Nutcases have destroyed this newsgroup
hhc...@yahoo.com
for the discussion of topics in physics.
Today it is a playground for the evidently feeble minded cases who have
strayed from the alt hierarchy.
Thank you AOL, Web TV, and Al Gore for totally destroying something
that was once of considerable value.
Harry C.
Dirk Van de moortel
<hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1137842403.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Don't forget Microsoft and Apple and ... for having created all
that idiot-friendly software :-)
Dirk Vdm
T Wake
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:hbpAf.169901$aB6.6...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
And Ubuntu, Knoppix, SuSE etc :-)
It is ironic that the OP posted from Google Groups - the source of the vast
majority of nutcases on any Usenet group.
jmfb...@aol.com
Sigh! People just do not remember how bad it used to be.
/BAH
Gregory L. Hansen
The software or the newsgroup?
I haven't pulled an Uncle Al, but my participation here is certainly down.
Too much effort for too little benefit. And there are so many of the same
names here who haven't found anything new to talk about in years-- why
repeat discussions that have already proven fruitless? Although no single
trait reliably distinguishes a crackpot, one tendency seems to be breadth,
or lack of it.
--
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
-- Benjamin Franklin
srp
> This was once a useful and informative source of knowledge and a place
> for the discussion of topics in physics.
>
> Today it is a playground for the evidently feeble minded cases who have
> strayed from the alt hierarchy.
To my knowledge, this has been the case since the very beginning.
As for real physics, what do you expect really, besides possible
exchange of info from formal literature or references there from ?
André Michaud
Hontas Farmer
Though sometimes the moderated groups have an agenda. For example you will
not find anything positive said about LQG in the sci.physics.strings group.
hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
--
"...we advanced from the telegraph to telephones to e-mail?" -Mr ef'n
conductor- George Carlin. www.geocities.com/hontasfx
OsherD
Harry C. typed:
>If you want more credible physics you need to post in the moderated groups.
>Though sometimes the moderated groups have an agenda. For example you will
>not find anything positive said about LQG in the sci.physics.strings group
"Sometimes the moderated groups have an agenda"? Actually, almost
always. Try supporting mathematical logic, probability,
knowledge/semantic information, feedback/control, non-algebraic
geometry (that is, geometry outside algebraic geometry),
non-algebraic-topology (that is, topology outside algebraic topology)
on sci.physics.research which is moderated. If you support them and/or
experiment strongly as foundations of physics, you'll end up like me -
ousted from all postings there. They even have moderators who give
farcical replies like "it doesn't interest most people in this group,"
as though physics is a popularity context.
Osher Doctorow
donsto...@hotmail.com
*********************
If this is an issue, you need to store your nuts in bags in the
refrigerator, not keep them in cases at room temperature. Pecans don't
do well in a case, they need to be refrigerated to keep the longest.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Stockbauer Nut Ranch
Victoria, Texas U S of A
LEFTY
Science itself is merely the distillation of a process of continuous
evolution of wacky ideas over many many years.
I like my pencils with great big erasers.
And if it were'nt for the hundreds or thousands who were willing to
risk being wrong, you'd never get that one guy who just happened to be
right.
hanson
news:1137892037....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Well put Lefty/Avir. Kudos!
hanson
Eric Gisse
Don't take the AOL jab personally.
:)
>
> /BAH
Hexenmeister
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:%sBAf.2512$Ez3.412@trnddc03...
I've discovered through extensive research that the Easter bunny
has been pinching eggs from the black hole. I was studying
it carefuckly when he suddenly appeared.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/BGFE.JPG
Hexemmeister
Mark Martin
The major problem with the nut cases is that they *aren't* willing
to risk being wrong. They are not prepared for their ideas to be found
in need of either repair or dismissal. They don't come to a place such
as this to test the robustness of their theories. They come here to
announce that they have found the greatest thing since individually
pre-packaged latex condoms, and anyone who disagrees ought to be taken
out back and shot.
-Mark Martin
Spaceman
"Hexenmeister" <vanq...@broom.Mickey> wrote in message
news:APCAf.4104$mu....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| I've discovered through extensive research that the Easter bunny
| has been pinching eggs from the black hole. I was studying
| it carefuckly when he suddenly appeared.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/BGFE.JPG
LOL
:)
Al Zenner
news:1137900741....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> The major problem with the nut cases is that they *aren't* willing
> to risk being wrong. They are not prepared for their ideas to be found
> in need of either repair or dismissal. They don't come to a place such
> as this to test the robustness of their theories. They come here to
> announce that they have found the greatest thing since individually
> pre-packaged latex condoms, and anyone who disagrees ought to be taken
> out back and shot.
So did you want to place Uncle Al at the top of the list,
or the bottom?
LEFTY
Most excellent as well - LOL : )
OsherD
Mark Martin typed:
>The major problem with the nut cases is that they *aren't* willing
>to risk being wrong. They are not prepared for their ideas to be found
>in need of either repair or dismissal. They don't come to a place such
>as this to test the robustness of their theories. They come here to
>announce that they have found the greatest thing since individually
>pre-packaged latex condoms, and anyone who disagrees ought to be taken
>out back and shot
This criticism itself depends on the circumstances. When you identify
"nut cases" with people presenting ideas here, you eliminate discussing
the "nut cases" who do nothing but tear other people's ideas down,
which is where not only Uncle Al was most of the time but also the
recent trolls from "Invalid.com". Also, there are people (and I'm one
of them) who aren't even here for praise but because they develop
theories better (a) when typing and by typing, (b) when there is at
least the possibility that somebody else does or will read them. How
is this possible? Well, I grew up on a typewriter from a young age. I
can type better than I can talk.
Why don't I just type for peer reviewed publications? I did. Some
of them were published, most of those which I sent out weren't
accepted. Now before somebody says, "Ah, that shows you that you were
on the wrong track," actually believe it or not quite a few Editors and
even reviewers (without giving their names since review is supposed to
be "blind") tell rejected authors what they think was wrong with their
papers. The reasons that I received were on the super-farcical side
usually. This actually fits in with what I've found about papers on
arXiv and Front For the Mathematics ArXiv - the vast majority are by
Ingenious Imitators, so those are the guys who're usually
peer-reviewing. There are still a lot of Creative Geniuses whose
papers appear in those places, especially from non-USA universities and
institutes and from Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, Chicago, MIT,
CalTech, U. Florida Gainesville, U. Texas Austin. But the general
"rule" holds.
If you don't know how to detect an Ingenious Imitator's paper, it's
usually like the paper of whomever they're imitating except for a
change in one or two words in the title and one rather minor concept in
the body of the paper.
Osher Doctorow
Schoenfeld
Evidence suggests that the same people who complain most about
sci.physics quality are the same posters who least contribute anything
of value (forget about originality).
Someone asks a trivial physics question and the rote-learned 'experts'
will deliberately obfuscate and complicate an otherwise simple concept
and post it hoping that the OP will leave, not with an understanding of
the issue he raised, but with some bizzare notion of how 'great' the
responder was. Unsurprisingly, when someone asks a non-trivial physics
question that rote-learned 'expert' (complainer) is nowhere to be seen.
However, when some 'crackpot' posts something obviously stupid, all the
expert complainers jump in to whine about that 'crackpot' and whine
about the whole newsgroup and whine about things pointless all in the
while growing that already pointless thread to another pointles 300+
more posts. The truly disturbed individual(s) will even expend effort
and mock up websites of their 'crackpot' and bring that pointless
thread to the web - then they complain about usenet.
Evidence suggests such people are the true crackpots.
> Harry C.
Eric Gisse
Schoenfeld wrote:
> hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > This was once a useful and informative source of knowledge and a place
> > for the discussion of topics in physics.
> >
> > Today it is a playground for the evidently feeble minded cases who have
> > strayed from the alt hierarchy.
> >
> > Thank you AOL, Web TV, and Al Gore for totally destroying something
> > that was once of considerable value.
>
> Evidence suggests that the same people who complain most about
> sci.physics quality are the same posters who least contribute anything
> of value (forget about originality).
You are right, folks like hanson, Androcles, Henri Wilson, Traveler, et
al do not contribute anything to this newsgroup other than filth and
bile.
[snip]
jmfb...@aol.com
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>In article <dqteoq$8qk...@s917.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
> <jmfb...@aol.com> wrote:
>>In article <hbpAf.169901$aB6.6...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>,
>> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote:
>>>
>>><hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1137842403.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> This was once a useful and informative source of knowledge and a place
>>>> for the discussion of topics in physics.
>>>>
>>>> Today it is a playground for the evidently feeble minded cases who have
>>>> strayed from the alt hierarchy.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you AOL, Web TV, and Al Gore for totally destroying something
>>>> that was once of considerable value.
>>>
>>>Don't forget Microsoft and Apple and ... for having created all
>>>that idiot-friendly software :-)
>>
>>Sigh! People just do not remember how bad it used to be.
>
>The software or the newsgroup?
Yes, plus hardware. In those olden days, 99% of everybody
who uses computers today would not have access to any gear.
>I haven't pulled an Uncle Al, but my participation here is certainly down.
I noticed :-). I expected it.
>Too much effort for too little benefit. And there are so many of the same
>names here who haven't found anything new to talk about in years-- why
>repeat discussions that have already proven fruitless?
You shouldn't.
> Although no single
>trait reliably distinguishes a crackpot, one tendency seems to be breadth,
>or lack of it.
The daily message counts have remained steady over the last
10 years I've been observing. The quality appears to be less
because you guys don't talk shop as long as you used to, where
"long" is number of messages/poster*days the topic continues.
Another problem that you are having is that you're one of the
physics gods. This means that you have risen from sitting
at the feet of gods and taken a chair. When you look back
into the past you think how nice it was. I recall posts
of extreme frustration from you as you wrestled with your
homework and groused about not enough time to learn anything.
A side effect of becoming an expert is one no longer encounters
new information at the same rate as before. And the new
knowledge one does encounter is more difficult to learn (you've
already done all the easier stuff).
Newsgroups is not a good medium to yak about the more difficult.
English ASCII is an extremely limited character set that
doesn't document the useful handwaving.
The one new thing that did destroy participation in this group
was the viscious stalking that was targeting at anybody who
knew what they were talking about. There were a couple of
people who led and lots of cranks who aped them.
