Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
charge is geometry and spin is what? Chapt13.4.03 Charge, Rest-mass, Spin, Speed, Geometrical-Size of particles from DTW #1013 New Physics #1133 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
13 views
Skip to first unread message
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 28, 2012, 5:00:24 PM10/28/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Alright, I have charge nailed down. Since geometry has three and only
three different types of geometry, hyperbolic, Euclidean, elliptic
with values of -1, 0, +1 respectively, it stands to reason that the
charge of elementary particles of physics are those geometries. So
that when a proton and electron and neutrino come together to form a
neutron we have elliptic and hyperbolic geometry coming together to
form a neutron as Euclidean geometry.
So now I have the last remaining piece of the puzzle to put together.
I have to explain how spin is featured. In Old Physics, they had spins
of 1/2, 1, 3/2 but in Old Physics they got those spin numbers from
Algebra demands and demands divorced of geometry or a true theory, for
the Standard Model is just a patchwork quilt of fake physics.
No-one of the Standard Model ever said that the charges of physics
were the 3 and only 3 geometries of mathematics. No-one of the
Standard Model ever said that the electron was hyperbolic geometry
while the proton was elliptic geometry.
Now there are many models of hyperbolic geometry, such as the saddle
shape or the trumpet shape or the pseudosphere shape or the hole shape
as in the Poincare disc. The hole shape can be said to occur in the
Faraday law where the moving bar magnet near a closed loop wire (a
hole) causes the electrons in the wire to form a current.
A better picture of a model of the electron are pictures of the lobes
often seen starting with the 3 p suborbitals of electrons. The p
subshell can hold 6 electrons and thus 3 p suborbitals and the shape
of the p suborbitals is that hyperbolic geometry of a elongated
trumpet or funnel shape which we call lobes.
So now I need to finish this up on the spin. I need to characterize
the three spin quantum numbers m_s of -1/2, 0, +1/2. Of course, the
Standard Model is wrong when they have all sorts of numbers such as +1
and 3/2 for that theory is a waffling fake theory.
So what features of the three geometries of Hyperbolic, Euclidean,
Elliptic allow for the assignment of two new numbers of a spin up +1/2
or a spin down -1/2?
What last feature can a geometry have that is required?
My guess is direction of spin relative to an axis.
Due to the censorship of my posts by Google where they disappear
after a few hours on the poster board; here is a sequential list of
my more recent posts, please look athttp://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986
since Google New NewsGroups has censored and removed my posts
starting August 2012, and threatens to hide all of AP's 30,000 or
more posts from 1993 to present. Some computers like iphones show no
AP post after 1 hour of being posted. Other computers such as the Old
Google Newsgroups show the posts but have deleted the posts from the
archives starting August of 2012.
I consider the New Google Newsgroups as criminal activity because
sci.math, and sci.physics and other newsgroups are a part of Usenet,
not a Google entity and by the elimination of posts in a unmoderated
sci.math or sci.physics.electromag should have a different name such
as Google.censored.sci.physics.electromag.
I can no longer tell friends or colleagues look at my posts to
sci.physics.electromag because they will likely go to Google and none
will appear, and that, I consider criminal activity on the part of
Google.
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
three different types of geometry, hyperbolic, Euclidean, elliptic
with values of -1, 0, +1 respectively, it stands to reason that the
charge of elementary particles of physics are those geometries. So
that when a proton and electron and neutrino come together to form a
neutron we have elliptic and hyperbolic geometry coming together to
form a neutron as Euclidean geometry.
So now I have the last remaining piece of the puzzle to put together.
I have to explain how spin is featured. In Old Physics, they had spins
of 1/2, 1, 3/2 but in Old Physics they got those spin numbers from
Algebra demands and demands divorced of geometry or a true theory, for
the Standard Model is just a patchwork quilt of fake physics.
No-one of the Standard Model ever said that the charges of physics
were the 3 and only 3 geometries of mathematics. No-one of the
Standard Model ever said that the electron was hyperbolic geometry
while the proton was elliptic geometry.
