The end of Physics
Sanny
find people discussing the same old theories.
No one comming with new ideas and new theories.
Physics has become a law book where all rules have already been
written and any one says something new he is asked to learn and
memorize all the laws written in rule book. And that rule book is so
large that whole life gets exhausted in learning that. So nothing new
comes out.
When Galileo said earth is round he was given punishment for it. As
the Church already knew the earth is flat. They declared Galileo as
mad as he do not understand earth is flat which Christ have written in
rules book.
Same thing is happening now. A person ages 20- 24 cannot say anything
in physics because by that time he has not mastered all laws of
physics. But by the time he masters all rules his age is 40-50 and he
get old age problems.
Now that old man forgets many things he has learnt. And when someone
proposes a new law he just says I have read the rule book for 50 years
Go and read them then you will understand what is correct.
So nothing new can be created with such philoshophy. Because of Rule
Book aproach new ideas do not cultivate. And if this continues Physics
will End.
Bye
Sanny
Be Intelligent: http://www.GetClub.com/
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> For last 2 years I visited physics group to learn something new.
You seem to have failed miserably.
> No one comming with new ideas and new theories.
Since you have no clue what all ready exists, how would you know?
> Bye
> Sanny
One can only hope.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Uncle Al
>
> For last 2 years I visited physics group to learn something new. But I
> find people discussing the same old theories.
The ones that lack empirical falsification.
idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Dirk Van de moortel
b525078f-0127-4300...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com
> For last 2 years I visited physics group to learn something new. But I
> find people discussing the same old theories.
That is what these groups were created for...
to gather the imbeciles who fail to understand page one - and
keep them off the streets.
A big success.
Dirk Vdm
John Jones
The church knew before modern science that the earth was round.
harry
> For last 2 years I visited physics group to learn something new. But I
> find people discussing the same old theories.
>
> No one comming with new ideas and new theories.
You can try:
- alt.sci.physsics.new-theories (wild new ideas)
- sci.physics.foundations (philosophical)
Harald
PD
I dispute your initial statement, Sanny. There is LOTS that is new and
lots that is unknown in physics. There's just *tons* of stuff to
explore.
But it's not discussed on this newsgroup. This newsgroup is about
relativity, and the discussion tends to revolve around the *basics* of
relativity, and there's just not much that is a matter of active
research about the *basics* of relativity.
Many of the people who frequent this group don't understand relativity
very well, and so they think there's something wrong with it (as
though anything that is right should be immediately understandable by
anyone). Others want to try to take a stab at doing something new, but
they go after old stuff, because it's the most accessible, and that's
because there's a lot of books in Barnes and Noble about the old stuff
and not very much that's accessible about the new stuff.
PD
Juan R.
> For last 2 years I visited physics group to learn something new. But I
> find people discussing the same old theories.
>
> No one comming with new ideas and new theories.
That is far from true. Several new theories and ideas have been proposed
and are under active development.
They are not usually debated in groups that you visit, because them are
only known to people who is doing top research.
> Physics has become a law book where all rules have already been written
> and any one says something new he is asked to learn and memorize all the
> laws written in rule book. And that rule book is so large that whole
> life gets exhausted in learning that. So nothing new comes out.
>
> When Galileo said earth is round he was given punishment for it. As the
> Church already knew the earth is flat. They declared Galileo as mad as
> he do not understand earth is flat which Christ have written in rules
> book.
>
> Same thing is happening now. A person ages 20- 24 cannot say anything in
> physics because by that time he has not mastered all laws of physics.
> But by the time he masters all rules his age is 40-50 and he get old age
> problems.
Yes, difficulty of current research is a problem, because it is needed to
devote many years of intense study to start to master some subject. But
there is still many place for improvement, current theories are far from
being satisfactory.
> Now that old man forgets many things he has learnt. And when someone
> proposes a new law he just says I have read the rule book for 50 years
> Go and read them then you will understand what is correct.
>
> So nothing new can be created with such philoshophy. Because of Rule
> Book aproach new ideas do not cultivate. And if this continues Physics
> will End.
As explained in the last section of my last report "Science in the 21st
century"
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/
canonicalsciencereports/20082.html
(\blockquote
We are actually at the beginning of a new scientific era, the birth of a
science that is no longer limited to idealized and simplified situations
but reflects the complexity of the real world.
)
You may consider to take a look to sci.physics.foundation newsgroup that
Harry indicated you.
As I promised in a recent message in that newsgroup I will write there
about a new revolution in physics leaded at the Center. The new report
"canonical science: its history, goals, and future" is now being revised.
That report delineates a new scientific paradigm that revolutionizes
physics, chemistry, and biology.
I explain how main problems of General Relativity and Cosmology are
solved, how string theory is outdated, the limits of relativistic quantum
field theory, etc.
I cannot give more details now (report is planed to publication for next
day 22), but one of referees who received a copy of the draft already
invited me to give a talk on the subject at the next annual meeting of
the International Society for the Philosophy of Chemistry, at the
Chemical Heritage Foundation in Philladelphia because "it would be of
great interest to us."
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
Usenet Guidelines:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
> As I promised in a recent message in that newsgroup I will write there
> about a new revolution in physics leaded at the Center. The new report
> "canonical science: its history, goals, and future" is now being revised.