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
I never have. One way I learn how the biz is going is to
use what most people use. I can tell trends, predict
problems (thus prevent them from ever happening) and
know why the biz is working or not working.
Besides that, all computing has to have one exception to
the rule.
/BAH
Traveler
>Another problem that you are having is that you're one of the
>physics gods. This means that you have risen from sitting
>at the feet of gods and taken a chair. When you look back
>into the past you think how nice it was. I recall posts
>of extreme frustration from you as you wrestled with your
>homework and groused about not enough time to learn anything.
>
>A side effect of becoming an expert is one no longer encounters
>new information at the same rate as before. And the new
>knowledge one does encounter is more difficult to learn (you've
>already done all the easier stuff).
ahahaha... Hem, I got a few pertinent questions that need answers,
enquiring minds and all that. ahahaha... If Hansen is a physics god,
how come he can never understand that spacetime and everything in it
is frozen motionless? How come he does not realize that both space and
time are abstract constructs derived from other phenomena? And why are
you kissing his ass in public since he, too, is an inveterate ass
kisser from way back? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Schoenfeld
Eric Gisse wrote:
This newsgroup is obviously a waste of time but the point is you should
not be surprised by this since if you do not ever bother to post
something worthwhile yourself.
Just read posts between 1994-1999 and 'pretend' it's current-- all the
topics are pretty much covered and it's not as if physics is constantly
changing...
> [snip]
glha...@indiana.edu
jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
> In article <dqtih1$296$2...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>,
> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> >Too much effort for too little benefit. And there are so many of the same
> >names here who haven't found anything new to talk about in years-- why
> >repeat discussions that have already proven fruitless?
>
> You shouldn't.
>
> > Although no single
> >trait reliably distinguishes a crackpot, one tendency seems to be breadth,
> >or lack of it.
>
> The daily message counts have remained steady over the last
> 10 years I've been observing. The quality appears to be less
> because you guys don't talk shop as long as you used to, where
> "long" is number of messages/poster*days the topic continues.
>
> Another problem that you are having is that you're one of the
> physics gods. This means that you have risen from sitting
> at the feet of gods and taken a chair.
I don't know. I'm not at NIST now, not directly involved with physics.
How god-like is that?
>When you look back
> into the past you think how nice it was. I recall posts
> of extreme frustration from you as you wrestled with your
> homework and groused about not enough time to learn anything.
And I was right. After classes finished, when I had a chance to go
back over material at my leisure, I'd learned a lot. And some of my
problems were little conceptual ones that the right choice of words
could have overcome. I'm still a little upset at Peskin and Schroeder
for dropping all mention of state space as soon as they could and
operating with the leftovers, I didn't understand until years later
where those leftovers came from, I just followed the recipies in class.
It would have taken half a page for them to demonstrate.
>
> A side effect of becoming an expert is one no longer encounters
> new information at the same rate as before. And the new
> knowledge one does encounter is more difficult to learn (you've
> already done all the easier stuff).
>
> Newsgroups is not a good medium to yak about the more difficult.
> English ASCII is an extremely limited character set that
> doesn't document the useful handwaving.
And when you have other commitments and little time, you're not
particularly inclined to put a lot of time into someone else's problem.
And I don't have easy access to a research library now, and I'm not
sitting at a desk all day with a computer by my side to fill idle
moments.
>
> The one new thing that did destroy participation in this group
> was the viscious stalking that was targeting at anybody who
> knew what they were talking about. There were a couple of
> people who led and lots of cranks who aped them.
Like Androclese "hounding" PD when he wasn't complaining that other
people are more interested in the people and don't care to discuss
physics. Assuming that if you don't care to discuss his brand of
physics with him that means you don't care to discuss physics. Thank
God he killfiled me. We could use more of that.
glha...@indiana.edu
Traveler wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 06 13:31:20 GMT, jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >Another problem that you are having is that you're one of the
> >physics gods. This means that you have risen from sitting
> >at the feet of gods and taken a chair. When you look back
> >into the past you think how nice it was. I recall posts
> >of extreme frustration from you as you wrestled with your
> >homework and groused about not enough time to learn anything.
> >
> >A side effect of becoming an expert is one no longer encounters
> >new information at the same rate as before. And the new
> >knowledge one does encounter is more difficult to learn (you've
> >already done all the easier stuff).
>
> ahahaha... Hem, I got a few pertinent questions that need answers,
> enquiring minds and all that. ahahaha... If Hansen is a physics god,
> how come he can never understand that spacetime and everything in it
> is frozen motionless?
Are you still confused by stupid semantic issues? A world line, which
represents the entire history of a particle, is frozen motionless. But
when we talk about particles we usually talk about them at a particular
moment in time, not their entire history as a whole.
> How come he does not realize that both space and
> time are abstract constructs derived from other phenomena?
Have you figured out yet that the device you use to reply is a
keyboard? Or that your alien-induced lattice that exists nowhere is
also an abstract model of your invention?
What is it about crackpots that makes them think that everyone's theory
is "just a theory" except for their own?
Traveler
>
>Traveler wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jan 06 13:31:20 GMT, jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> >Another problem that you are having is that you're one of the
>> >physics gods. This means that you have risen from sitting
>> >at the feet of gods and taken a chair. When you look back
>> >into the past you think how nice it was. I recall posts
>> >of extreme frustration from you as you wrestled with your
>> >homework and groused about not enough time to learn anything.
>> >
>> >A side effect of becoming an expert is one no longer encounters
>> >new information at the same rate as before. And the new
>> >knowledge one does encounter is more difficult to learn (you've
>> >already done all the easier stuff).
>>
>> ahahaha... Hem, I got a few pertinent questions that need answers,
>> enquiring minds and all that. ahahaha... If Hansen is a physics god,
>> how come he can never understand that spacetime and everything in it
>> is frozen motionless?
Repeat after me: NOTHING MOVES IN SPACETIME.
>Are you still confused by stupid semantic issues? A world line, which
>represents the entire history of a particle, is frozen motionless. But
>when we talk about particles we usually talk about them at a particular
>moment in time, not their entire history as a whole.
>
>> How come he does not realize that both space and
>> time are abstract constructs derived from other phenomena?
>
>Have you figured out yet that the device you use to reply is a
>keyboard?
ahahaha... Hansen the crackpot is all cranked up now. Have you stopped
beating your mother yet? ahahaha...
> Or that your alien-induced lattice that exists nowhere is
>also an abstract model of your invention?
Nope. My lattice is not made of abstract crap but of real particles.
You crackpots call them virtual photons. ahahaha...
>What is it about crackpots that makes them think that everyone's theory
>is "just a theory" except for their own?
What is it about physicists (the most dangerous crackpots of them all)
that they think everybody should kiss their stinking ass? ahahaha...
Oh, by the way. Have you figured out why bodies in motion stay in
motion? Oh wait. Nver mind. Physicists are not allow to as why-type
questions. ahahaha... Luckily for me, I'' a layman. I can ask why-type
questions until they start oozing out of your ass. ahahaha...
One more thing. ahahaha... Have you noticed that a universe where
every motion/position is relative is a self-referential universe? I
didn't hink so. This sort of simple things goes right over your pointy
little PhD head. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Phew! Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Dirk Van de moortel
"Traveler" <trav...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:kjb7t11v4ef23vl31...@4ax.com...
> On 22 Jan 2006 07:55:33 -0800, glha...@indiana.edu wrote:
>
> >
> >Traveler wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Jan 06 13:31:20 GMT, jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >Another problem that you are having is that you're one of the
> >> >physics gods. This means that you have risen from sitting
> >> >at the feet of gods and taken a chair. When you look back
> >> >into the past you think how nice it was. I recall posts
> >> >of extreme frustration from you as you wrestled with your
> >> >homework and groused about not enough time to learn anything.
> >> >
> >> >A side effect of becoming an expert is one no longer encounters
> >> >new information at the same rate as before. And the new
> >> >knowledge one does encounter is more difficult to learn (you've
> >> >already done all the easier stuff).
> >>
> >> ahahaha... Hem, I got a few pertinent questions that need answers,
> >> enquiring minds and all that. ahahaha... If Hansen is a physics god,
> >> how come he can never understand that spacetime and everything in it
> >> is frozen motionless?
>
> Repeat after me: NOTHING MOVES IN SPACETIME.
NOTHING MOVES IN SAVAIN'S HEAD.
Dirk Vdm
Traveler
ahahaha... Geriatric relativist, Dick van de merde, gets all cranked
up and comes to the help of fellow ass kisser Hansen. ahahaha... I
love it. ahahaha... By the way, how old are you now, Dick? 70? 80
maybe? ahaha... Did you forget to take your usual oatmeal this
morning? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Gregory L. Hansen
>Repeat after me: NOTHING MOVES IN SPACETIME.
World lines don't move in spacetime. When people talk about the motion of
a particle they refer to a succession of points on the worldline, not the
worldline in its entirety.
>
>> Or that your alien-induced lattice that exists nowhere is
>>also an abstract model of your invention?
>
>Nope. My lattice is not made of abstract crap but of real particles.
>You crackpots call them virtual photons. ahahaha...
You have a model that describes a lattice that is not made of abstract
crap. You're like the screen writer who writes a line like "This isn't a
movie, you know."
--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
Traveler
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>In article <kjb7t11v4ef23vl31...@4ax.com>,
>Traveler <trav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>On 22 Jan 2006 07:55:33 -0800, glha...@indiana.edu wrote:
>
>>Repeat after me: NOTHING MOVES IN SPACETIME.
>
>World lines don't move in spacetime. When people talk about the motion of
>a particle they refer to a succession of points on the worldline, not the
>worldline in its entirety.
Repeat after me: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MOVES IN SPACETIME!
NOTTHIINGGG!!!!
What this means is that there is NO CHANGE in spacetime (that's why it
was called Einstein's block universe by Karl Popper) and spacetime is
a fictitious math construct with no counterpart in reality. Now, isn't
it a tad weird that your idol Einstein agreed with his friend Kurt
"lunatic" Godel when he announced in 1949 that the spacetime of GR
allows time travel to the past via time-like loops?
Now hold on a southern cotton picking second! Aren't Kurt Godel and
Albert Einstein revered by physicists as two of the smartest men that
ever lived? Yep. ahahaha... One then wonders how they can be so stupid
as to believe in motion in spacetime. ahahaha...
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm#Einstein
ahahaha...
