a good understanding > of electrons to be so dismissive. > I'd love to hear you voice it. > Your turn. > Clock is ticking. > how much time do I have ? Is your clock moving relative to mine ? Electrons - when you press a key, electrons are sent from your keyboard for each pulse to form an ascii character, there is a small micro controller that converts key strokes into async serial characters. Gravity is what keeps your feet on the ground, and your butt in the chair. If you had no gravity, you would be egg shaped and with out any bones.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 08:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o38sdo$gdh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #609481 |
On 12/18/2016 12:05 AM, edprochak@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 6:41:57 AM UTC-5, stev...@gmail.com wrote: >> Guys, I'm doing you a true kindness to point out to you that this guy, James, > [] >> >> I'm not stiffing with you, this guy is for real. > [] > > Steve, > You just found something that looks new and exciting to you. If he really > has something great and wonderful to present to the world of physics, I'll > be glad to read it (but his server is down. He should get a new web hosting > company.). > But I will just make one point based on the title that Putnam gave > to this thread of discussion: Theoretical Phyics [sic] On A Limb > My point is this: Theoretical Physics is always on a Limb. there > is always something more to learn, always a new way to organize > the knowledge we have, new data which we cannot yet explain. > > Some people claim to have "the answer to save physics". Some of > them are the kooks and trolls here. > Hell, Einstein did not develop his theory to "save physics". > Newton did not develop his theory to "save physics". They say the > data available and a different way to use it, and more importantly > that new way of calculating the answers worked better than what > came before. > None of the physicists I know are on a crusade to save physics, > or out to prevent new ideas from changing current physics theories. > They just want to find something that expands our understanding > a little bit more. > If Putnam can do it great. Personally I do not feel the need to > be there on the ground floor. I'm too busy with my own life. > > So enjoy his writings whatever they are. What I have seen on > this thread, his ideas so far seem to be too new age thinking > for me. But like I said, enjoy. > > ed > physics has always been a patchwork of math modeling applied to specific scenerios. remember unified theory, string theory ... ? ed has it right above. expand your knowledge base in Physics some more, lots of books at the used book store. Putnam is a old volkswagon parked on the side of the physics freeway. no reason to unify it, that is a human construct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve <steve7600@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-19 20:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4f59c62a-4d7e-447b-be21-ba2b1f37724c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #609481 |
On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 4:35:57 PM UTC+10:30, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 6:41:57 AM UTC-5, stev...@gmail.com wrote: > > Guys, I'm doing you a true kindness to point out to you that this guy, James, > [] > > > > I'm not stiffing with you, this guy is for real. > [] > > Steve, > You just found something that looks new and exciting to you. :) I understand this is a reasonable assumption for you to make. And I'm happy for you to maintain that notion, but would like to say a couple of things in an attempt to have you reconsider. It is not just because I've found something new and exciting. I believe its a case whereby I already know of something, which is corroborated by James core theme. I think thats why I'm instantly attuned to what he is attempting to convey to others, while some very smart people here are having trouble determining structure within his explanation. I think I know how to help in this circumstance. Because I see his key theme very clearly, and I can also see why people are not finding it easy to tune into. I think I can bridge the gap in communication, help you appreciate his context. Not to say that you will then find agreement with him, or me for that matter, but the first step is understanding. > If he really has something great and wonderful to present to the world of physics, I'll > be glad to read it (but his server is down. He should get a new web > > hostingcompany.). > > But I will just make one point based on the title that Putnam gave > to this thread of discussion: Theoretical Phyics [sic] On A Limb > My point is this: Theoretical Physics is always on a Limb. there > is always something more to learn, always a new way to organize > the knowledge we have, new data which we cannot yet explain. Yes understood and agreed. So it is not controversial of him to suggest that physics is on a limb. > > Some people claim to have "the answer to save physics". Some of > them are the kooks and trolls here. Yes, there are hoards of people claiming the next revelation. Kind of muddys the water, making it hard for people to discriminate quality messages. And whether its justifiably pragmatic or not, people have a habit