>
> That report delineates a new scientific paradigm that revolutionizes
> physics, chemistry, and biology.
>
> I explain how main problems of General Relativity and Cosmology are
> solved, how string theory is outdated, the limits of relativistic quantum
> field theory, etc.
>
> I cannot give more details now (report is planed to publication for next
> day 22), but one of referees who received a copy of the draft already
> invited me to give a talk on the subject at the next annual meeting of
> the International Society for the Philosophy of Chemistry, at the
> Chemical Heritage Foundation in Philladelphia because "it would be of
> great interest to us."
>
>
> Usenet Guidelines:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
This is what these groups were created for...
to gather the fakers like Juan Alvarez Gonzalez who fail to understand
page one - and keep them off the streets, i.e. keep them caged inside
THIS forum for our amusement.
BradGuth
I have a few new ideas and theories, but as you say, it's all kind of
pointless.
Folks here in Usenet/newsgroup physics and science are not seriously
interested in new information or alternative interpretations, even if
it helps their cause. Revision of anything is simply forbidden, and
messengers of whatever rocks their mainstream status quo boat are
usually killed off before anything of the best available truth leaks
out.
It all seems very Zionist/Nazi Hitler like, doesn't it.
~ BG
BradGuth
>
> Usenet Guidelines:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Hitler and GW Bush each had their private think-tank cabals, though
I'd seriously doubt there's any public Usenet/newsgroup access to
such.
~ BG
Jerry Kraus
Nicely put.
So, if people are wondering why no progress is being made on
controlled nuclear fusion...
zzbu...@netscape.net
> For last 2 years I visited physics group to learn something new. But I
> find people discussing the same old theories.
>
> No one comming with new ideas and new theories.
>
> Physics has become a law book where all rules have already been
> written and any one says something new he is asked to learn and
> memorize all the laws written in rule book. And that rule book is so
> large that whole life gets exhausted in learning that. So nothing new
> comes out.
Since 70% of physics is simply reiterated Philosophy about
Aristole,
that's why most of it is encoded DVD-HDTV format.
20% of Physics is the search for non-existent equivalecies in E-M
Theory.
Which is also why Pallalle RISC processors, Holograms, GPS, and
Fiber Optics
encapsulate and properly filter that segment of the rant.
The other 10% of Physics is merely the answer to the question:
Why does this HTML Query have no Answer?
Sam Wormley
>
> As I promised in a recent message in that newsgroup I will write there
> about a new revolution in physics leaded at the Center. The new report
> "canonical science: its history, goals, and future" is now being revised.
>
> That report delineates a new scientific paradigm that revolutionizes
> physics, chemistry, and biology.
>
> I explain how main problems of General Relativity and Cosmology are
> solved, how string theory is outdated, the limits of relativistic quantum
> field theory, etc.
>
> I cannot give more details now (report is planed to publication for next
> day 22), but one of referees who received a copy of the draft already
> invited me to give a talk on the subject at the next annual meeting of
> the International Society for the Philosophy of Chemistry, at the
> Chemical Heritage Foundation in Philladelphia because "it would be of
> great interest to us."
>
I hope you are not publishing in one of the "crank" journals.
anonowen7
"Sanny" <softt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b525078f-0127-4300...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> find people discussing the same old theories.
>
> [...]
> Same thing is happening now. A person ages 20- 24 cannot say anything
> in physics because by that time he has not mastered all laws of
> physics. But by the time he masters all rules his age is 40-50 and he
> get old age problems.
>
True Sanny, there is zero hope for the younger generation, what I term "The Veneration
Generation". That's because they/you can only serve blindly as consumers of the gaudy
haughty naughty toilet humor that IS our culture. THAT AND NO MORE is your calling:
LEARN the names of all the known celebrities; TUNE to your favorite talk show or
wrestiling match; CELEBRATE the life and times of Jack Lemmon, George Burns, Ronald
Reagan and Jack Nicholson for ever and ever and ever and ever without cessation.
THAT is why God is calling an End to the Human Species, circa 2012.
Your suffering and indignity will be hideous and ugly, but short-lived - so take
comfort.
Immortalist
In a 1000 years from now all this physics will probably look over-
simplified and almost like stone age thinking, we haven't seen
anything yet. Your post reminds me of how many authors are influenced
by the approximate time of their lifespan, they bias things to fit
their generation.
Science as Consensus
One of the most important proponents of the "science as consensus"
view of knowledge has been Thomas Kuhn. He set forth his concept of
the scientific paradigm when he published, "The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions". For Kuhn, scientific paradigms include, "law,
theory, application, and instrumentation together -- [and] provide
models from which spring particular coherent traditions of scientific
research" (1, p. 10). The paradigm view of science pictures the
successful scientific community as a consensus group possessing a
paradigm with increasing professional acknowledgment. The concluding
analogy used to illustrate the process of choice between conflicting
views of nature (or paradigms) is evolutionary natural selection.
Science is advanced through, "conflict within the scientific community
of the fittest way to practice science" (1, p. 172). This view of
scientific discovery has three phases to its structure.