>>> Or that your alien-induced lattice that exists nowhere is
>>>also an abstract model of your invention?
>>
>>Nope. My lattice is not made of abstract crap but of real particles.
>>You crackpots call them virtual photons. ahahaha...
>
>You have a model that describes a lattice that is not made of abstract
>crap. You're like the screen writer who writes a line like "This isn't a
>movie, you know."
Maybe in your imagination but I know one thing: I am not an ass
kisser. I do my own thinking, than you very much. ahahaha... And
that's the way I like it. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Dirk Van de moortel
"Traveler" <trav...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:bsf7t15pbf43loqog...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 16:59:17 +0000 (UTC),
> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>
> >In article <kjb7t11v4ef23vl31...@4ax.com>,
> >Traveler <trav...@nospam.net> wrote:
> >>On 22 Jan 2006 07:55:33 -0800, glha...@indiana.edu wrote:
> >
> >>Repeat after me: NOTHING MOVES IN SPACETIME.
> >
> >World lines don't move in spacetime. When people talk about the motion of
> >a particle they refer to a succession of points on the worldline, not the
> >worldline in its entirety.
>
> Repeat after me: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MOVES IN SPACETIME!
> NOTTHIINGGG!!!!
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MOVES IN SAVAIN'S HEAD!
NOTTHIINGGG!!!!
Dirk Vdm
Traveler
says the 80 year-old retired ass kisser. ahahaha...
hanson
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|--------- Schoenfeld 1 : GISSE 0 ---------------|
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
"Schoenfeld" <schoe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137940635.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > > This was once a useful and informative source of knowledge and a place
>> > > for the discussion of topics in physics.
>> >
>> Schoenfeld wrote:
>> > Evidence suggests that the same people who complain most about
>> > sci.physics quality are the same posters who least contribute anything
>> > of value (forget about originality).
>>
>> You are right, folks like hanson, Androcles, Henri Wilson, Traveler, et
>> al do not contribute anything to this newsgroup other than filth and
>> bile.
>
> This newsgroup is obviously a waste of time [2] but the point is you
> [Eric] should not be surprised by this since if you [Eric Gisse] do
> not ever bother to post something worthwhile yourself. [1]
> Just read posts between 1994-1999 and 'pretend' it's current-- all the
> topics are pretty much covered and it's not as if physics is constantly
> changing...
>
.... ahahaha... [1] Schoenfeld you must give Eric some leeway, since
his chosen nym says that he is "Eric Gisse" <jowr.....>, short for
Eric Gisse, the j_uvenile o_f w_eak r_easoning.... which he showed
in his seminal posts, his latest gem being neither filth nor bile but
truly grand by Gisse-jowr's weak reasoning: ..... which insists that:
> ::: It isn't my fault you don't understand how to multiply powers. Lots
> ::: of people here just don't understand first year mathematics, which
> ::: manages to both surprise and not surprise me.
> ::: sqrt(x) = x^1/2
> ::: (x*1/2)^2 = (x^1/2)*(x^1/2) = x^(1/2 + 1/2) = x
> ::: If you feel otherwise, prove it. Mathematically. Anything less is
> ::: cowardace.
It is of course the "ace" in Eric's weak reasoning that (*) & (^) must be
the same and hence, via his (x*1/2)^2 = x, number 4 must be the
"Gissean breakthru"... he was so yearning for with strong emotions....
AHAHAHAHA... thanks for the laughs, Eric. You are a good cyber toy!
Schoenfeld, on [2] you are of course right, which is why one ought to
look at it as time of fun, diversion and relaxation, especially watching all
those cyber quarrels.... ahahaha.... hilarious, except to the absolute fools
and uptight mooches who believe that there is something owed to them
at and in these here 24/7 crazy cyber parties.... ahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, guys.... ahahaha...
ahahaha.... ahahanson
hanson
news:dqtih1$296$2...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
>>><Harry Conover hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1137842403.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> This was once a useful and informative source of knowledge
>>>> and a place for the discussion of topics in physics.
>>
>
> so many names here who haven't found anything new to talk about
> in years-- why repeat discussions that have already proven fruitless?
> "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
> -- Benjamin Franklin
>
[hanson]
... well, yes there are these "repeaters" and if the "don't feed the troll"
advice were to be followed by the "serious" posters AND the ones
who issued that advice... then the trolls would fade away. However,
the joy of beating on the trolls is an irresistible force. So: ... ahahaha!
AHAHAHA... But true, at the outset s.p. was a classroom environment
where "teachers" came to strut and display their vast & superior ken...
like in one of the more memorable episodes wherein one such dude,
allegedly a PhD, declared proudly with a straight face that 3D space
looked like an (American) football..... After that set of these failed
educators got booed off their soap boxes and sailed on, enter the real
brains like Schwartz, the genius, who put the label of idiot onto anybody
who wasn't his cup o'tea, and then he proceeded to post with braggadocio
about getting a blowjob, eating cheese and playing minesweeper and
he plagiarized galore, beside urging the killing of Billions of people...
not to be outdone by his shadow, Ersatz rabbi Kolker, a math PhD. who
advocated the wide-scale genocide on moslems... ahahaha... AHAHA..
So, Greg there went the neighborhood... ahahaha..
When sci. physics got started the relativity fans (pro and con) did
swamp it right away. So, sci.physics.relativity was created to contain
them there but it just gave them more opportunities to recycle SR/GR:
==The reason for Rels popularly is not that it is better or more accurate
== then other theories including Newton's. The reason is simple and
== self evident, in that SR/GR emphasizes relativity, different frames,
== ergo different points of view, ... a perfect recipe to see and calc.
== things differently and argue over who is correct and who is not.
== Relativity's chief and REALLY proven value is its capability
== to generate many, many more arguments then solutions... ahaha...
So, Greg there goes SR/GR, still going as strong as ever... ahahaha...
This is not new. As far back as the 70's editors complained about the
rela-mania and gave preference to articles that had different themes.
Relativity has the same earmarks as does religion. Both are constructs
or tales built on foundations that are based on a belief... a concept that
provides great opportunities for pontification and sectarianism... ahahaha...
So, what we have here nowadays in the UseNet is an absolutely lovely,
interactive news/op-ed forum with a barber shop atmosphere. Enjoy it,
bitch about it, anything goes. And still, every day, there is somewhere
in here a thought or sentence that has originality or some deeper insight.
I like sci.physics. So, "Let'em sing!.. All of'em!.. It's a beautiful choir!"
ahahaha... ahahahanson
Dirk Van de moortel
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:ugRAf.11742$jd5.3717@trnddc02...
> "Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:dqtih1$296$2...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
> >>><Harry Conover hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:1137842403.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> This was once a useful and informative source of knowledge
> >>>> and a place for the discussion of topics in physics.
> >>
> > In article <dqteoq$8qk...@s917.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
> > <jmfb...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>Sigh! People just do not remember how bad it used to be.
> >
> [Greg]
> > so many names here who haven't found anything new to talk about
> > in years-- why repeat discussions that have already proven fruitless?
> > --
> > "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
> > -- Benjamin Franklin
> >
> [hanson]
> ... well, yes there are these "repeaters" and if the "don't feed the troll"
> advice were to be followed by the "serious" posters AND the ones
> who issued that advice... then the trolls would fade away. However,
> the joy of beating on the trolls is an irresistible force. So: ... ahahaha!
http://www.brooms.it/images/Articoli/1322-1.jpg
http://www.brooms.it/images/Articoli/1330%20-%20Pennello%20WC%20bianco%2000.jpg
Dirk Vdm
The Ghost In The Machine
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
on Sun, 22 Jan 2006 16:31:00 GMT
<8rOAf.172572$pQ4.6...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:
Savain does have a point. Movement implies a time-axis;
since the time axis has already been incorporated into the
spacetime framework, the idea of motion through spacetime
has to be discarded, unless one wants to postulate two
time axes.
Of course there's a flipside; particles aren't points in
this spacetime either; they are lines or curves. In short,
if I have something sitting at the origin in 3-D space,
its existence in spacetime would be a line in spacetime.
A moving particle would have a tilted line in this
4-D spacetime. An accelerating particle would curve;
with constant acceleration the curve should be generally
parabolic (at least, if one uses Newtonian math; SR math
will distort the parabola into something else and I'm not
quite sure what that would be at this point).
A decaying particle would fork, the resultant particle-lines
looking much like a "Y".
All this does not, however, save Savain's probabilistic
particle jump theory, of course, especially since there's
little if any math involved at this level. Of course the
math is easy enough, in standard Newtonian theory; if a
particle is moving through 3-D space at speed v along
the x axis, the line is (x-vt) = 0 in a 4-dimensional
timespace. A light pulse might be representable therein as
x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2 = 0, if the pulse is a single quantum
and created at the origin of the 4-D coordinate system.
(If not, one has to make certain adjustments.) Any point
(x_0, y_0, z_0, t_0) such that x_0^2+y_0^2+z_0^2-c^2t_0^2 =
0 and t_0 >= 0 can be hit by that pulse; the figure defines
a single hypercone. (If t_0 < 0 is included as well the
figure becomes a double hypercone.)
If we now shift to SR theory it is easily proven that this
lightcone is invariant across SR's Lorentz, which becomes
a *tensor*: a transformation from one coordinate system to
another. I believe you've already given the general matrix
(representing the tensor) for SR; I'd have to dig for it.
It is fairly simple to prove lightcone invariance in a
2-D (x,t) space. In the 4-D case with motion contrained
along the X-axis, then one can assume x^2 - c^2t^2 =
K(y,z) = K(y',z') = K (since y'=y and z'=z), and, defining
g=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) as usual, one gets a result identical
to the 2-D case:
x'^2 - c^2t'^2
= g^2*((x - vt)^2 - c^2(t - vx/c^2)^2)
= g^2*((x - vt)^2 - (ct - vx/c)^2)
= g^2*(x^2 - 2xvt + v^2t^2 - c^2t^2 + 2tvx - v^2x^2/c^2)
= g^2*(x^2 - c^2t^2 - (v^2/c^2) * (x^2 - c^2t^2))
= g^2*(1 - v^2/c^2)*(x^2 - c^2t^2)
= x^2 - c^2t^2
The math will probably get a lot hairier in the general
4-D case but I don't see why it shouldn't work.