Now there are many models of hyperbolic geometry, such as the saddle
shape or the trumpet shape or the pseudosphere shape or the hole shape
as in the Poincare disc. The hole shape can be said to occur in the
Faraday law where the moving bar magnet near a closed loop wire (a
hole) causes the electrons in the wire to form a current.
A better picture of a model of the electron are pictures of the lobes
often seen starting with the 3 p suborbitals of electrons. The p
subshell can hold 6 electrons and thus 3 p suborbitals and the shape
of the p suborbitals is that hyperbolic geometry of a elongated
trumpet or funnel shape which we call lobes.
So now I need to finish this up on the spin. I need to characterize
the three spin quantum numbers m_s of -1/2, 0, +1/2. Of course, the
Standard Model is wrong when they have all sorts of numbers such as +1
and 3/2 for that theory is a waffling fake theory.
So what features of the three geometries of Hyperbolic, Euclidean,
Elliptic allow for the assignment of two new numbers of a spin up +1/2
or a spin down -1/2?
What last feature can a geometry have that is required?
My guess is direction of spin relative to an axis.
Due to the censorship of my posts by Google where they disappear
after a few hours on the poster board; here is a sequential list of
my more recent posts, please look athttp://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986
since Google New NewsGroups has censored and removed my posts
starting August 2012, and threatens to hide all of AP's 30,000 or
more posts from 1993 to present. Some computers like iphones show no
AP post after 1 hour of being posted. Other computers such as the Old
Google Newsgroups show the posts but have deleted the posts from the
archives starting August of 2012.
I consider the New Google Newsgroups as criminal activity because
sci.math, and sci.physics and other newsgroups are a part of Usenet,
not a Google entity and by the elimination of posts in a unmoderated
sci.math or sci.physics.electromag should have a different name such
as Google.censored.sci.physics.electromag.
I can no longer tell friends or colleagues look at my posts to
sci.physics.electromag because they will likely go to Google and none
will appear, and that, I consider criminal activity on the part of
Google.
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
G=EMC^2
Oct 28, 2012, 7:00:10 PM10/28/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Oct 28, 5:00 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
> Archimedes Plutoniumhttp://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
theory is well accepted. All stuff spins. I listed some Black
holes,bosons every elementary particles and force particles. All big
stuff rotate. I'll throw this QM idea of mine electrons both spin,and
rotate: Yes its know "spin gives electrons magnetic properties to the
electron" My electon structure and my spin is in theory give all
the answers. Nobel thinking. TeBet
> whole entire Universe is just one big ato
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
My universe G = EMC^2 is in Google for all to see. My spin is in
theory is well accepted. All stuff spins. I listed some Black
holes,bosons every elementary particles and force particles. All big
stuff rotate. I'll throw this QM idea of mine electrons both spin,and
rotate: Yes its know "spin gives electrons magnetic properties to the
electron" My electon structure and my spin is in theory give all
the answers. Nobel thinking. TeBet
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 28, 2012, 10:28:30 PM10/28/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
and I see none of these "flagged and hidden posts for abuse". And I
see the above post which I am responding to. Now when I open an ipad
which has received cookies from Google and rigged the ipad to show New
Newsgroups, I see the above post not at all and hidden with the tag
"flagged for abuse". Now worse yet, when I open the iphone and look
under sci.physics.electromag the entire thread is hidden from view and
not allowed to access, so that I do not see the above, nor mine own
post.
Now what if Glen Herrmannsfeldt had responded to my original post or
to Treberts' above and I was using a iphone, then I would not be able
to read what Glen had posted.
Now the people at Drexel with their Math Forum are very smart and
bright people for they realized that they do not carry sci.math as a
unmoderated Usenet newsgroup because some changes are made and so what
Drexel has done is name sci.math as *** sci.math.independent *** to
let viewers realize that the Math Forum of Drexel uses sci.math but is
not really sci.math for it is different in various ways.
However, the people at Google seem to be lowbrows in understanding of
the sci. newsgroups and the sci hierarchy. Maybe the people at Google
feel they own all of the Internet and that when they use the name
sci.physics.electromag that it is really sci.physics.electromag and
that Google can flag posts for abuse and hide them and still call
their presentation of sci.physics.electromag as the unmoderated Usenet
newsgroup that is really sci.physics.electromag. Maybe it is because
the people at Google feel they own everything or maybe they learned
too much of how to censor from the Chinese as the Chinese chased the
Google people out of China.