[First] is the pre-paradigm phase which is characterized by various
schools of thought vying for position but without sufficient
explanatory successes to their credit to gain preeminence. In this
phase the various paradigms are relatively vague and therefore new
observations can be accommodated because the paradigm's indefinite
form does not clearly demarcate what are acceptable or unacceptable
results. Discovery occurs as a result of the more or less random
observations made and utilized to formulate a more structured paradigm
view.
[Second] is the "normal-science" phase where a clearly demarcated
paradigm view has been established as most successful in the eyes of
the majority of scientists in that field. In this case research is
conducted for, "determination of significant facts, matching of facts
with theory, and articulation of theory" (1, p. 34). Discovery of
facts that do not fit into the paradigm view are not expected and when
"successful" none are found.
[Third] is the "revolutionary science" phase where the emergence of
anomalies begin to challenge the reigning paradigm view. In this case
researchers uncover certain facts that can not be fitted within the
more precise paradigm in a straight forward manner. Those anomalies
which stubbornly remain irreconcilable have the potential to become
what are called "revolutionary anomalies." A key to the next step is
described by Kuhn as a "period of pronounced professional insecurity"
due to the anomalies' stubborn refusal to be assimilated into the
existing paradigm (1, p. 83). This is only resolved when a choice is
made between the old and new paradigm. When this process of
"conversion" occurs it is then possible to recognize not only that
some fact has been discovered but also what the discovery of that fact
means in the context of the new paradigm world view. According to Kuhn
a decision like this is not ultimately made based on some objective
facts, but rather, "a decision of that kind can only be made on
faith" (1, p. 158).
http://www.thingsrevealed.net/structure.htm
http://tom.acrewoods.net/research/philosophy/science/kuhn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/kuhn.htm
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"anonowen7" <bac...@bugmenot.net> wrote in message
news:4946e72f$0$9617$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com...
...
> Your suffering and indignity will be hideous and ugly,
> but short-lived - so take comfort.
Where was the millenia of peace?
David A. Smith
Dono
He's "publishing" in his blog :-)
Sam Wormley
His "refereed blog"? <laughing>
Dono
Yep, that's where he "publishes" all his "discoveries".
Aside from dementia, innuendo, endless rantings, etc. :-)
Mark Earnest
is here on Earth. i.e., you have to believe what is handed down by the holy
members in order to be accepted.
End result: as you and I know, Sanny, no progress, and a stunted society.
"Sanny" <softt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b525078f-0127-4300...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
anonowen7
The animal kingdom's vote was heard after all, and the
projection now is for an ETERNITY of Peace.
(Earth minus Man equals Peace)
lit...@nbnet.nb.ca
You may have a point and its likely to be an interesting subject of
study in itself.Got a great cartoon for my site where you have a
scientist looking at an extremely strange thing and he says.Its beyond
our ability to understand and we are working very hard to ignore it or
we must find absurdly obscure math to hide that fact.
Anywise take a look at what I got done now to explain this alternative
theory that some of the site is about.
http://alttheories.com/ThesisTimeNov16/Thesis_1.htm
After you looked it over you might start to realize just how simple
the basis is for the creation of our universe actually is.I got a
whole bunch of questions to ask about why its not popular etc etc.
I mean seriously its explained using cartoons.God help up if all
theoretical science is this backwards and wont evolve.
lit...@nbnet.nb.ca
>
> Usenet Guidelines:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
I kind of liked the ideas or principles of you site but it doesn't
seam to be very well organized I just tried the link
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/ and all I got was
default zone and no article.Otherwise it could really be a good idea
to encourage new ideas in science as some way is needed to break the
old dogmas.
I did try to enter an essay contest you had some time ago but because
I had to send it in PDF I had to put the whole thing on a web site so
I could use an online service to convert it into a PDF file.Anywise
your upload page is missing or dysfunctional now and I just gave up on
it all and will just figure out how to make it part of my site.
Probably would not have won anything anywise but I needed to feel I
tried but in the end the theory is still solid even if its not the
kind of theory anyone really wanted.Its too simple for one thing.
But wow dose it ever lead to a lot of other ideas and in fact might
become much more complex due to that fact.I mean really seriously it
goes almost everywhere on this subject.Its really looks like starting
from a solid basis gives me a big advantage on creating new ideas
while everyone else is using a flawed basis then anything that come
after is also flawed.They get more and more absurd when all they
needed to do was start over.Theoretical physics now may well be like
a, house on a poor foundation.
Eventually I may still figure out how to make a web site pay for
itself.
I replied to sanny this part of the site
http://alttheories.com/ThesisTimeNov16/Thesis_1.htm
and will be adding and improving on it when I find time.
Juan R.
Everything is organized by zones in the index
http://www.canonicalscience.org
> I just tried the link
> http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/ and all I got was
> default zone and no article.
Because that is *not* the link. This may be broken by your Groups
account, which often break links.
The *correct link* is
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/
canonicalsciencereports/20082.html
> Otherwise it could really be a good idea to
> encourage new ideas in science as some way is needed to break the old
> dogmas.
>
> I did try to enter an essay contest you had some time ago but because I
> had to send it in PDF I had to put the whole thing on a web site so I
> could use an online service to convert it into a PDF file.Anywise your
> upload page is missing or dysfunctional now and I just gave up on it all
> and will just figure out how to make it part of my site.
The submission page for anonymous authors is not available now, because
that service is not available this year.