If one now replaces the general 4-D continuum with
a cubical lattice with *any* distance, one has the
little problem that said lattice will distort under
the tensor in a well-defined fashion, mathematically.
The distorted lattice is no longer cubical; therefore,
the first postulate of SR, in that all physical laws
(which have to relate to the lattice) are the same for
all observers, is violated. (In the more or less 2-D
representation often used, the lattice folds up onto the
line x = ct, a bit like a collapsing trellis.)
I would be surprised if any lattice can survive under the
Lorentz distortion, even allowing for velocities only
in Q^3 intersect [-1,1]^3 (as opposed to R^3 intersect [-1,1]^3).
This idea simply does not work.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
The Ghost In The Machine
<trav...@nospam.net>
wrote
on Sun, 22 Jan 2006 12:46:08 -0500
<dvg7t15d7u55mlrqf...@4ax.com>:
> Dick van de merde (ahahaha...) wrote:
>
>>
>>"Traveler" <trav...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:bsf7t15pbf43loqog...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 16:59:17 +0000 (UTC),
>>> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <kjb7t11v4ef23vl31...@4ax.com>,
>>> >Traveler <trav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> >>On 22 Jan 2006 07:55:33 -0800, glha...@indiana.edu wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>Repeat after me: NOTHING MOVES IN SPACETIME.
>>> >
>>> >World lines don't move in spacetime. When people talk about the motion of
>>> >a particle they refer to a succession of points on the worldline, not the
>>> >worldline in its entirety.
>>>
>>> Repeat after me: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MOVES IN SPACETIME!
>>> NOTTHIINGGG!!!!
>>
>>ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MOVES IN SAVAIN'S HEAD!
>>NOTTHIINGGG!!!!
>
> says the 80 year-old retired ass kisser. ahahaha...
>
> Louis Savain
Can we at least argue about the *theory*? I'm not all
that interested in what's in your head or on or in your ass
unless it's your thoughts. :-P
I have already established in a prior post that, in SR
theory, the value x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2 is invariant
under the Lorentz. Perhaps you can describe what is
invariant in your jump theory?
Or did you not want to deal with the mathematical problem
of the v-collapsing lattice?
In any event, I've seen little math from you, and I'm curious.
>
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Dirk Van de moortel
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message news:lc2da3-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
Yes, Savain has a point. He read it in a book we told him
he should read, which is why we gladly repeat after him:
Aetherist
>In article <dqteoq$8qk...@s917.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
> <jmfb...@aol.com> wrote:
>>In article <hbpAf.169901$aB6.6...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>,
>> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>><hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1137842403.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> This was once a useful and informative source of knowledge and a place
>>>> for the discussion of topics in physics.
>>>>
>>>> Today it is a playground for the evidently feeble minded cases who have
>>>> strayed from the alt hierarchy.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you AOL, Web TV, and Al Gore for totally destroying something
>>>> that was once of considerable value.
>>>
>>> Don't forget Microsoft and Apple and ... for having created all
>>> that idiot-friendly software :-)
>>
>> Sigh! People just do not remember how bad it used to be.
>
> The software or the newsgroup?
>
> I haven't pulled an Uncle Al, but my participation here is certainly
> down. Too much effort for too little benefit.
You can say that again... Same old BS, biases, and players, all
unwilling to ever consider other perspectives. It gets old fast.
> And there are so many of the same names here who haven't found anything
> new to talk about in years--
What's new in physics? When someone does suggest something new they're
usually blasted viciously by those same named players. Who care here
if off the wall ideas a bounced around? As long as they're related to
physics, what better place is there? I tell you what, if the so-called
cranks all left you'd be bored to tears. Of course, there's always
sci.physics.research for those that wish to be moderated...
> why repeat discussions that have already proven fruitless?
Indeed. The only reason is, of course, 'playing to the crowd'...
To protect those poor virgin minds that could get polluted with
all that crackpot pseudo-science...
> Although no single trait reliably distinguishes a crackpot, one
> tendency seems to be breadth, or lack of it.
I'd say the very same traits apply to most perceived crackpots as to
their opposites, stubborness, ego, and a vicious independent streak.
Paul Stowe
OsherD
Schoenfeld typed:
>Someone asks a trivial physics question and the rote-learned 'experts'
>will deliberately obfuscate and complicate an otherwise simple concept
Schoenfeld, aside from trivial questions and "rote-learned" answers,
there surely must be some Creative Genius or Creative questions or
claims, which you seem to have forgotten in your haste to negatively
criticize others. Where are your Creative threads if any which you
initiated on sci.physics? I haven't seen any of yours.
Osher Doctorow
Traveler
ahahaha... At least you're funny. More than I can say about that
aging, beer-guzzling, pot-smoking Dutch queer, aka Dick van de merde.
ahahaha...
>I have already established in a prior post that, in SR
>theory, the value x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2 is invariant
>under the Lorentz. Perhaps you can describe what is
>invariant in your jump theory?
I have no problem with the math of SR. What interests me is the
physics that is responsible for the math. That's what's missing in
relativity and physics in general (although QM is less guilty of this
sin). Relativity is all math engineering (which is left open to all
sorts of crackpot interpretation) and very little physics. It's
chicken shit. Same goes with Newtonian physics, BTW: all math and no
physics.
BTW, you never replied to my post in the thread "What would
antigravity mean for GR?" where I gave an ample description and
explanation of the lattice:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7e3f4458aa20a3cc
>Or did you not want to deal with the mathematical problem
>of the v-collapsing lattice?
I'll take this up in your other post in this thread.
>In any event, I've seen little math from you, and I'm curious.
Math does not have a fucking thing to do with physics. Math does not
explain physics; it's the other way around. Math is an engineering
pastime/tool used only to quantify observations. Physics has to do
with particles, their properties and their interactions. That's the
stuff behind the math and that's the stuff that is missing in modern
physics. I does not suffice to say that the speed of light is
*measured* constant relative to any frame of reference. That's fucking
chicken shit and boring to an excruciating degree. The important thing
is to explain why. That is, one must have a physical model that gives
rise to the observed phenomena. That is what I'm working on and that
is what will separate the real physicists from the engineers, the big
men from the little boys. ahahaha...
Physics is so much phucking phun. ahahaha...
Louis Savain
OsherD
T Wake of taswak... typed:
>It is ironic that the OP posted from Google Groups - the source of the vast
>majority of nutcases on any Usenet group.
The USA and earth are also the source of the vast majority of nutcases
on any Usenet group, but do you recommend leaving the earth to post?
Google Beta is free. Beethoven himself would have used free Usenet
rather than pay toll to Napoleon. Perhaps you recommend using U.C.
Irvine usenet? Can you guarantee no Napoleons there? If so, tell us
all how to sign up for U. C. Irvine usenet. "Put up or shut up" :>)
Osher Doctorow
Eric Gisse
Schoenfeld wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > Schoenfeld wrote:
> > > hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > This was once a useful and informative source of knowledge and a place
> > > > for the discussion of topics in physics.
> > > >
> > > > Today it is a playground for the evidently feeble minded cases who have
> > > > strayed from the alt hierarchy.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you AOL, Web TV, and Al Gore for totally destroying something
> > > > that was once of considerable value.
> > >
> > > Evidence suggests that the same people who complain most about
> > > sci.physics quality are the same posters who least contribute anything
> > > of value (forget about originality).
> >
> > You are right, folks like hanson, Androcles, Henri Wilson, Traveler, et
> > al do not contribute anything to this newsgroup other than filth and
> > bile.
>
> This newsgroup is obviously a waste of time but the point is you should
> not be surprised by this since if you do not ever bother to post
> something worthwhile yourself.
You are just mad because I caught you making an error.
The Ghost In The Machine
<86t7t1lsdqd62lts7...@4ax.com>:
OK dumb question: what, precisely, is "physics" in this context?
So far all I see is a hypothesis that says the coordinate-space
of the Universe is a cubical lattice, and that particles can
jump from one point on that lattice to the other.
>
> BTW, you never replied to my post in the thread "What would
> antigravity mean for GR?" where I gave an ample description and
> explanation of the lattice:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7e3f4458aa20a3cc
Antigravity would make for an interesting disproof of GR, but
did you want to use Cavorite or simply levitate? :-)
>
>>Or did you not want to deal with the mathematical problem
>>of the v-collapsing lattice?
>
> I'll take this up in your other post in this thread.
>
>>In any event, I've seen little math from you, and I'm curious.
>
> Math does not have a fucking thing to do with physics. Math does not
> explain physics; it's the other way around. Math is an engineering
> pastime/tool used only to quantify observations. Physics has to do
> with particles, their properties and their interactions. That's the
> stuff behind the math and that's the stuff that is missing in modern
> physics. I does not suffice to say that the speed of light is
> *measured* constant relative to any frame of reference. That's fucking
> chicken shit and boring to an excruciating degree. The important thing
> is to explain why. That is, one must have a physical model that gives
> rise to the observed phenomena. That is what I'm working on and that
> is what will separate the real physicists from the engineers, the big
> men from the little boys. ahahaha...
The speed of light is just that: the speed of light. It is neither
constant in some theories, nor even all that interesting; it depends
on the units. (For example, c = 299792458 m/s, but it is also
1 light-year/year, 1 light-nanosecond/nanosecond, or 1 billion
light-nanoseconds/second.)
Now...how, precisely, does a particle jump from one lattice point
to another? In other words, if a particle jumps from (x,y,z,t)
to (x',y',z',t'), what is the relationship between x,y,z,t
and x',y',z',t'?
Or are you looking for an observational definition, similar to
Kenseto's? (He states we need to measure Fab and Faa, rather
than predicting it, for example.)
>
> Physics is so much phucking phun. ahahaha...
>
> Louis Savain
>
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Traveler
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics, Traveler
><trav...@nospam.net>
> wrote
>on Sun, 22 Jan 2006 16:31:16 -0500
><86t7t1lsdqd62lts7...@4ax.com>:
>> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 20:00:03 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
>> <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics, Traveler
>>><trav...@nospam.net>
>>> wrote
[cut]
>> I have no problem with the math of SR. What interests me is the
>> physics that is responsible for the math. That's what's missing in
>> relativity and physics in general (although QM is less guilty of this
>> sin). Relativity is all math engineering (which is left open to all
>> sorts of crackpot interpretation) and very little physics. It's
>> chicken shit. Same goes with Newtonian physics, BTW: all math and no
>> physics.