So anyway, why cannot the people of Google change their titles of the
newsgroups since they actively moderate posts to unmoderated Usenet
newsgroups? How about calling sci.math as google.moderated.sci.math or
calling
sci.physics.electromag as google.moderated.sci.physics.electromag.
Why cannot Google be as bright and responsible as the people at
Drexel? Is it that the people of Google feel they own everything that
they cannot fix what should be fixed.
So if I had only my iphone accessing the Google newsgroups I would not
be able to see Treberts' above reply nor would I even see my own post
made earlier today, nor would I see Glen's post if Glen had posted.
Worse yet, since Google started this tagging and hiding of posts and
moderating of posts to sci.math, to sci.physics, to
sci.physics.electromag, to sci.chem I would not be able to see any
posts of Archimedes Plutonium from September to present day because
those hidden posts are not archived. So the direction that Google is
heading for, is where in the future, someone wanting to see some posts
out of 30,000 posts I posted from 1993 to 2012, that person would not
find a single post of Archimedes Plutonium. If my posts are destroyed
from September 2012 to present, then it is a short way of hiding all
posts of AP.
Now I believe a crime has been committed by Google on this. The crime
is that they call it sci.physics.electromag but in Usenet that
newsgroup is unmoderated. Yet Google keeps the title
sci.physics.electromag and still moderates all posts.
So my freedom of speech has been denied by Google, for hiding all my
posts of September to present 2012 and by hiding those posts about an
hour after appearing on a poster board of Google.
Worse yet, if I tell a friend or colleague to look at my post on
Maxwell Equations in sci.physics.electromag and they use Google, they
will not find it for it is hidden,
and end up thinking I was a liar.
So Google should change the name of the newsgroups to reflect the fact
that they are now all moderated. And Google ought to include the name
of the author of all posts that they hide, so that the viewer can
track down what post is hiding what. In fact, Google ought to allow
people to click on the post that is in hiding and recover what that
post is saying.
And as I said before, Google ought to realize that some features of
Google should not be moneygrubbing click on advertisement. That the
Newsgroups should be carried by Google as a compliment and not to be
tampered with to try to squeeze out money from viewers. People
interested in the science newsgroups are focused on science, not on
clicking on dumb irrelevant ads over on the right of the screen.
AP
Timothy Sutter
Oct 29, 2012, 2:43:01 AM10/29/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Archimodes Platonium wrote:
> > > whole entire Universe is just one big auto mobile
"that's highly significant" but what about chargers
and barracudas? i mean, they have those 442s,
they must be up there somewhere...
just remember, if yur gunna huff gasoline,
stick to high test
that regular is making you see things
speaking of "olde news"
NEWS FLASH: "google sux"
oh, gee, thanks for the late breaking headlines
way to stay on top of the story...
> > > whole entire Universe is just one big auto mobile
> > > where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
> > > and camaros and vettes and mustangs and gremlins
"that's highly significant" but what about chargers
and barracudas? i mean, they have those 442s,
they must be up there somewhere...
just remember, if yur gunna huff gasoline,
stick to high test
that regular is making you see things
speaking of "olde news"
NEWS FLASH: "google sux"
oh, gee, thanks for the late breaking headlines
way to stay on top of the story...
Timothy Sutter
Nov 3, 2012, 8:32:39 AM11/3/12
to
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Now when I use my full computer, it gives me the Old Google Newsgroups
> and I see none of these "flagged and hidden posts for abuse". And I
> see the above post which I am responding to. Now when I open an ipad
> which has received cookies from Google and rigged the ipad to show New
> Newsgroups, I see the above post not at all and hidden with the tag
> "flagged for abuse". Now worse yet, when I open the iphone and look
> under sci.physics.electromag the entire thread is hidden from view and
> not allowed to access, so that I do not see the above, nor mine own
> post.