> Probably would
> not have won anything anywise but I needed to feel I tried but in the
> end the theory is still solid even if its not the kind of theory anyone
> really wanted.Its too simple for one thing. But wow dose it ever lead to
> a lot of other ideas and in fact might become much more complex due to
> that fact.I mean really seriously it goes almost everywhere on this
> subject.Its really looks like starting from a solid basis gives me a
> big advantage on creating new ideas while everyone else is using a
> flawed basis then anything that come after is also flawed.They get more
> and more absurd when all they needed to do was start over.Theoretical
> physics now may well be like a, house on a poor foundation.
>
> Eventually I may still figure out how to make a web site pay for itself.
> I replied to sanny this part of the site
> http://alttheories.com/ThesisTimeNov16/Thesis_1.htm
> and will be adding and improving on it when I find time.
Regards.
--
John J
Sanny, physics is a discipline, a course of study, experiment and not an
American Idol competition. If you want fame, then do something else.
BradGuth
>
> After you looked it over you might start to realize just how simple
> the basis is for the creation of our universe actually is.I got a
> whole bunch of questions to ask about why its not popular etc etc.
> I mean seriously its explained using cartoons.God help up if all
> theoretical science is this backwards and wont evolve.
True evolution of any terrestrial physics or science isn't permitted
to coexist, because such might have to allow for revisions of
whatever's currently published and getting taught as their one and
only last word of their pretend-Atheist God.
Secondly, the mindset of our terrestrial physics are not the least bit
human because, it seems they have absolutely no sense of humor, unless
it's their perverted humor and inner glee about all the trauma and
collateral damage they have already caused.us.
It seems your "theory that gives testable predictions" is going to
have to wait for physics-101 hell to freeze over. To suggest that God
is even remotely possible is what will most likely doom any theory in
physics, and the sames goes for whatever a very smart civilization of
ETs could muster, perhaps because Earth is supposed to remain the one
and only intelligent life hosting planet in this entire universe.
~ BG
Sam Wormley
> lithium wrote on Tue, 16 Dec 2008 01:19:33 -0800:
>
>
>> I just tried the link
>> http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/ and all I got was
>> default zone and no article.
>
> Because that is *not* the link. This may be broken by your Groups
> account, which often break links.
YOUR wrap margins are set smaller than the length of the URL.
The problem is yours.
socratus
=====================================
For last 2 years I visited physics group to learn something new. But
I
find people discussing the same old theories.
No one comming with new ideas and new theories.
> Sanny
=========
For Sanny.
THE GENESIS.
1.
There is only one Absolute Reference Frame
and it is Vacuum : T=0K .
And Quantum Theory says that T=0K is not dead space.
2.
QT says the " virtual particles " exist in Vacuum: T=0K.
These " virtual particles " have following parameters.
Geometrical form = C/D=pi ,
Potential energy = E=Mc^2,
Potential mass = R/N=k ,
Inner impulse = h = 0 ,
Mathematical formula = i^2=-1 .
Their condition is rest.
3.
Then these " virtual particles " have Planck's impulse (h=1)
(or Einstein's impulse h=kb=1) they move with constant speed c=1.
We call these particle " Quantum of Light", ‘ Photon.’.
h = 1, c=1. ( Light quanta).
4.
Then these " virtual particles " have impulse
Goudsmit / Uhlenbeck (h=h/2pi) they became electrons
(E = hw, e^2 = hca ).
This situation described with " The Lorentz transformations."
h = h /2pi , c>1.
E = hw, e^2 = hca ( electron).
The Lorentz transformations.
So.
If these " virtual particles " have three conditions:
rest ( h=0), strait constant moving (c=1) and it can
rotate around its axis ( h=h/2pi) they are special particles.
And no other particles can reach their speed it means they
cannot have such ability as Light Quanta/ Electron has.
Therefore I say " Light Quanta/ Electron is privileged particle",
and it is possible to name Light Quanta/ Electron
as a " Spiritual, Conscious particle – Soul "
There is another question.
The " virtual particles " exist in Vacuum : T=0K.
The Vacuum created these "virtual, spiritual, conscious particles ".
So.
What is Vacuum? Who is Vacuum?
Silence. Amazement.
It is something Infinitely, Eternally, Consciously…..
……something higher our understatement.
" The DAO that can be expressed is not eternal DAO. "
5.
Here I explain the process of " Star formation".
Star formation:
e- -> k -> He II -> He I -> rotating He –> plasma reaction -
- -> thermonuclear reaction: ( P. Kapitza , L. Landau,
E.L. Andronikashvili theories ),
( Theories of superconductivity and superfluidity.).
a) hw > kT
b) hw = kT
c) kT > hw
6.
As the result of star formation the Material particles
(protons) turn out well.
p ( Proton.)
7.
Here I explain the process of interaction between
Light Quanta/ Electron and Proton.
The process of evolution is one of main in Universe.
Evolution of interaction:
a) electromagnetic,
b) nuclear,
c) biological.
8.
The main laws in Universe.
Laws:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy.
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / law.
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ law.
9.
Every theory must be testing logically and practically.
Testing.
a) Theory and practice.