>
>OK dumb question: what, precisely, is "physics" in this context?
Physics is exclusively about particles, their properties and their
interactions. Every phenomenon must be explained only in terms of
these things. Of course, explanations must be based on universal
principles.
>So far all I see is a hypothesis that says the coordinate-space
>of the Universe is a cubical lattice, and that particles can
>jump from one point on that lattice to the other.
Well, you failed to see properly because I don't belive in the
existence of a coordinate space. I believe only in the existence of
particles. You may think of the lattice as a space of wall-to-wall
particles but the space is an abstract name for the way the particles
are organized. Coordinates are not the properties of space but of the
particles. This is no different from the coordinate of a movable
object in a video game. Each object has a set of properties, including
its position. Position is the intrinsic property of the object. There
is no need for an extrinsic space.
>> BTW, you never replied to my post in the thread "What would
>> antigravity mean for GR?" where I gave an ample description and
>> explanation of the lattice:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7e3f4458aa20a3cc
>
>Antigravity would make for an interesting disproof of GR, but
>did you want to use Cavorite or simply levitate? :-)
Antigravity is crackpottery. The title of that thread was not my idea
but that of establishment crackpot Gregory L. Hansen. ahahaha... The
idea, based on GR, is that, if spacetime can bend a certain way, it
should be possible to bend it the other way. It's nonsense, of course,
since spacetime does not exist.
>>>Or did you not want to deal with the mathematical problem
>>>of the v-collapsing lattice?
>>
>> I'll take this up in your other post in this thread.
>>
>>>In any event, I've seen little math from you, and I'm curious.
>>
>> Math does not have a fucking thing to do with physics. Math does not
>> explain physics; it's the other way around. Math is an engineering
>> pastime/tool used only to quantify observations. Physics has to do
>> with particles, their properties and their interactions. That's the
>> stuff behind the math and that's the stuff that is missing in modern
>> physics. I does not suffice to say that the speed of light is
>> *measured* constant relative to any frame of reference. That's fucking
>> chicken shit and boring to an excruciating degree. The important thing
>> is to explain why. That is, one must have a physical model that gives
>> rise to the observed phenomena. That is what I'm working on and that
>> is what will separate the real physicists from the engineers, the big
>> men from the little boys. ahahaha...
>
>The speed of light is just that: the speed of light.
It is much more than that. c is the only speed. Nothing moves faster
or slower. c is fundamental.
>It is neither
>constant in some theories, nor even all that interesting; it depends
>on the units. (For example, c = 299792458 m/s, but it is also
>1 light-year/year, 1 light-nanosecond/nanosecond, or 1 billion
>light-nanoseconds/second.)
This is silly crap. It does not deserve a response. Not even wrong, as
they say. ahahaha...
>Now...how, precisely, does a particle jump from one lattice point
>to another?
Movement is always the result of an interaction in my hypothesis. Two
particles can interact only if they have equal positions and one or
more common properties. An interaction is always the result of a
violation in a conservation principle of nature. I am still ironing
out the precise nature of the conservation principles. Suffice it to
say that the mother of all conservation principles is this: the sum
total energy of the universe is zero. Any change is due to a temporary
violation of this principle.
> In other words, if a particle jumps from (x,y,z,t)
>to (x',y',z',t'), what is the relationship between x,y,z,t
>and x',y',z',t'?
I have no idea what you mean by relationship here. Note that t is an
abstract evolution parameter in my theory. It is used only to describe
change/motion as in v = dx/dt. There is no t coordinate in my lattice.
That would be pure crackpottery since t is not a variable, i.e., it
cannot change: dt/dt is physically meaningless. The position of a
particle in the lattice is denoted by (w, x, y, z). Again, the lattice
is just an abstract order.
>Or are you looking for an observational definition, similar to
>Kenseto's? (He states we need to measure Fab and Faa, rather
>than predicting it, for example.)
I have no idea what you're talking about. ahahaha... One of the most
important claiom in my hypothesis, other than the fact that the
universe is discrete and probabilistic, is that motion is causal. What
this means is that it takes energy (interactions) for anything to
move. This is the primary reason for the existence of the photon
lattice, to serve as an energetic substrate that facilitates motion.
No lattice = no motion. My goal is to advance my understanding to the
point where I can formulate an experiment that can use the immense
energy (which is practically unlimited from our perspective) of the
lattice for vehicle/spaceship propulsion and energy generation.
I have big dreams. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
hanson
functions as the spermless, self-appraised "Third Kacksacker", says that he,
*********** Grandpa Dirk has a fetish for toilet brushes... ************
and he peddles here the "Albert-" and the "Einstein" model of his beloved
"Relativity Brand" collection at a "going out of busines" Sale on the Usenet:
> http://www.brooms.it/images/Articoli/1322-1.jpg
> http://www.brooms.it/images/Articoli/1330%20-%20Pennello%20WC%20bianco%2000.jpg
[Dirk demonstrates here...]
> [in] - a real poncho and a Sears poncho, [1]
> [and] - kneeling down and bending over, [1]
> [while] Molesting his pet hyena with a toilet brush. [2]
> Dirk Vdm
>
[hanson]
.... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... well, no... AWE...Awe, poor guy!... Dirk has
the classical career ending of a fanatical believer in Geriatric Physics.
Sorry to hear that, Grandpa Dirk, really!..... but thanks for the laughs.
ahahaha... ahahahanson
[1] http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/1444551a731fcb1d
[2] http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/9845eb58a7cf21e7
[3] http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/172e26f6bf46acf4
PS: Another new adjunct of Dirk's relatively sad career is that
he ended up in, and is looking for a home, in alt.local.village.idiot
which is where he redirected responses, out of fear to be seen...
...a typical character flaw of those who must hang onto something,
even if it's toilet brushes. That is an imoortel fumble you just did, Dirk.
AHAHAHAHA......
Traveler
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
[cut]
>Savain does have a point. Movement implies a time-axis;
No, no, no. A time axis forbids motion.
>since the time axis has already been incorporated into the
>spacetime framework, the idea of motion through spacetime
>has to be discarded, unless one wants to postulate two
>time axes.
If you have two, you must have a third, and a fourth, etc... That's
the problem with temporal dimensions.
>Of course there's a flipside; particles aren't points in
>this spacetime either; they are lines or curves. In short,
>if I have something sitting at the origin in 3-D space,
>its existence in spacetime would be a line in spacetime.
>A moving particle would have a tilted line in this
>4-D spacetime. An accelerating particle would curve;
>with constant acceleration the curve should be generally
>parabolic (at least, if one uses Newtonian math; SR math
>will distort the parabola into something else and I'm not
>quite sure what that would be at this point).
The entire spacetime structure is a disaster. It does not explain
anything interesting about nature. A 4-D space (no time axis) in which
the observable universe is moving at c in one of the four dimensions,
is a much better model of reality. The concept of time dilation is
also highly misleading. Clocks slow down, not because time dilates
(time cannot change by definition), but because of energy conservation
at work.
>A decaying particle would fork, the resultant particle-lines
>looking much like a "Y".
Yeah but that's altogether uninspiring.
>All this does not, however, save Savain's probabilistic
>particle jump theory, of course, especially since there's
>little if any math involved at this level.
Math is a red herring and its importance is definitely overblown. Math
does not explain physics. It's the physics that explains the math.
>Of course the
>math is easy enough, in standard Newtonian theory; if a
>particle is moving through 3-D space at speed v along
>the x axis, the line is (x-vt) = 0 in a 4-dimensional
>timespace. A light pulse might be representable therein as
>x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2 = 0, if the pulse is a single quantum
>and created at the origin of the 4-D coordinate system.
>(If not, one has to make certain adjustments.) Any point
>(x_0, y_0, z_0, t_0) such that x_0^2+y_0^2+z_0^2-c^2t_0^2 =
>0 and t_0 >= 0 can be hit by that pulse; the figure defines
>a single hypercone. (If t_0 < 0 is included as well the
>figure becomes a double hypercone.)
My theory does not deny the validity of either Newtonian or SR math
but who cares?
>If we now shift to SR theory it is easily proven that this
>lightcone is invariant across SR's Lorentz, which becomes
>a *tensor*: a transformation from one coordinate system to
>another. I believe you've already given the general matrix
>(representing the tensor) for SR; I'd have to dig for it.
>
>It is fairly simple to prove lightcone invariance in a
>2-D (x,t) space. In the 4-D case with motion contrained
>along the X-axis, then one can assume x^2 - c^2t^2 =
>K(y,z) = K(y',z') = K (since y'=y and z'=z), and, defining
>g=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) as usual, one gets a result identical
>to the 2-D case:
>
>x'^2 - c^2t'^2
>= g^2*((x - vt)^2 - c^2(t - vx/c^2)^2)
>= g^2*((x - vt)^2 - (ct - vx/c)^2)
>= g^2*(x^2 - 2xvt + v^2t^2 - c^2t^2 + 2tvx - v^2x^2/c^2)
>= g^2*(x^2 - c^2t^2 - (v^2/c^2) * (x^2 - c^2t^2))
>= g^2*(1 - v^2/c^2)*(x^2 - c^2t^2)
>= x^2 - c^2t^2
>
>The math will probably get a lot hairier in the general
>4-D case but I don't see why it shouldn't work.
None of this stuff is interesting, IMO.
>If one now replaces the general 4-D continuum with
>a cubical lattice with *any* distance, one has the
>little problem that said lattice will distort under
>the tensor in a well-defined fashion, mathematically.
There is no distortion in my lattice. It is a perfectly regular,
discrete lattice and it is fixed.
>The distorted lattice is no longer cubical; therefore,
>the first postulate of SR, in that all physical laws
>(which have to relate to the lattice) are the same for
>all observers, is violated. (In the more or less 2-D
>representation often used, the lattice folds up onto the
>line x = ct, a bit like a collapsing trellis.)
>
>I would be surprised if any lattice can survive under the
>Lorentz distortion, even allowing for velocities only
>in Q^3 intersect [-1,1]^3 (as opposed to R^3 intersect [-1,1]^3).
>
>This idea simply does not work.