1. i don't like the googlegroups archive much at all
> Now when I use my full computer, it gives me the Old Google Newsgroups
> and I see none of these "flagged and hidden posts for abuse". And I
> see the above post which I am responding to. Now when I open an ipad
> which has received cookies from Google and rigged the ipad to show New
> Newsgroups, I see the above post not at all and hidden with the tag
> "flagged for abuse". Now worse yet, when I open the iphone and look
> under sci.physics.electromag the entire thread is hidden from view and
> not allowed to access, so that I do not see the above, nor mine own
> post.
2. i don't read your articles very much.
having said that, i paid a visit to googlegroups archive
and saw some of your articles "flagged for abuse"
you can open them up anyway, and look at them, which i did,
and i see this at the top and/or bottom of the page;
"This topic has been flagged for abuse. Is this topic abusive? [Yes]
[No] "
this allows one to click [yes] if they agree
that the article is 'abusive,' or [no], if
they do not find the article to be 'abusive'
i clicked "No" on some of your articles,
but this does not take the 'abuse' flag
off immediately
i'm not interested so much so as to write google
and tell them that their 'abuse' flag is a piece of crap
but, evidently, someone has an inordinant control problem and
feels the need to police usenet newsgroups.
if given a vote, i'm certain i would vote for archi
and against the mad post flagger any day of the week.
you , archi, may take some solace in knowing that
some people may actually read your articles simply
-because- they were flagged for abuse ...
but not me, i still think your universal dot cloud idea is stoopid
i just don't think it's 'abusive'
in other words, i don't care -that- much, but
you can waste some of your time clicking the
"No" this article is not abusive button.
that way, at least, some eeediot at google will have
to actually look at the article and decide if it
is abusive or not
by what criteria such a decision is made,
only the eediot at google knows...
Timothy Sutter
Nov 3, 2012, 8:53:54 AM11/3/12
to
Timothy Sutter wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
=if= you wanted to go to the trouble of writing google
you could suggest that they could place the flag there
upon a single 'abuse' claim and =remove= that flag
upon a single "No" vote, and then take up their
'investigation' in quiet privacy before placing
some permanent 'abuse' flag on a given article.
they seem to not realize that the usenet archive
and 'googlegroups' are not the same thing.
usenet may 'suck' and googlegroups may 'suck' even worse
but usenet and googlegroups are non identical
of course, one does not -have to- go
through google groups to access usenet
this is good because, as some already know
google...'sucks'...period
most certainly does google 'suck'
as a usenet archive to be sure
there are actually several other issues that
tend to solidify the 'suckiness' attribute,
but i won't relate them now.
some issues with doing a google search
for olde articles 'suck' etc.
just remember, in the vernacular 'google sucks'
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
=if= you wanted to go to the trouble of writing google
you could suggest that they could place the flag there
upon a single 'abuse' claim and =remove= that flag
upon a single "No" vote, and then take up their
'investigation' in quiet privacy before placing
some permanent 'abuse' flag on a given article.
they seem to not realize that the usenet archive
and 'googlegroups' are not the same thing.
usenet may 'suck' and googlegroups may 'suck' even worse
but usenet and googlegroups are non identical
of course, one does not -have to- go
through google groups to access usenet
this is good because, as some already know
google...'sucks'...period
most certainly does google 'suck'
as a usenet archive to be sure
there are actually several other issues that
tend to solidify the 'suckiness' attribute,
but i won't relate them now.
some issues with doing a google search
for olde articles 'suck' etc.
just remember, in the vernacular 'google sucks'
Timothy Sutter
Nov 3, 2012, 9:03:21 AM11/3/12
to
Timothy Sutter wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> =if= you wanted to go to the trouble of writing google
> you could suggest that they could place the flag there
> upon a single 'abuse' claim and =remove= that flag
> upon a single "No" vote, and then take up their
> 'investigation' in quiet privacy before placing
> some permanent 'abuse' flag on a given article.
i mean, one can only guess at some of the 'vendettas'
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> =if= you wanted to go to the trouble of writing google
> you could suggest that they could place the flag there
> upon a single 'abuse' claim and =remove= that flag
> upon a single "No" vote, and then take up their
> 'investigation' in quiet privacy before placing
> some permanent 'abuse' flag on a given article.