===================..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
http://www.socratus.com
http://www.wbabin.net
http://www.wbabin.net/comments/sadovnik.htm
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/sadovnik.pdf
==========================
The secret of words 'God', 'soul ', 'religion', ‘ Existence’,
'dualism of consciousness', 'human being' is hidden
in the “Theory of Light quanta”.
============..
Jerry Kraus
I think there's a very close relationship between new developments in
technology and new developments in science. After all, new
technologies allow for fundamentally new experiments. While new ideas
are certainly necessary for new technologies, new formal, scientific
theories need not be. New technologies can be developed by luck, or
by trial and error. Science need not be involved.
But, once we have the new technologies, we can apply them
systematically, to develop new science. The problem now is that we
haven't developed really important new technologies lately.
Now, with controlled nuclear fusion, we'd have unlimited energy, for
free. Think of the physics experiments that could be done with that!
BradGuth
I can 100% agree with that analogy. Too bad that 99.9% of Usenet/
newsgroups can't, nor go without systematically topic/author stalking
and bashing for all they are worth, as kind of a Zionist/Nazi thing.
>
> But, once we have the new technologies, we can apply them
> systematically, to develop new science. The problem now is that we
> haven't developed really important new technologies lately.
There's loads of advanced though oddly taboo/nondisclosure or need-to-
know technology that's nearly 100% public funded, yet being kept as
secret or out-of-sight as though entirely private.
>
> Now, with controlled nuclear fusion, we'd have unlimited energy, for
> free. Think of the physics experiments that could be done with that!
He3/fusion is a darn good thing, one that most likely India or perhaps
China will have up and running before we the public deep-pockets are
ever allowed to realize what just hit us like another tonne of bricks.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
lit...@nbnet.nb.ca
Later on when I find time unless someone else here wants to I want to
ask about if we may already have the potential for practical nuclear
fusion energy but just wont use it due to environmentalists and other
political reasons.The idea was to sink thermonuclear bombs into a mile
or so wide tank of molten lithium or one of its salts.
The larger the thermonuclear bomb the smaller the fission core needed
and the more economical they become.Could this all in the end be
that's its really only just a mater of scale if it was not for the
envirow whiners.It would be ironic if in the end its because of them
that we do not have cheap fusion energy.
MalKantent
<juanR...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
>Usenet Guidelines:
>http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
OMG that shit's funny! Got any more links like this one?
--
"Donaldson's Law (which I formulated back in
my teaching days) states that *bad* is
objective but *good* is subjective. If writing
or storytelling are *bad*, their badness can be
demonstrated, even proven. But as soon as we
move into the realm of *good* writing or
storytelling, any individual reader's reaction
will be almost exclusively a matter of taste."
"what human beings consider important guides
their actions far more than tangible, demonstrable
'reality' does."
Stephen R. Donaldson, "Gradual Interview"
gabydewilde
Yeah, I actually came to that conclusion without any study. All I did
was ask honest questions. The so called smartly skooled men wearing
dresses and funny hats never answered any of them. They angered as if
indoctrinated with lies. Much like when one discovers Santa is not
real or doesn't find WMD's.
The Dutch patent applications show the telescope was reverse
engineered by 3 separate Dutch guys from ancient writings one of their
production models reached Rome Galileo advertised against buying it.
Galileo then progressed to build his own, the priests did look though
it but suggested it to be a hallucination. Galileo didn't agree etc
etc
The moral of the story is that the telescope was eventually accepted
as real science even by the church dweller men with the funny hats and
the dresses.
http://galileo.rice.edu/bio/narrative_6.html
"Galileo made his first telescope in 1609, modeled after telescopes
produced in other parts of Europe that could magnify objects three
times. He created a telescope later that same year that could magnify
objects twenty times."
Now for the good part!
http://users.navi.net/~rsc/rife1.htm
"Royal Raymond Rife was the inventor of the Universal Microscope which
he presented to the world in 1933. Besides being the most powerful
optical microscope ever made up to that time, it was also the most
versatile. The Universal used all types of illumination: polarised,
monochromatic or white light, dark field, slit ultra and infra-red. It
could be used for all manner of microscopical work, including
petrological work or for crystallography and photomicrography.
According to a report submitted to the Journal of the Franklin
Institute it had a magnification of 60,000x, and a resolution of
31,000x. The ocular of this instrument was binocular, but it also had
a detachable segment lower in the body for monocular observation at
1800x (x=power) magnification."
I recently posted 20 some videos made with this microscope in the
sci.physics.research group.
I got a most friendly email denouncing the video material to be a hoax
because it didn't fit established physics doctrine of max
magnification.
This while the video evidence speaks for it self.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6277107509272726216
"Utilizing a Rife-Bare phanotron plasma device, this experiment is an
attempt to repeat the acclaimed work of Royal R. Rife who used his
'universal microscope' and phanotron plasma device to destroy, or as
he described it, "devitalize" microorganisms. While Rife is said to
have found the resonant destructive frequency (MOR) of many dangerous
pathogenic organisms, this simple experiment works with a harmless
organism known as a Blepharisma. It is a 'proof of concept'
experiment. A helium filled glass bulb (phanotron) is stimulated by an
audio-rate amplitude modulated Radio Frequency carrier (27 Mhz) into a
plasma state (the fourth state of matter) and these 'plasma waves'
gradually destroy this microorganism. As Rife would have said, it is
now 'devitalized', it's basic biological functions (eating,
replication, etc.) are no longer viable. Were this a pathogenic
organism, it would be rendered harmless."