You are mistaken. First of all, you assume that measured quantities
can be directly ascribed to an underlying coordinate system. You
forget (as do almost every brain-dead relativist) that a measured
value is as much an effect of the measured phenomenon as it is an
effect of the measuring tool. The speed of light is measured constant
relative to all FORs, not because it is truly constant (a hopelessly
ridiculous crackpot idea promoted by shit-for-brains relativists), but
because it is already part and parcel of the physics of the measuring
device. Measuring c is like using a tape measure to measure itself:
whether the tape shrinks or expands will not affect the measurement.
My lattice does not deform or bend to accomodate measurements. It is
the measuring tool that changes depending on its actual velocity in
the lattice. The distortions you described are the simple result of
physical changes within the tools.
So if your clock slows down, don't blame it on time dilation... as
time cannot change. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Traveler
>Yes, Savain has a point. He read it in a book we told him
>he should read,
ahahaha... When was that and what book are you referring to, jackass?
I, OTOH) can show you books after books and papers after papers
written by world renown relativists (e.g., Brian Greene, Kip Thorne,
Kurt Godel, Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, and even Einstein himself,
etc...) that repeat the same fallacy that things do move in spacetime.
Heck, that's where the ass kissers get their time travel ideas in the
first place. ahahaha... Talk about crqackpottery in high places! Keep
on kissing ass, van de merde! That's what peer review is for. aha...
ahahaha...
And who's this fucking "we"? Your fellow ass kissers? ahahaha...
AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Bob Cain
Traveler wrote:
> Physics is exclusively about particles, their properties and their
> interactions. Every phenomenon must be explained only in terms of
> these things. Of course, explanations must be based on universal
> principles.
No, no, no. Physics is exclusively about fields. Particles are just
transitory events where and when a field is called to show it's hand.
> Well, you failed to see properly because I don't belive in the
> existence of a coordinate space.
That's ok. It believes in you.
> Movement is always the result of an interaction in my hypothesis. Two
> particles can interact only if they have equal positions and one or
> more common properties.
Positions in what?
> Physics is so much phucking phun. ahahaha...
Is this speculation?
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
Traveler
<arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>Traveler wrote:
>
>> Physics is exclusively about particles, their properties and their
>> interactions. Every phenomenon must be explained only in terms of
>> these things. Of course, explanations must be based on universal
>> principles.
>
>No, no, no. Physics is exclusively about fields. Particles are just
>transitory events where and when a field is called to show it's hand.
ahahaha... Fields of what? IOW, what are your fields made of?
Inquiring minds and all that. ahahaha...
Michael Varney
DING Savian, DING!
Traveler
ahahaha... Racist Varney from Colorado got all cranked up and decided
to come to the help of a fellow ass kisser. I love it! ahahaha...
Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Louis Savain
The Ghost In The Machine
<4nb8t1l2qa10ha357...@4ax.com>:
The math is occasionally used to attempt to quantify these reactions.
>
>>So far all I see is a hypothesis that says the coordinate-space
>>of the Universe is a cubical lattice, and that particles can
>>jump from one point on that lattice to the other.
>
> Well, you failed to see properly because I don't belive in the
> existence of a coordinate space. I believe only in the existence of
> particles.
The coordinate space is an abstraction, much like the number "1"
or "pi" or the equation "exp(i * pi)" is. It doesn't exist, either.
> You may think of the lattice as a space of wall-to-wall
> particles but the space is an abstract name for the way the particles
> are organized. Coordinates are not the properties of space but of the
> particles. This is no different from the coordinate of a movable
> object in a video game. Each object has a set of properties, including
> its position. Position is the intrinsic property of the object. There
> is no need for an extrinsic space.
Interesting. So each particle has its own space? How do the
particles relate, then? (That's where the math comes in,
methinks...it's a shorthand for specifying such.)
>
>>> BTW, you never replied to my post in the thread "What would
>>> antigravity mean for GR?" where I gave an ample description and
>>> explanation of the lattice:
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7e3f4458aa20a3cc
>>
>>Antigravity would make for an interesting disproof of GR, but
>>did you want to use Cavorite or simply levitate? :-)
>
> Antigravity is crackpottery. The title of that thread was not my idea
> but that of establishment crackpot Gregory L. Hansen. ahahaha... The
> idea, based on GR, is that, if spacetime can bend a certain way, it
> should be possible to bend it the other way. It's nonsense, of course,
> since spacetime does not exist.
No, but something's interacting. Gravitational lensing, for
instance, has already been observed -- the first one might
have used the Sun (and been debatable, to boot, given the
accuracy of the day) but a fair number of examples have been
photographed since then, some of them rather visually
impressive (e.g., a cluster of identical-looking galaxies).
>
>>>>Or did you not want to deal with the mathematical problem
>>>>of the v-collapsing lattice?
>>>
>>> I'll take this up in your other post in this thread.
>>>
>>>>In any event, I've seen little math from you, and I'm curious.
>>>
>>> Math does not have a fucking thing to do with physics. Math does not
>>> explain physics; it's the other way around. Math is an engineering
>>> pastime/tool used only to quantify observations. Physics has to do
>>> with particles, their properties and their interactions. That's the
>>> stuff behind the math and that's the stuff that is missing in modern
>>> physics. I does not suffice to say that the speed of light is
>>> *measured* constant relative to any frame of reference. That's fucking
>>> chicken shit and boring to an excruciating degree. The important thing
>>> is to explain why. That is, one must have a physical model that gives
>>> rise to the observed phenomena. That is what I'm working on and that
>>> is what will separate the real physicists from the engineers, the big
>>> men from the little boys. ahahaha...
>>
>>The speed of light is just that: the speed of light.
>
> It is much more than that. c is the only speed. Nothing moves faster
> or slower. c is fundamental.
c and 0 are the only speeds, insofar as I understand your theory.
A particle either decides (or tosses the dice) to move -- or it
doesn't.
>
>>It is neither
>>constant in some theories, nor even all that interesting; it depends
>>on the units. (For example, c = 299792458 m/s, but it is also
>>1 light-year/year, 1 light-nanosecond/nanosecond, or 1 billion
>>light-nanoseconds/second.)
>
> This is silly crap. It does not deserve a response. Not even wrong, as
> they say. ahahaha...
c'=c+v is hypothesized by some here, in case you've not noticed. :-)
>
>>Now...how, precisely, does a particle jump from one lattice point
>>to another?
>
> Movement is always the result of an interaction in my hypothesis. Two
> particles can interact only if they have equal positions and one or
> more common properties. An interaction is always the result of a
> violation in a conservation principle of nature. I am still ironing
> out the precise nature of the conservation principles. Suffice it to
> say that the mother of all conservation principles is this: the sum
> total energy of the universe is zero. Any change is due to a temporary
> violation of this principle.
OK. What you're describing is a fork in the spacetime diagram.
>
>> In other words, if a particle jumps from (x,y,z,t)
>>to (x',y',z',t'), what is the relationship between x,y,z,t
>>and x',y',z',t'?
>
> I have no idea what you mean by relationship here.
A mathematical equation will do. :-)
> Note that t is an
> abstract evolution parameter in my theory. It is used only to describe
> change/motion as in v = dx/dt. There is no t coordinate in my lattice.
> That would be pure crackpottery since t is not a variable, i.e., it
> cannot change: dt/dt is physically meaningless. The position of a
> particle in the lattice is denoted by (w, x, y, z). Again, the lattice
> is just an abstract order.
What dimensional order? For example, (w,x,y,z) is a 4-D lattice.
Various hypotheses have been thrown around regarding the number
of dimensions; the one I remember postulates 14 dimensions, of
which 3 are degenerate. I wouldn't spend too much worry thereon
at this point. :-)
>
>>Or are you looking for an observational definition, similar to
>>Kenseto's? (He states we need to measure Fab and Faa, rather
>>than predicting it, for example.)
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about. ahahaha...
It's Kenseto; that's his idea of math. :-)
> One of the most
> important claiom in my hypothesis, other than the fact that the
> universe is discrete and probabilistic, is that motion is causal. What
> this means is that it takes energy (interactions) for anything to
> move. This is the primary reason for the existence of the photon
> lattice, to serve as an energetic substrate that facilitates motion.
And a photon lattice is distinguishable from a particle lattice
exactly how?
> No lattice = no motion. My goal is to advance my understanding to the
> point where I can formulate an experiment that can use the immense
> energy (which is practically unlimited from our perspective) of the
> lattice for vehicle/spaceship propulsion and energy generation.
>
> I have big dreams. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Yes, you do. Not a bad one, in its way, but physics requires predictions.
For example -- at some point your theory is going to have to
correctly predict Compton's scattering results or it's not
going to get off the pot. :-)
>
> Physics is so much phucking phun. ahahaha...
>
> Louis Savain
>
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
The Ghost In The Machine
<arc...@arcanemethods.com>
wrote
on Sun, 22 Jan 2006 21:29:18 -0800
<dr1pj...@enews3.newsguy.com>:
>
>
> Traveler wrote:
>
>> Physics is exclusively about particles, their properties and their
>> interactions. Every phenomenon must be explained only in terms of
>> these things. Of course, explanations must be based on universal
>> principles.
>
> No, no, no. Physics is exclusively about fields. Particles are just
> transitory events where and when a field is called to show it's hand.
I believe that one can construe a "field" as a rather
abstract notion, although it is interesting to contemplate
that two charged particles are interacting even though
they are physically separate, repelling or attracting
one another (one can easily demonstrate this with little
more than a pin and some thin metal foil pieces, properly
bent and allowed to pivot thereon, making what used to
be called an electroscope, if memory serves.
Ditto for a charged particle interacting with a magnetic
field. The latter is routinely used in many products, from
motors to particle accelerators to the cathode-ray-tube.
In fact, without this interaction much of electronics --
together with its power source -- would cease to exist.
Therefore, Traveler's first postulate -- that particles only
interact when they are at the same point -- needs some rework.
>
> > Well, you failed to see properly because I don't belive in the
>> existence of a coordinate space.
>
> That's ok. It believes in you.
You're going to have to explain *that* comment. :-) True, one
can easily enough contemplate 3 dimensions, at least in one's
immediate area; one is facing in one dimension, to one's
right is another, and above one's head is a third. Time is
occasionally contemplated as a fourth, with some weird properties.
Once one agrees on a common distance between two marks, and the
proper subdivision thereof (the common distance currently uses
light but a platinum-iridium bar was used in the past), one can
start marking axes and/or a grid; this grid, of course, is only
a human artifact but helps to determine where things are.
