New hypothesis in physics
tsab...@gmail.com
already physical explained (physical justified) 12 phenomena using
this hypothesis.
Androcles
<tsab...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1172747513.8...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>I have already come up with a new hypothesis in physics. Yet, I have
> already physical explained (physical justified) 12 phenomena using
> this hypothesis.
"I frame no hypotheses" - Sir Isaac Newton, Principia.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
<tsab...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172747513.8...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
If some of the phenomenon involve relativity, speak on.
Otherwise, you might post to sci.physics.
David A. Smith
PD
Wonderful. Even better if you can quantitatively account for them (how
much? how big? how many?). Even better if you can account for
phenomena that no other theory can.
Ah, but if you can't do it quantitatively... If you can't do it for
phenomena that aren't already explained, then ... oh, well.
PD
jamesa...@gmail.com
I've got you beat. I've got *ten* new hypothesis in physics. They
explain *millions* of phenomena. Ain't that nifty! Unfortunately, I
can't share them with you, or else you would steal my ideas. But I
gotta stake a claim or else someone else will take them and make a
bajillion dollars from them, and we wouldn't want that, would we?
(Note for the humor-impaired: the previous is sarcasm.)
PD
Oh, HENRI! HENRI WILSON! Are you listening???
shuba
> On Mar 1, 6:11 am, tsaboo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I have already come up with a new hypothesis in physics. Yet, I have
> > already physical explained (physical justified) 12 phenomena using
> > this hypothesis.
>
> I've got you beat. I've got *ten* new hypothesis in physics. They
> explain *millions* of phenomena. Ain't that nifty!
Certainly. But until you can explain *every single* phenomena
using *no* hypotheses whatsoever, you're just diddling.
---Tim Shuba---
jamesa...@gmail.com
Duh.
jamesa...@gmail.com
Well, not quite duh. I have a hard time believing you can get away
from making *some* hypotheses. The hypothesis that everything I see
and hear is real seems to be *somewhat* important.
Incidentally, when I made that post, *I WAS JOKING*! Just in case you
missed that little fact. The person to *really* tell is the OP.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
<jamesa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172803319.3...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 1, 3:14 pm, shuba <tim.sh...@lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote:
>> jamesahart wrote:
>> > On Mar 1, 6:11 am, tsaboo...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > I have already come up with a new hypothesis
>> > > in physics. Yet, I have already physical explained
>> > > (physical justified) 12 phenomena using this
>> > > hypothesis.
>>
>> > I've got you beat. I've got *ten* new hypothesis
>> > in physics. They explain *millions* of phenomena.
>> > Ain't that nifty!
>>
>> Certainly. But until you can explain *every single*
>> phenomena using *no* hypotheses whatsoever,
>> you're just diddling.
>
> Well, not quite duh. I have a hard time believing
> you can get away from making *some* hypotheses.
> The hypothesis that everything I see and hear is
> real seems to be *somewhat* important.
>
> Incidentally, when I made that post, *I WAS
> JOKING*! Just in case you missed that little fact.
> The person to *really* tell is the OP.
Mr. Shuba was joking too. He just keeps a straight face.
David A. Smith
PS: Reminder to self... never play poker with Tim Shuba.
Henri Wilson
Not to YOU Draper.
>
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.
Y.Porat
> On Mar 4, 9:50 am, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:> [blablabla]
>
> Eric Gisse is an idiot.
--------------
not only an imbecil idiot
he is a disturbed Nazi shit
mother fucker
a walking damage to this ng!!
-------------
Y.P
-------------------
Y.Porat
> On Mar 3, 4:22 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > tsaboo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > I have already come up with a new hypothesis in physics. Yet, I have
> > > already physical explained (physical justified) 12 phenomena using
> > > this hypothesis.
>
>
> -------------
> i saw the prifile of Sam wormley:
>
> he is not a proffesional physicist
> he is at most an educational physicist
>
> you could know it even before reading his profile
>
> now that old fart took on homself not only the
> roll of a parrot (of which he is quite good
> and useful)
>
> BUT HE TOOK ON HOMSELF THE ROLL OF
> NEW SCIENCE OR INNOVATIONS IN SCIENCE
> EVALUATOR!!!
> so please note tgheimpertinance of that man
> he never did anything innovatiove in physics
> yet pretend to be qaulified to evaluate
> works of other people who ar creative
> and innovatie!!
>
> the old fart saw my abstrat of my model
> and evaluated it in one word:
> PLONK!!
-----------
sorry we are not done yet
(i pressed mistakenly a wrong key so:)
the old fart Wormley that never innovated anything
because he is not qualified to do any innovation
hw was not born for innovations)
so he was looking on my abstract a few moments
and put his educated verdict :
PLONK!!
now let me tell you something about that old fart:
even if i has been sitting with him a few monts
every day
the old fart would not be able even to START UNDERSTANDING MY WORK
AND MY MODEL!!
the old fart is not qualified for instance by his
3d education even to satrt getting it
just geometrically
and yet he has th eimpertinance
to put a verdict on a work that even if hehad lived a 100 years he
would not dream to satrt doing something like that
th weonly thing hecan do is may be some music
with his band
my be to subscriv\be to a magazine
and quote nicely from it
and nothing more
so
bottom line
pld pompous fart
you just saty in what you are good
be a good parrot
and take away your stoopid hands
from rolles that you ar enot qualified to
and donr be a walking damage to thwe advance of science
got it pompy!!
ATB
Y.Poray
---------------