So we can dial into the specific oscillatory frequency of specific
cell shapes. One would think 80 years later we would be ready for such
technology. But the men wearing dresses and funny hats seem to be
against it.
They will say "How dare you write about this, I knew people who died
from being ill!"
CONCLUSION
The empirical evidence speaks for it self. The church dweller men
wearing dresses and funny hats are moar open minded than the men in
dresses wearing funny hats from the physics establishment.
Here is an excellent video about the likes of such.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSk3OIrhDfA
Enjoy.
Strich.9
I'm not so pessimistic. One day QM will break free from the
straitjacket of Relativity and make its way into a TOE.
Currently, Relativity has struck out thrice... logic, LIGO, GPB.
we're just waiting for the stunned fanatics to leave the stadium
MalKantent
<softt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>For last 2 years I visited physics group to learn something new. But I
>find people discussing the same old theories.
Perhaps you should avoid the forums and visit websites such as this
one:
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/
cusan...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 08:48:52 -0800 (PST), Sanny
>
The end of physics is the Renewal of everything necessary to sustain
humanity forever.
My God created physics and when it ends He will renew it. Period.
Mitch Raemsch
MalKantent
Period? Damn, you're sure close-minded, Mitch.
BradGuth
Your God sucks. Your God must be a Zionist/Nazi of the republican
Mafia kind.
Your white-skinned God has Art Deco (aka Saul Levy) as his/her brown-
nosed minion.
Your God voted for GW Bush.
~ BG
John J
> My God created physics and when it ends He will renew it. Period.
Period! Every 28 days, right?
Hang in there. You will be good in a few days.
Mike
> one:http://www.spaceandmotion.com/
> --
OMG that shit's funny! Got any more links like this one?
MalKantent
Mike
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:38:44 -0800 (PST), Mike <sacsca...@aol.com>
> >On Dec 18, 12:40 pm, MalKantent <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Perhaps you should avoid the forums and visit websites such as this
> >> one:http://www.spaceandmotion.com/
> >> --
>
> >OMG that shit's funny! Got any more links like this one?
>
> Yes.
> --
MalKantent
wrote:
>On Dec 19, 9:44 am, MalKantent <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
If that helps you.
Tom Potter
"Strich.9" <stric...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:a5856f6a-25b4-4091...@l42g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
======================
The crooked umpire gave General Relativity four strikes.
General Relativity is an auguring model
that leaves no room for sentient beings,
rather than a cost-effective, useful model
that man can use to shape his world.
Einstein plagiarized the
model (Stresses and strains) and tools (Tensors)
of the stress analysis gurus of the late 1800's
and modeled a static world devoid of sentient beings.
Can you imagine a sentient being
worshipping a model that eliminates him from the model?
--
Tom Potter
http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Dono
> "Strich.9" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:a5856f6a-25b4-4091...@l42g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > One day QM will break free from the straitjacket of Relativity and make its way into a TOE.
>
Potty and Ostrich,
You too are still in your respective straightjackets, right? Must ask
the orderlies to check your restrains.
Mike
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:22:41 -0800 (PST), Mike <sacsca...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 19, 9:44 am, MalKantent <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:38:44 -0800 (PST), Mike <sacsca...@aol.com>
> >> >On Dec 18, 12:40 pm, MalKantent <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Perhaps you should avoid the forums and visit websites such as this
> >> >> one:http://www.spaceandmotion.com/
> >> >> --
>
> >> >OMG that shit's funny! Got any more links like this one?
>
> >> Yes.
> >> --
> > With cartoons?
>
> If that helps you.
> --
MalKantent
wrote:
>On Dec 19, 11:51 am, MalKantent <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://www.aol.com/
Anything having to do with AOL is hilarious, especially their tech
support "service."
Mike
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:38:33 -0800 (PST), Mike <sacsca...@aol.com>
> >Makes it funnier, so where are the links?
>
> http://www.aol.com/
> Anything having to do with AOL is hilarious, especially their tech
> support "service."
> --
Fortunatly I only use AOL for e-mail. Why? Did you post those sites?
MalKantent
wrote:
>On Dec 19, 5:14 pm, MalKantent <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
No, and I wouldn't use AOL for toilet paper although their tech
support can eat my shit for all I care.
Mike
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:16:57 -0800 (PST), Mike <sacsca...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 19, 5:14 pm, MalKantent <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:38:33 -0800 (PST), Mike <sacsca...@aol.com>
> >> >Makes it funnier, so where are the links?
>
> >>http://www.aol.com/
> >> Anything having to do with AOL is hilarious, especially their tech
> >> support "service."
> >> --
>
> >Fortunatly I only use AOL for e-mail. Why? Did you post those sites?
>
> No, and I wouldn't use AOL for toilet paper although their tech
> support can eat my shit for all I care.
> --
with cartoons?
ah
We're all waiting on the LHC.
Why, I expect teleport pads by, oh, 2050 on the outside.
--
ah
BradGuth
But those here, including a few others such as Art Deco, Saul Levy,
"ah" and good old William Mook that already know all there is to know,
and then some. So, why are you the only one that's slow on physics?