that could arise with this thing where two factions
start flagging each other's articles for abuse out of spite
and the result is, that the entire shooting match is flagged for abuse
and this, in unmoderated usenet groups...
some eeediot at google had the bright idea of allowing people
to place 'gold stars' on articles from 1 star for a terrible
article to 5 stars for a good article and people in some
groups within groups would flag every article they didn't agree with
with 1 star diminutions and flag all of their own with 5 star praises.
and someone in google, of course, wouldn't -let- you even the score...
like i said, "google sucks"
Timothy Sutter
Nov 3, 2012, 9:09:45 AM11/3/12
to
> like i said, "google sucks"
it's real easy to use news.aioe.org or news.albasani.net
or news.eternal-september.org, albeit, they don't keep archives.
i never had liked the way google keeps the usenet archive
and am sorry deja-news ever gave it up to them.
Timothy Sutter
Nov 3, 2012, 9:15:23 AM11/3/12
to
[refrain] google....sucks
even -if- your dot cloud idea is STOOOOOOPIT
'K
G=EMC^2
Nov 3, 2012, 9:21:12 AM11/3/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Oct 28, 10:28 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
Google has gone in the same direction as America. Censership is in,and
freedoms are out. Free speech is long gone. TreBert
freedoms are out. Free speech is long gone. TreBert
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Nov 3, 2012, 9:23:05 AM11/3/12
to
"Timothy Sutter" <a20...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:509518...@lycos.com...
======================================
You have freedom of speech. I have the right not
to
listen to your deranged ranting.
*plonk*
Timothy Sutter
Nov 3, 2012, 9:27:28 AM11/3/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
see, cuz, not only does google put these eeediotic
bells and whistles on their site
but, they take sides...
sort of like the FBI -preventing- Moran from going after Caponi
and i mean -sort- of like, cuz it may not =really= be like that at all
some people just can't be hurt, no matter how you try
to stack the deck against them
which is why i don't really care all that much...
i just felt like posting a few posts
and i won't even try to unflag them, should they be flagged for abuse...
abuse...t e e h e e h e e
what a crock of beans...
i mean, if some one started talkin' 'bout my muvva
google would do squat
abuse... yeah right...
don't worry archi
maybe i'll even read one of your STOOOOPIT articles
Timothy Sutter
Nov 3, 2012, 9:31:33 AM11/3/12
to
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote in message...
> > > like i said, "google sucks"
> > it's real easy to use news.aioe.org or news.albasani.net
> > or news.eternal-september.org, albeit, they don't keep archives.
> > i never had liked the way google keeps the usenet archive
> > and am sorry deja-news ever gave it up to them.
> > like i said, "google sucks"
> in other words Archi, it's not -you- it's google
> [refrain] google....sucks
> even -if- your dot cloud idea is STOOOOOOPIT
> 'K
>
> ======================================
>
> You have freedom of speech. I have the right not to
> listen to your deranged ranting.
> *plonk*
yeah yeah yeah, and i can still reply to an article
that says i've been "killfiled"
that is, of course, if you -were- talking to me,
and not just agreeing with my views
> Timothy Sutter wrote in message...
> > > like i said, "google sucks"
> > it's real easy to use news.aioe.org or news.albasani.net
> > or news.eternal-september.org, albeit, they don't keep archives.
> > i never had liked the way google keeps the usenet archive
> > and am sorry deja-news ever gave it up to them.
> > like i said, "google sucks"
> in other words Archi, it's not -you- it's google
> [refrain] google....sucks
> even -if- your dot cloud idea is STOOOOOOPIT
> 'K
>
> ======================================
>
> You have freedom of speech. I have the right not to
> listen to your deranged ranting.
> *plonk*
that says i've been "killfiled"
that is, of course, if you -were- talking to me,
and not just agreeing with my views
Larry Harson
Nov 3, 2012, 3:31:12 PM11/3/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
sci.math and sci.physics.electromag?
I don't.
I'm not against Archie posting his theory in sci.physics.particle
where it belongs. Yet despite being told this, he continues to spam in
a selfish way without any thought for the people within that group. He
comes across as a self-absorbed egotist who can't look outside of
himself.
