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


Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #383073

Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments

From Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Newsgroups sci.physics.relativity
Subject Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments
Date 2016-05-09 04:17 +0200
Message-ID <dpaa9nF715eU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References (11 earlier) <c6cb64f6-58e4-4eb8-9138-938640dc2300@googlegroups.com> <dp2lvoFkui2U1@mid.individual.net> <262afa17-705b-4622-8028-106137486d99@googlegroups.com> <dp8378FnegrU1@mid.individual.net> <8b6f234b-c374-45ba-aceb-0f49d5fcb6d5@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw


Am 08.05.2016 15:44, schrieb Dono,:

>>>
>>> Your fixation with "fixing" mainstream physics by replacing it by outright crankery is  what causes the need for psychiatric help. You started as a fairly normal person but you are devolving. Rapidly.
>>>
>>
>> I had a certain idea. I tried to find a connection between QM and GR.
>> Such a connection could be understood as hidden path in rough terrain,
>> which you try to find. You assume, such a path should exist, but don't
>> know where.
>>
>
> But you lack the basic knowledge (you clearly do not understand SR, let alone GR and QM). You should have used your time trying to learn physics.


This is typical for the difference between amateurs and professionals. 
Hobbyists can eventually have very good qualities in a very narrow range 
of experience, while professionals have solid knowledge in the entire 
subject they work in.

If we compare this with e.g. cooking, than an amateur could eventually 
make the best pizza in the world, but cannot boil an egg.

While professionals tend to see this with disgust, the way to deal with 
such pizza bakers is to taste the pizza, but not to start a competition 
in some of the other realms.

So maybe I cannot do everything, that you regard as essential for your 
field of science. But certainly I have a lot of knowledge in the field 
of physics.

E.g. I know a lot about Chemistry. And especially organic chemistry has 
relations to quantum physics.

I'm actually an engineer, but worked mainly with computers. And now I 
spend my time with electronics.

I was also quite good in mathematics and once on a price.

And, after all, you could try to learn even difficult subjects, if you 
decide to do so.
>
>
>> So I tried loads of different concepts and sieved through an enormous
>> pile of books and papers until I found something roughly fitting. That
>> was a quaternion formula for rotations, which looked vaguely similar to
>> the bra-ket formalism of QM.
>>
>
> Rubbish, science doesn't work this way.
>
Well yes. But I did work this way.

And yes, sure, I'm not a physicists, since that is kind of hobby for me. 
So I feel free to abandon usual procedures, if I decide to do so, since 
it's my time and my efforts.

>
>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>>
>
> You keep advertising your fringe ideas in the context of showing your ignorance about basic physics, as in this thread.
>

You are talking about a person (in this case me), while I don't. So you 
reject proposals from people, which you regard as unworthy or as 
non-members of your particular cult.

But who I am or what I know is not relevant, since I was talking about a 
certain proposal for a certain problem in the field of physics, which is 
of some general interest.

Whether or not you personally like it (or me) or find it useful for your 
profession, that is not my concern.


TH

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments GSS <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-29 09:49 -0700
  Imbecile Gurcharn Sandhu is back "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-29 09:51 -0700
  Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 12:11 -0700
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-30 03:57 +0200
      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-29 19:53 -0700
      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 20:48 -0700
      Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-30 00:04 -0500
        Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 23:24 -0700
          Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-30 09:59 +0200
        Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-01 04:59 +0200
          Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 20:26 -0700
          Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-30 21:08 -0700
            Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-01 22:54 +0200
              Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-01 17:35 -0700
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-02 21:47 +0200
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 15:43 -0500
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-03 05:30 +0200
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 07:21 -0500
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-03 09:16 -0500
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-03 07:41 -0700
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-03 22:48 +0200
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-03 15:01 -0700
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 17:14 -0500
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-02 14:35 -0700
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-03 05:16 +0200
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-02 22:13 -0700
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-06 06:47 +0200
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-05 22:20 -0700
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-08 08:04 +0200
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-05-08 06:44 -0700
                Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-09 04:17 +0200
  Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-04-30 18:15 +1000
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 09:05 -0700
  Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-30 15:50 +0200
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-04-30 06:58 -0700
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments xxein1@att.net - 2016-04-30 19:56 -0700
  Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 16:49 -0700
  Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 16:58 -0700
  Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 17:02 -0700
  Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 14:25 -0700
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-03 22:55 -0500
  Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 14:30 -0700
  Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 14:41 -0700
    Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-05-06 15:28 +1000
  Re: Fundamental Invalidity of all Michelson-Morley type Experiments Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 11:12 -0700

csiph-web