Are you suggesting that our laws of physics are not the last word of
the mostly white Zionist/Nazi God?
~ BG
MalKantent
wrote:
>On Dec 19, 7:30 pm, MalKantent <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
MalKantent
wrote:
>On Dec 19, 7:30 pm, MalKantent <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jerry Kraus
> "what human beings consider important guides
> their actions far more than tangible, demonstrable
> 'reality' does."
>
> Stephen R. Donaldson, "Gradual Interview"
What exactly is the difference between what human beings consider
important and tangible, demonstrable 'reality'?
Mike
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:22:12 -0800 (PST), Mike <sacsca...@aol.com>
> >I prefer Charmin but where are those funny sites you said you knew,
> >with cartoons?
>
> http://xkcd.com/493/
> --
Ah, thank-you, but I really enjoy those sites that confuse physics
with philosophy and theology. Have you read "The Tao of Physics"?
Benj
> Now for the good part!
>
> http://users.navi.net/~rsc/rife1.htm
> "Royal Raymond Rife was the inventor of the Universal Microscope which
> he presented to the world in 1933. Besides being the most powerful
> optical microscope ever made up to that time, it was also the most
> versatile. The Universal used all types of illumination: polarised,
> monochromatic or white light, dark field, slit ultra and infra-red. It
> could be used for all manner of microscopical work, including
> petrological work or for crystallography and photomicrography.
> According to a report submitted to the Journal of the Franklin
> Institute it had a magnification of 60,000x, and a resolution of
> 31,000x. The ocular of this instrument was binocular, but it also had
> a detachable segment lower in the body for monocular observation at
> 1800x (x=power) magnification."
>
> I recently posted 20 some videos made with this microscope in the
> sci.physics.research group.
So how did you make the videos given that all examples of the
microscope have "disappeared"? The video viewed certainly didn't
exceed normal magnifications.
> I got a most friendly email denouncing the video material to be a hoax
> because it didn't fit established physics doctrine of max
> magnification.
Of course you did. Lucky they didn't burn your lab, destroy your
records, and put you in jail.
> This while the video evidence speaks for it self.
> So we can dial into the specific oscillatory frequency of specific
> cell shapes. One would think 80 years later we would be ready for such
> technology. But the men wearing dresses and funny hats seem to be
> against it.
>
> They will say "How dare you write about this, I knew people who died
> from being ill!"
So why do you suppose that is? You see Sanny and most scientists
haven't a clue about the "real" world. They can't imagine how it might
be put together. I know what you are thinking. You are thinking I'm
talking about laws of physics and matter and radiation and subatomic
this or that. I AM NOT!
Dear gullible humanoids, I am talking about POLITICS! This is
something that has its birth in the predatory personalities of animals
and is a subject upon which "ivory tower" scientists are mostly
completely ignorant. And yet these stupid, STOOOPID "smart men" (and
women) blindly serve those who keep them ignorant.
So we've got two examples so far out of the millions out there.
Galileo and Rife. Do you morons think for a SECOND that the church
fathers thought the earth was flat or the center of the solar system?
Do you think for a SECOND that they were not WELL AWARE of science far
beyond what was published and known even amongst the intelligentsia of
the day? Hey, in their minds continuation of their POWER depends on
always being a step ahead. Do you think that those in power who
burned and hounded Rife did not KNOW the science with which he was
working? How stupid are you?
That's the problem, here, isn't it? The problem as always is YOU!!!!
You simply are too comfy with your little toys and mathematical games
that you can play with in your own mind while never having to confront
the immorality and amorality of power structures. Scientists hate
politics. They do not have that inbred intuition that lawyers do about
it. And as a result all of science gets controlled and subservient to
those in power. That's how it is and how it's been.
So the bottom line on "new" ideas is only those "new" idea that do not
threaten those in power are ever allowed into the public domain. If
the "new" idea doesn't have prior approval, it simply won't happen. It
will be hounded out of existence by ridicule, personal attacks and
even murder if necessary. Dear boys, politics is SERIOUS business!
If you can't understand that, then go back to your labs and keep
filling in the missing spots in handbook tables. And maybe you'll get
a footnote in some future textbook.
Idiots.
MalKantent
wrote:
>On Dec 20, 6:58 am, MalKantent <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
MalKantent
A better idea would be to go to the source and ask him instead of
yours truly.
http://www.stephenrdonaldson.com/fromtheauthor/gi.php
--
"Donaldson's Law (which I formulated back in
my teaching days) states that *bad* is
objective but *good* is subjective. If writing
or storytelling are *bad*, their badness can be
demonstrated, even proven. But as soon as we
move into the realm of *good* writing or
storytelling, any individual reader's reaction
will be almost exclusively a matter of taste."
"what human beings consider important guides
MalKantent
wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 07:21:16 -0800 (PST), Jerry Kraus
><jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 20, 8:58 am, MalKantent <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:22:12 -0800 (PST), Mike <sacsca...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "what human beings consider important guides
>>> their actions far more than tangible, demonstrable
>>> 'reality' does."
>>>
>>> Stephen R. Donaldson, "Gradual Interview"
>>
>>
>>What exactly is the difference between what human beings consider
>>important and tangible, demonstrable 'reality'?