Larry
[snipped]
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 3, 2012, 6:26:38 PM11/3/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
My posts are no longer archived in a author search and my posts are
hidden because of the actions of Harson.
This is a crime, for my freedom of speech is denied to a unmoderated
newsgroup.
If it were named Google.moderated.sci.physics.electromag the actions
of Harson would not be criminal.
Does anyone have a legal residence address of Harson in the UK which
will be a lawsuit naming Harson and Google for violating my freedom of
speech in an unmoderated newsgroup that has the same name as
sci.physics.electromag of Usenet.
When Google set up its New Google Newsgroups, Google failed to realize
there would be very many creeps such as Harson who wants to run around
and suppress all the other people who post and which he hates. Harson
does not belong as a poster to Usenet or to Google groups, but belongs
in a asylum, in my opinion, along with all the other redneck
suppressionist that want to stop people from voicing their freedom of
speech.
Harson never learned how to use a filter file like so many others.
And Harson should have gone to a moderated newsgroup where he is
entitled to censor and demanded to censor. But a Harson in a
unmoderated newsgroup only spells disaster for that newsgroup with a
Harson present.
Google should be named in the lawsuit since it failed to protect
posters from these censoring bullies.
AP
Timothy Sutter
Nov 3, 2012, 8:23:05 PM11/3/12
to
Larry Harson wrote:
i don't think he's -spamming- anything,
he is posting things to places -he- feels
are appropriate.
if you don't like them, don't read them, it's that simple.
only a sick bastard of the lowest order would try
to prevent other people from seeing posts just
because he or she didn't like them.
> I'm not against Archie posting his theory in sci.physics.particle
> where it belongs. Yet despite being told this, he continues to spam in
> a selfish way without any thought for the people within that group. He
> comes across as a self-absorbed egotist who can't look outside of
> himself.
archi feels his posts are topical in these groups;
sci.physics sci.physics.electromag sci.math sci.chem
in your opinion, his posts are misplaced and this because
you don't seem to like him, personally, because he doesn't
seem to want to talk to you.
maybe this is because you have nothing to say
on the topic of his interest and only have things
to say on where people post their articles.
i suggest you learn to ignore what you don't like
and leave archi to his hobby.
not that i care all that much, because,
i don't use googlegroups...
and giving mindless bastards a weapon like that
to use is not making me want to run out
and use googlegroups.
he is posting things to places -he- feels
are appropriate.
if you don't like them, don't read them, it's that simple.
only a sick bastard of the lowest order would try
to prevent other people from seeing posts just
because he or she didn't like them.
> I'm not against Archie posting his theory in sci.physics.particle
> where it belongs. Yet despite being told this, he continues to spam in
> a selfish way without any thought for the people within that group. He
> comes across as a self-absorbed egotist who can't look outside of
> himself.
sci.physics sci.physics.electromag sci.math sci.chem
in your opinion, his posts are misplaced and this because
you don't seem to like him, personally, because he doesn't
seem to want to talk to you.
maybe this is because you have nothing to say
on the topic of his interest and only have things
to say on where people post their articles.
i suggest you learn to ignore what you don't like
and leave archi to his hobby.
not that i care all that much, because,
i don't use googlegroups...
and giving mindless bastards a weapon like that
to use is not making me want to run out
and use googlegroups.
Timothy Sutter
Nov 3, 2012, 8:55:18 PM11/3/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Timothy Sutter wrote:
> Larry Harson wrote:
> > > but, evidently, someone has an inordinant control problem and
> > > feels the need to police usenet newsgroups.
> > > if given a vote, i'm certain i would vote for archi
> > > and against the mad post flagger any day of the week.
> > Do you think it's OK spamming a theory about particle physics in
> > sci.math and sci.physics.electromag?
> > I don't.
but anyway, from what little i've gleaned from
archi's titles and cursory glances of his posts
he maintains that quantum mechanics is reducible
to entailments of the =Maxwell= equations
so, you, are just plain flat out wrong that
he is posting off topic to sci.physics.electromag
> Larry Harson wrote:
> > > but, evidently, someone has an inordinant control problem and
> > > feels the need to police usenet newsgroups.