of artificially narrowing there expectations, having the effect of eliminating all things considered unlikely. Like for example, an individual outside of science having something important to contribute. If history is the best predictor of the future, then this is a poor assumption. And I can tell from your tone you are already well aware of this, so I'm preaching to the quire. No offence Yuri, but you have entered this conversation with a closed mindset. Its clear that you have your wits well about you, but that wont help you overcome your own presumptions. > > Hell, Einstein did not develop his theory to "save physics". > Newton did not develop his theory to "save physics". They say the > data available and a different way to use it, and more importantly > that new way of calculating the answers worked better than what > came before. > > None of the physicists I know are on a crusade to save physics, > or out to prevent new ideas from changing current physics theories. > They just want to find something that expands our understanding > a little bit more. Nothing I have read of James indicates he is motivated by other than the pursuit of useful ideas. I think that somewhere along the line he simply realized he has something worthy to contribute, and so has been searching for a voice. I think he is overly modest for the quality of work he does put forward. Not egotistical, so "crusade to save physics" is not the way I would summarize his efforts. > > If Putnam can do it great. Personally I do not feel the need to > be there on the ground floor. I'm too busy with my own life. I dont think James woke up one day and said, I'm going to develop ideas that change physics. It would have been a general interest that developed a life of its own, and then insistently dragging him further along. Regardless he conjured up these ideas, I think he would feel like the ideas now lead him. He would be as surprised as anybody, that it is he who has realized something as useful as he has. But he has, and he also recognizes it. Now he just seeks peoples comprehension. Nothing dishonorable about that. I assume much of what I just said, but fair assumptions I do feel. > > So enjoy his writings whatever they are. What I have seen on > this thread, his ideas so far seem to be too new age thinking > for me. But like I said, enjoy. I'm going to try to get your response to something soon. I just have to find the best way to say it > > ed Steve
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-20 10:52 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o3bnka$bhc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #609655 |
On 12/19/2016 10:26 PM, Steve wrote: > On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 4:35:57 PM UTC+10:30, > edpr...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 6:41:57 AM UTC-5, >> stev...@gmail.com wrote: >>> Guys, I'm doing you a true kindness to point out to you that this >>> guy, James, >> [] >>> >>> I'm not stiffing with you, this guy is for real. >> [] >> >> Steve, You just found something that looks new and exciting to you. >> > <snip crap> > No offence Yuri, > but you have entered this conversation with a closed mindset. Its > clear that you have your wits well about you, but that wont help you > overcome your own presumptions. that is your opinion, pupa. neither you nor your poodle guide dog James has shown anything believable, just vacuous verbiage, fit for fools, over ripe melons, new agers, and the ascended ones. Your excess use of non-scientific words, and obvious unfamiliarity with the basics of physics is a dead giveaway you are very new to physics, and have nothing creditable. Also your reliance on another airhead, James, and his smoke-um dope-um poodle dog of alt.ascended.ones fake theory underscores the fact that you would do better to go read a high school physics book. (they are online too) But your posting here in a veiled attempt to promote airhead James quackathon, is a time waster. he is not for real, he is for fake real.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-21 14:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o3epat$12qo$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #609361 |
On 12/17/2016 5:41 AM, steve7600@gmail.com wrote:
> Guys, I'm doing you a true kindness to point out to you that this
> guy, James, is making history even if its only he who is recorded it
> yet.
do you know just how dumb that sounds ?
> People are going to wake up to what he's saying sooner or later.
nope, he is total snooze job...
> And trust me, you will be proud of yourself to have recognized it
> before the horde cottons on.
criminally insane hordes, cottoning on, and attaching physically to James...
> Just read his work and see what you
> think.
It is 100% poop. no understanding of simple math.
> I can post links if you like.
post it in alt.sci.fiction
> I've started stalking him on the
> net, so can turn up some of his very interesting conversations for
> you.
don't be a slob, get a haircut and a real job
>
> I'm not stiffing with you, this guy is for real.
no, he is for real fake.
> Youre going to kick
> yourself if you dont wake up to this realization.
why do you threaten violance ?
> Ask me why and I'll
> do my best to tell you?
http://youareanidiot.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web