>
>A better idea would be to go to the source and ask him instead of
>yours truly.
>http://www.stephenrdonaldson.com/fromtheauthor/gi.php
This link is even quicker.
http://www.stephenrdonaldson.com/fromtheauthor/gi_submit1.php
aine...@gmail.com
just wait and see..
but it may take a long time to discovered the new thing..
all of the physic ans science theory is developed by people after
people..
so the last person who got the new theory will get the credit while
the people before it they didnt give a credit..
this is just not fair..
xoxo,
aineecumi
neway, my secret to release tension is playing this game <a
href=http://www.gamestotal.com> http://www.gamestotal.com </a> <a
href=http://uc.gamestotal.com> http://uc.gamestotal.com </a> <a
href=http://gc.gamestotal.com> http://gc.gamestotal.com </a> <a
href=http://3700ad.gamestotal.com> http://3700ad.gamestotal.com </a>
<a href=http://manga.gamestotal.com> http://manga.gamestotal.com </a>
BradGuth
Worse yet if those before were not sufficiently Jewish. But then
think of how little Hitler would have accomplished without his trusty
Zionist/Nazis.
~ BG
Dr. Henri Wilson
>The church knew before modern science that the earth was round.
Just as NASA already knows that light doesn't always travel at c wrt little
panet Earth.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.
.....
BradGuth
Where's "Sanny"?
~ BG
Rock Brentwood
> For last 2 years I visited physics group to learn something new. But I
> find people discussing the same old theories.
Consider the following analogy which precisely captures your actions,
situation and *seriously* parochial (even myopic) vision: "I turned on
the TV in the early to mid afternoon to get the latest news on the
Maury Povich and Jerry Springer shows concerning the latest dealings
and gigs of the major stars and TV personalities in the top echelon of
the business, political and entertainment world, and lo and behold! To
my surprise, I discovered that all the top stars and leaders were
people straight out of the ghetto with low-brow mannerisms and
accents; and nothing new to discuss other than relationship and drug
problems. Where had become of the Screen Actors Guild when their best
and brightest were discussing their paternity on the Maury Povich show
(or however you spell his name)?"
Of course, the full analogy here is Jay Leno, Conan, whatever the name
of that guy is that comes after Conan that has all the young well-
groomed miniskirted women on as guests (and yet more rowdy ones in his
audience that even keep the men in the audience in stunned silence
with their voraciousness). These are like ... oh ... the LIBRARY, or
ArXiv or (yes, even) Wikipedia or the personal web sites of the
leading researchers in their respective fields, or the numerous e-
books that you can now find on various topics.
Why even bother getting a convertor box or digital TV, with what's on
these days? It took 20 minutes just to pluck out the 4-5 shows from
the weekly listings of the (soon-to-be-extinct) sunday paper that
*might* be worth watching.
BradGuth
Hard to discuss new and improved physics when so much of modern
physics has to be politically and faith-base correct.
It gets worse yet when the mainstream status quo has to get the one
and only last word, regardless of the consequences.
Most Americans have become born-again liars, no matters if they want
to or not.
~ BG
John Jones
The church always knew the earth was round. There are pictures to prove it.
Dr. Henri Wilson
But they didn't know or couldn't explain why people didn't fall off.....
Are we really any more enlightened as to how remote objects can attract? I
don't think so.
gabydewilde
> On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:57:50 +0000, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
They shield the Æther and get pushed together.
Even that Jew-ish physicist who confused everything said: "Remember
gentiles, we do need the Æther to make everything work this is why I
removed it from the equations." At least that is what it sounded like
to me.
To answer your question: Everless! Everless sir! The light is off.
FLASH
the mental midget trolls dominating this forum are not physicists and
do not represent what is really happening in physics today
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
There is no absolute aether but certainly the gravitational shielding theory
produces the right effect AND an inverse square law (well, almost)
BradGuth
No kidding. It's more of a need-to-know cabal that's in perpetual
denial.
~ BG
namekuseijin
> Hard to discuss new and improved physics when so much of modern
> physics has to be politically and faith-base correct.
Much harder to discuss new and improved physics when one doesn't even
take the time to read what the old rule book says about it? I mean, how
is one to bring down old theoretical models and replace it with a more
accurate model if they do not study it to attack its weaknesses?
Kinda waters down the PP argument of taking a lifetime to read the old
book, I think.
BTW, what if we are close to full understanding of the way the universe
behaves after all, both in the small and large scale? What "new and
improved" theories will add to what QM and GR already say? Specially if
people seeking it do not take the time to read what they say and instead
spend their lifetime reinventing the wheel?
namekuseijin
>>> A person ages 20- 24 cannot say anything
>>> in physics because by that time he has not mastered all laws of
>>> physics.
A person in their 20-24 is still an idiot. Specially when feeding
dreams of grandeur without even knowing the basics.
> But by the time he masters all rules his age is 40-50 and he
>>> get old age problems.
That's why we need A.I. to do the thinking for us or cyberimplants to
help us getting the big picture as soon as possible. ;)
BradGuth
Unless you have some kind of special need-to-know access as to the
best available whole truth and nothing but the truth, as derived from
our mostly public funded science, you're kind of screwed no matters
how smart you are.
~ BG