> > > if given a vote, i'm certain i would vote for archi
> > > and against the mad post flagger any day of the week.
> > Do you think it's OK spamming a theory about particle physics in
> > sci.math and sci.physics.electromag?
> > I don't.
archi's titles and cursory glances of his posts
he maintains that quantum mechanics is reducible
to entailments of the =Maxwell= equations
so, you, are just plain flat out wrong that
he is posting off topic to sci.physics.electromag
blackhead
Nov 3, 2012, 9:53:09 PM11/3/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Most of it seems relevant to particle physics or sci.physics such as
this:
"In Old Physics, they had spins
of 1/2, 1, 3/2 but in Old Physics they got those spin numbers from
Algebra demands and demands divorced of geometry or a true theory,
for
the Standard Model is just a patchwork quilt of fake physics."
sci.physics.electromag?
Larry.
Timothy Sutter
Nov 3, 2012, 10:18:33 PM11/3/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
blackhead wrote:
here's a few;
===
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/sci.chem/OijUKFXC5BE
"flagged for abuse" by some mindless renta cop
Faraday Law in Symmetrical Maxwell Eq has a positron Chapt13.40095
all of physics from 4 Maxwell Eq + Chemistry #888 New Physics
#1008 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
This looks to be a winning combination, where I proffer the idea last
night and said I would sleep on it to see if it pays in clarity by
next morning. Last night I offered the idea that the photon is a
transverse wave of E and B due to Maxwell Equations. So which Equation
would that be exactly? Well if we look at the Ampere/Maxwell law with
its displacement current-- A changing electric field or current or
both yield a magnetic field plus a displacement current.
We can see in the Ampere/Maxwell law that a photon is the Ampere/
Maxwell law as a transverse wave where the E field is the changing
electric field and tagging along is the B field as the displacement
current.
So now, in the Symmetrical Maxwell Equations we no longer have
Faraday's law as simply-- Changing magnetic field produces a electric
field. For now, we have to include a magnetic current density J term.
So in the Symmetrical Maxwell Equations, the Faraday law becomes a --
Changing magnetic field produces a electric field plus a magnetic
current density.
===
===
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/sci.physics/E2YhWwCQp3M
Chapt13.40093 Aufbau Principle derived purely from
Maxwell Equations #835 New Physics #955 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
So I need to make progress on the Maxwell Equations deriving the
Aufbau Principle. And at first glance it appears very difficult, but
not really. For if we look at the anomalies of the aufbau in building
the subshells in the d and f subshells that we have a large number of
anomalies. So that hints that the quantum mechanics is insufficient
and needs something more powerful in order to have reality match
theory. And there is only one thing remaining in physics other than
quantum theory and that is the Maxwell Equations. So where quantum
mechanics has a lot of anomalies, it takes the Maxwell Equations to
remove the anomalies. But those are very complicated details.
The method I am going to pursue to prove that the Aufbau comes from
Maxwell Equations is more on a mathematical means of proof. Most
physicists were never mathematicians and so most physicists would not
understand that in mathematics there are two proof methods, the direct
and the indirect. The direct method is more detailed in that it is a
step by step progression, while the indirect method places all the
known truths of mathematics and pits them against a false assertion.
If the known truths of mathematics are violated by the new false
assertion, we accept the reverse assertion as being a truth itself.
Most physicists are foreign to the mathematical method of indirect
proof, because most physicists really do not have enough logic to do
either physics or mathematics. But let me continue.
===
and then he yammers on and on about how he is proving
aspects of quantum mechanics as entailmenst of
the Maxwell equations
===
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/sci.physics/6tsEvTc2v-o
numerics of superconductivity Chapt13.40091 Superconductivity
in New Physics #818 New Physics #938 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
The Maxwell Equations, also are the basis for the Aufbau principle and
can derive that principle and how it is related to temperature. So
that as we lower the temperature of technetium or niobium or lead or
mercury we achieve superconductivity yet
never superconductivity in silver. And if we fabricate compounds of
atoms, where one specific atom switches subshells and the surrounding
atoms offer stability for the superconductor, is another means of
superconductivity. But one mechanism explains all forms of
superconductivity.