Of course a human-marked grid won't be quite precise enough for
most particle interactions but computers are very helpful in
that regard, making mind-numbing chores possible.
>
>> Movement is always the result of an interaction in my hypothesis. Two
>> particles can interact only if they have equal positions and one or
>> more common properties.
>
> Positions in what?
That's where it gets interesting. So far, each particle has its
own spacetime lattice but the interactions between the particles
are less than clear to me personally (and Savain states he's
still working out the details -- presumably qualitatively,).
>
>> Physics is so much phucking phun. ahahaha...
>
> Is this speculation?
Well, I can speculate that he's having fun, anyway, in a weird
sort of way... :-)
>
>
> Bob
The Ghost In The Machine
<t4s8t1pdkle4gnu0v...@4ax.com>:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 21:29:18 -0800, Bob Cain
> <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>
>>Traveler wrote:
>>
>>> Physics is exclusively about particles, their properties and their
>>> interactions. Every phenomenon must be explained only in terms of
>>> these things. Of course, explanations must be based on universal
>>> principles.
>>
>>No, no, no. Physics is exclusively about fields. Particles are just
>>transitory events where and when a field is called to show it's hand.
>
> ahahaha... Fields of what? IOW, what are your fields made of?
> Inquiring minds and all that. ahahaha...
An interesting question in its own right. AIUI, the
standard hypothesis uses virtual photons in describing a
particle (say, an electron) interacting with a magnetic
field, either generated by other electrons flowing in a
current (usually in a metal wire, though it doesn't have
to be), or by a properly-prepared piece of metal such as
iron, aluminum/nickle/cobalt, or some such.
So now there are four particles, if we assume the magnetic
field is from the electric current:
- an electron in the current; call him e_1
- the electron outside of the current, moving "on its own"
(or in another current, if one likes); call him e_2
- virtual photon #1 from e_1 to e_2
- virtual photon #2 from e_2 to e_1
To complicate things further neither the position nor the
momentum of each particle is precisely known, in standard
quantum theory. (In fact, they cannot be precisely known,
because of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.) The Bohr
model of the atom as little planetary systems has long
since been replaced by the modern model of probability
clouds, and these clouds can't really be seen directly,
without destroying them; the size of an atom is 100 pm
or so but the size of a light ray is 500 nm -- a lot
larger, but somehow that light ray can jostle electrons,
or be generated by state transitions of those electrons
from a higher-energy to a lower-energy state. (A common
sight exemplifying this: so-called neon signs, which are
actually various gasses, depending on the desired color.
Or one can look at the aurora, if one is sufficiently far
north or south.)
A bit like a water wave dislodging a single grain of sand
from a beach and shooting it through the water -- a poor
analogy, admittedly, for light-metal interaction.
>
> Louis Savain
>
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
donsto...@hotmail.com
>>No, no, no. Physics is exclusively about fields. Particles are just transitory events where and when a field is called to show it's hand.
***********************
"It's a candy mint!!!!"
"NO, it's a breath mint!!'
"Look, guys, it's two mints, 2 mints, 2 mints in one!"
***************
"Rudolpho, that wheel is turning clockwise there on the table between
us."
"No, Fabian, from my perspective over here it's turning anticlockwise!"
"Clockwise!"
"Anticlockwise!"
"You phuckwit duck! Screw you! You idiot! You can't even tell which
way something it turning. Bugger off!"
- a true story
Have a nice day.
Michael Varney
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 23:18:26 -0700, Michael Varney
> <var...@collorado.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>Traveler wrote:
>>
>>>On 22 Jan 2006 07:55:33 -0800, glha...@indiana.edu wrote:
>>>Phew! Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
>>
>>DING Savian, DING!
>
>
> ahahaha... Racist Varney from Colorado got all cranked up and decided
> to come to the help of a fellow ass kisser. I love it! ahahaha...
>
> Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
DING Savian, DING!
jmfb...@aol.com
Traveler <trav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Jan 06 13:31:20 GMT, jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>Another problem that you are having is that you're one of the
>>physics gods. This means that you have risen from sitting
>>at the feet of gods and taken a chair. When you look back
>>into the past you think how nice it was. I recall posts
>>of extreme frustration from you as you wrestled with your
>>homework and groused about not enough time to learn anything.
>>
>>A side effect of becoming an expert is one no longer encounters
>>new information at the same rate as before. And the new
>>knowledge one does encounter is more difficult to learn (you've
>>already done all the easier stuff).
>
>ahahaha... Hem, I got a few pertinent questions that need answers,
>enquiring minds and all that. ahahaha... If Hansen is a physics god,
>how come he can never understand that spacetime and everything in it
>is frozen motionless?
What you're asking is why he doesn't accept your nonsense without
question. It's because he knows better.
>How come he does not realize that both space and
>time are abstract constructs derived from other phenomena?
I suspect because he gets up every morning (or night), is able
to go to work, has an ability to observe and has this strange
ability to think based on data rather than figments of your
delusions.
> And why are
>you kissing his ass
I'm not. I'm talking in a physics newsgroup, not a biology
newsgroup.
By the way, you've just proved my point about viscious
stalking.
/BAH
Traveler
<var...@collorado.edu> wrote:
ahahaha... Let's see. How many blacks and Mexicans did you run over
today, Varnette? ahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Michael Varney
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 06:02:00 -0700, Michael Varney
> <var...@collorado.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>Traveler wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 23:18:26 -0700, Michael Varney
>>><var...@collorado.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Traveler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 22 Jan 2006 07:55:33 -0800, glha...@indiana.edu wrote:
>>
>><SNIP>
>>
>>>>>Phew! Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
>>>>
>>>>DING Savian, DING!
>>>
>>>
>>>ahahaha... Racist Varney from Colorado got all cranked up and decided
>>>to come to the help of a fellow ass kisser. I love it! ahahaha...
>>>
>>>Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
>>
>>DING Savian, DING!
>
>
> ahahaha... Let's see. How many blacks and Mexicans did you run over
> today, Varnette? ahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
> Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Ding Savian, DING!
Traveler
Hold on a southern cotton picking second! Since when were photons
(virtual or otherwise) synonymous with electrons? We have electrons
and we have photons. We don't have an electron field.
>So now there are four particles, if we assume the magnetic
>field is from the electric current:
Exactly. A so-called "field" is nothing but a bunch of moving photons.
Electrons do not interact with each other unless they have equal
positions. The so-called interactions between electrons is bullshit.
The correct picture is this: an electron interacts with a photon which
is emitted from the electron and travels a certain distance at c and
eventually interacts with another electron.
So, there really is no field. It's all particles. A field is a
macroscopic illusion resulting from the way photons interacts with
particles. During any interval, an electron emits a huge number of
photons.
The question then becomes: where do these photons come from? QM
physicists have no answer because they can not account for the energy
of the photons. So what do they do? They decree by fiat that the
photons are virtual (another word for voodoo). From then on, the model
degenerates into chicken shit voodoo science.
This is the sort of problem that my lattice model is designed to
correct. It gives a source for the not-so-virtual photons: the lattice
consists of photons which interact with electrons and are subsequently
emitted from the points of interactions to create the so-called
eletrostatic field. How do electrons get to interact with so many
photons? Answer: every particle, including electrons, is moving at c
in the w dimension of the 4-d lattice. All normal particles have equal
w coordinates.
Now, I agree that the position of the photon and electron is
indeterminate but, sooner or later, nature must come to a decision (so
as to conserve certain quantities) and determines where the electron
and photon should be. This is a probabilistic process. I agree 100%
with QM in this regard. Problem is, QM physicists asserts this stuff
as an article of faith; they have no clue as to why nature must be
probabilistic. I do. Nature is necessarily probabilistic because it is
discrete. As simple as that. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
[cut]
Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Traveler
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>Therefore, Traveler's first postulate -- that particles only
>interact when they are at the same point -- needs some rework.
See my other reply in this thread.
Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
The Ghost In The Machine
<donsto...@hotmail.com>
wrote
on 23 Jan 2006 03:27:47 -0800
<1138015666....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
Assuming alass table, turning wheel, one guy's hovering
over the apparatus, one's looking from underneath,
they're *both* right. :-)
>
> - a true story
>
> Have a nice day.
>
Floor wax? Dessert topping? :-)
In any event, Savain's Theory is still being developed, and
we're obviously trying to understand it, such as it exists today.
(Assuming it's worth such.)
Spaceman
| ahahaha... Fields of what? IOW, what are your fields made of?
| Inquiring minds and all that. ahahaha...
Turtles!
It's turtles all the way down!
lol
Dirk Van de moortel
"Traveler" <trav...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:dvg7t15d7u55mlrqf...@4ax.com...
> Dick van de merde (ahahaha...) wrote:
>
> >
> >> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 16:59:17 +0000 (UTC),
> >> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <kjb7t11v4ef23vl31...@4ax.com>,
> >> >>On 22 Jan 2006 07:55:33 -0800, glha...@indiana.edu wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >a particle they refer to a succession of points on the worldline, not the
> >> >worldline in its entirety.
> >>
> >> Repeat after me: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MOVES IN SPACETIME!
> >> NOTTHIINGGG!!!!
> >
> >ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MOVES IN SAVAIN'S HEAD!
> >NOTTHIINGGG!!!!
>
>
> Louis Savain
>
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
All together now: "NOTHING MOVES IN AUTISTIC SPACETIME":
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AutisticSpacetime.html
Dirk Vdm
Traveler
>All together now: "NOTHING MOVES IN AUTISTIC SPACETIME":
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AutisticSpacetime.html
ahahaha... I like that one. AUTISTIC SPACETIME indeed! LOL. OK, I
retract my previous accusation that you had no sense of humor. You
see, ass kissers like you need people like me. We bring out the best
in you. We give you purpose in life. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahaha...
Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Traveler
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics, Traveler
><trav...@nospam.net>
> wrote
[cut]
>> You may think of the lattice as a space of wall-to-wall
>> particles but the space is an abstract name for the way the particles
>> are organized. Coordinates are not the properties of space but of the
>> particles. This is no different from the coordinate of a movable
>> object in a video game. Each object has a set of properties, including
>> its position. Position is the intrinsic property of the object. There
>> is no need for an extrinsic space.
>
>Interesting. So each particle has its own space?
No. There is no space. Particles have no size. Both size and space are
abstract concepts.
> How do the
>particles relate, then? (That's where the math comes in,
>methinks...it's a shorthand for specifying such.)
I have no idea what you mean by relate. Particles have intrinsic
properties and these are all absolute by virtue of being intrinsic,
i.e., they are independent. What relationship are you thinking of?
Certainly, particles have similar properties such as mass energy,
kinetic energy, momentum, coordinates, "spin", etc... Clarify by
giving an example of "relatedness".
[cut]
>> Antigravity is crackpottery. The title of that thread was not my idea
>> but that of establishment crackpot Gregory L. Hansen. ahahaha... The
>> idea, based on GR, is that, if spacetime can bend a certain way, it
>> should be possible to bend it the other way. It's nonsense, of course,
>> since spacetime does not exist.
>
>No, but something's interacting.
Ceertainly something (a great many things, in fact) is interacting but
don't tell that to the relativists.
> Gravitational lensing, for
>instance, has already been observed -- the first one might
>have used the Sun (and been debatable, to boot, given the
>accuracy of the day) but a fair number of examples have been
>photographed since then, some of them rather visually
>impressive (e.g., a cluster of identical-looking galaxies).
I have no problem with these things. My stance is that they are not
explained by current physics. They are just quantified.
[cut]
>>>The speed of light is just that: the speed of light.
>>
>> It is much more than that. c is the only speed. Nothing moves faster
>> or slower. c is fundamental.
>
>c and 0 are the only speeds, insofar as I understand your theory.
>A particle either decides (or tosses the dice) to move -- or it
>doesn't.
Yes.
>>>It is neither
>>>constant in some theories, nor even all that interesting; it depends
>>>on the units. (For example, c = 299792458 m/s, but it is also
>>>1 light-year/year, 1 light-nanosecond/nanosecond, or 1 billion
>>>light-nanoseconds/second.)
>>
>> This is silly crap. It does not deserve a response. Not even wrong, as
>> they say. ahahaha...
>
>c'=c+v is hypothesized by some here, in case you've not noticed. :-)
In my theory, c is the absolute fundamental speed of light and it is a
constant. One can certainly speak of a relative speed of light but it
cannot be measured because it is already part of our measuring tools.
[cut]
>> Note that t is an
>> abstract evolution parameter in my theory. It is used only to describe
>> change/motion as in v = dx/dt. There is no t coordinate in my lattice.
>> That would be pure crackpottery since t is not a variable, i.e., it
>> cannot change: dt/dt is physically meaningless. The position of a
>> particle in the lattice is denoted by (w, x, y, z). Again, the lattice
>> is just an abstract order.
>
>What dimensional order? For example, (w,x,y,z) is a 4-D lattice.
>Various hypotheses have been thrown around regarding the number
>of dimensions; the one I remember postulates 14 dimensions, of
>which 3 are degenerate. I wouldn't spend too much worry thereon
>at this point. :-)
There are only four dimensions (positional degrees of freedom) in the
universe, no more and no less. There is a very simple reason for this
rule but I'll reserve it for a future web page on my site.
[cut]
>> One of the most
>> important claiom in my hypothesis, other than the fact that the
>> universe is discrete and probabilistic, is that motion is causal. What
>> this means is that it takes energy (interactions) for anything to
>> move. This is the primary reason for the existence of the photon
>> lattice, to serve as an energetic substrate that facilitates motion.
>
>And a photon lattice is distinguishable from a particle lattice
>exactly how?
I don't get it. A photon lattice IS a particle lattice. The particles
are photons. Other types of lattices are theoretically possible but
the one we move in is made of photons.
>> No lattice = no motion. My goal is to advance my understanding to the
>> point where I can formulate an experiment that can use the immense
>> energy (which is practically unlimited from our perspective) of the
>> lattice for vehicle/spaceship propulsion and energy generation.
>>
>> I have big dreams. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
>Yes, you do. Not a bad one, in its way, but physics requires predictions.
>For example -- at some point your theory is going to have to
>correctly predict Compton's scattering results or it's not
>going to get off the pot. :-)
I don't really care to predict anything except to myself for the time
being. I want to build some gee-wiz experiment and show that it can be
explained by my model. But if you want a prediction, an early
falsifiable prediction of my hypothesis is that both gravity and the
electrostatic force are quasi-instantaneous, regardless of distance.
In fact, the two are related. This contradicts current physics dogma.
Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
The Ghost In The Machine
<vsr9t1hhg2ig3q9oa...@4ax.com>:
I said *four* particles for a reason, below. The electrons
are exchanging virtual photons, and changing direction thereby.
>
>>So now there are four particles, if we assume the magnetic
>>field is from the electric current:
>
> Exactly. A so-called "field" is nothing but a bunch of moving photons.
> Electrons do not interact with each other unless they have equal
> positions.
Uh...care to rephrase that? Cathode-ray tubes bend electrons
all the time, and the electrons aren't in physical contact
with the coils wound round the neck thereof.
> The so-called interactions between electrons is bullshit.
> The correct picture is this: an electron interacts with a photon which
> is emitted from the electron and travels a certain distance at c and
> eventually interacts with another electron.
Ah, OK; that'll work.
>
> So, there really is no field. It's all particles. A field is a
> macroscopic illusion resulting from the way photons interacts with
> particles. During any interval, an electron emits a huge number of
> photons.
>
> The question then becomes: where do these photons come from? QM
> physicists have no answer because they can not account for the energy
> of the photons. So what do they do? They decree by fiat that the
> photons are virtual (another word for voodoo). From then on, the model
> degenerates into chicken shit voodoo science.
I for one don't see a problem though I'd have to work it out.
The one electron emits a photon and changes direction, losing energy.
The other electron gains energy from the photon and also changes
direction.
Is there an issue here I'm missing?
>
> This is the sort of problem that my lattice model is designed to
> correct. It gives a source for the not-so-virtual photons: the lattice
> consists of photons which interact with electrons and are subsequently
> emitted from the points of interactions to create the so-called
> eletrostatic field. How do electrons get to interact with so many
> photons? Answer: every particle, including electrons, is moving at c
> in the w dimension of the 4-d lattice. All normal particles have equal
> w coordinates.
>
> Now, I agree that the position of the photon and electron is
> indeterminate but, sooner or later, nature must come to a decision (so
> as to conserve certain quantities) and determines where the electron
> and photon should be. This is a probabilistic process. I agree 100%
> with QM in this regard. Problem is, QM physicists asserts this stuff
> as an article of faith; they have no clue as to why nature must be
> probabilistic. I do. Nature is necessarily probabilistic because it is
> discrete. As simple as that. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
So OK. If it's a photon lattice, it's moving. Which direction?
>
> [cut]
>
> Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
>
> Louis Savain
>
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Traveler
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>> The so-called interactions between electrons is bullshit.
>> The correct picture is this: an electron interacts with a photon which
>> is emitted from the electron and travels a certain distance at c and
>> eventually interacts with another electron.
>
>Ah, OK; that'll work.
Of course it works. The notion that particles are fields (or vice
versa) that interact at a distance is nonsense.
>> So, there really is no field. It's all particles. A field is a
>> macroscopic illusion resulting from the way photons interacts with
>> particles. During any interval, an electron emits a huge number of
>> photons.
>>
>> The question then becomes: where do these photons come from? QM
>> physicists have no answer because they can not account for the energy
>> of the photons. So what do they do? They decree by fiat that the
>> photons are virtual (another word for voodoo). From then on, the model
>> degenerates into chicken shit voodoo science.
>
>I for one don't see a problem though I'd have to work it out.
>The one electron emits a photon and changes direction, losing energy.
>The other electron gains energy from the photon and also changes
>direction.
No. There is no loss of energy. On the average, an isolated electron
never gains or loses energy.
>Is there an issue here I'm missing?
Yes. Electrons are emitting zillions of photons every second. The
problem, which is swept under the rug by QM physicists with the use of
the "virtual" label, is that the source of these photons is not known.
That is, it is not known to QM physicists. So they decide to do
physics by labeling! This is pathetic to an absurd degree.
The truly conscencious QM physicist would create a hypothetical model
to account for these photons, but this is forbidden by some unspoken
law in the physics community. The penalties for breaking that law must
be rather severe because nobody, to my knowledge, has ever published a
hypothesis to deal with this problem. They are satisfied with using a
label as an explanation. Somebody needs to be tarred and feathered and
severely whipped in public. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>> This is the sort of problem that my lattice model is designed to
>> correct. It gives a source for the not-so-virtual photons: the lattice
>> consists of photons which interact with electrons and are subsequently
>> emitted from the points of interactions to create the so-called
>> eletrostatic field. How do electrons get to interact with so many
>> photons? Answer: every particle, including electrons, is moving at c
>> in the w dimension of the 4-d lattice. All normal particles have equal
>> w coordinates.
>>
>> Now, I agree that the position of the photon and electron is
>> indeterminate but, sooner or later, nature must come to a decision (so
>> as to conserve certain quantities) and determines where the electron
>> and photon should be. This is a probabilistic process. I agree 100%
>> with QM in this regard. Problem is, QM physicists asserts this stuff
>> as an article of faith; they have no clue as to why nature must be
>> probabilistic. I do. Nature is necessarily probabilistic because it is
>> discrete. As simple as that. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
>So OK. If it's a photon lattice, it's moving. Which direction?
The lattice does not move even though it is made of photons. Photons,
too, require interactions to move. That is the key to understand this
theory: an interaction is required for movement. The lattice photons
(really, the so-called virtual particles of QM) are not interacting
with anything initially. So they stay put. However, once dislodged by
another particle (say, an electron), a photon immediately starts
moving in the lattice, at c. It keeps on moving because, as soon as it
jumps to an adjacent node in the lattice, it encounters another
identical photon with which it interacts. And the process repeats
itself, over and over.
donsto...@hotmail.com
is no physical photon. The emitting atom does its thing, the absorbing
atom does its thing, with no photon actually travelling between the
two, Traveler. No FTL involved, it's a kind of action at a distance at
c. Hell, why not? No worse than the rest of QM!!!!!!!
CrankHater
OsherD wrote:
> Where are your Creative threads if any which you
> initiated on sci.physics? I haven't seen any of yours.
>
i havent seen any ofyours either. is that because all yours posts are
full of gibberish? i think so.
Traveler
I seriously doubt the validity of this theory. c implies travel of one
sort or another. And travel implies, not only the existence of a
traveler, but also the existence of positions and the ability to
change one's position.