===
here's 116 posts where he mentions his
yammerings about teh maxwell equations;
=
http://tinyurl.com/amwjn5u
=
here's how some describe the Maxwell equations;
===
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxeq.html
Maxwell's equations represent one of the most elegant and concise
ways to state the fundamentals of electricity and magnetism. From
them one can develop most of the working relationships in the field.
Because of their concise statement, they embody a high level of
mathematical sophistication and are therefore not generally
introduced in an introductory treatment of the subject,
except perhaps as summary relationships.
These basic equations of electricity and magnetism can be used
as a starting point for advanced courses, but are usually first
encountered as unifying equations after the study of
electrical and magnetic phenomena.
===
it matters not at all if -archi- is right or wrong...
-you-, are wrong...
"blackhead" is probably a good name for you...
===
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/sci.chem/OijUKFXC5BE
"flagged for abuse" by some mindless renta cop
Faraday Law in Symmetrical Maxwell Eq has a positron Chapt13.40095
all of physics from 4 Maxwell Eq + Chemistry #888 New Physics
#1008 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
This looks to be a winning combination, where I proffer the idea last
night and said I would sleep on it to see if it pays in clarity by
next morning. Last night I offered the idea that the photon is a
transverse wave of E and B due to Maxwell Equations. So which Equation
would that be exactly? Well if we look at the Ampere/Maxwell law with
its displacement current-- A changing electric field or current or
both yield a magnetic field plus a displacement current.
We can see in the Ampere/Maxwell law that a photon is the Ampere/
Maxwell law as a transverse wave where the E field is the changing
electric field and tagging along is the B field as the displacement
current.
So now, in the Symmetrical Maxwell Equations we no longer have
Faraday's law as simply-- Changing magnetic field produces a electric
field. For now, we have to include a magnetic current density J term.
So in the Symmetrical Maxwell Equations, the Faraday law becomes a --
Changing magnetic field produces a electric field plus a magnetic
current density.
===
===
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/sci.physics/E2YhWwCQp3M
Chapt13.40093 Aufbau Principle derived purely from
Maxwell Equations #835 New Physics #955 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
So I need to make progress on the Maxwell Equations deriving the
Aufbau Principle. And at first glance it appears very difficult, but
not really. For if we look at the anomalies of the aufbau in building
the subshells in the d and f subshells that we have a large number of
anomalies. So that hints that the quantum mechanics is insufficient
and needs something more powerful in order to have reality match
theory. And there is only one thing remaining in physics other than
quantum theory and that is the Maxwell Equations. So where quantum
mechanics has a lot of anomalies, it takes the Maxwell Equations to
remove the anomalies. But those are very complicated details.
The method I am going to pursue to prove that the Aufbau comes from
Maxwell Equations is more on a mathematical means of proof. Most
physicists were never mathematicians and so most physicists would not
understand that in mathematics there are two proof methods, the direct
and the indirect. The direct method is more detailed in that it is a
step by step progression, while the indirect method places all the
known truths of mathematics and pits them against a false assertion.
If the known truths of mathematics are violated by the new false
assertion, we accept the reverse assertion as being a truth itself.
Most physicists are foreign to the mathematical method of indirect
proof, because most physicists really do not have enough logic to do
either physics or mathematics. But let me continue.
===
and then he yammers on and on about how he is proving
aspects of quantum mechanics as entailmenst of
the Maxwell equations
===
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/sci.physics/6tsEvTc2v-o
numerics of superconductivity Chapt13.40091 Superconductivity
in New Physics #818 New Physics #938 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
The Maxwell Equations, also are the basis for the Aufbau principle and
can derive that principle and how it is related to temperature. So
that as we lower the temperature of technetium or niobium or lead or
mercury we achieve superconductivity yet
never superconductivity in silver. And if we fabricate compounds of
atoms, where one specific atom switches subshells and the surrounding
atoms offer stability for the superconductor, is another means of
superconductivity. But one mechanism explains all forms of
superconductivity.
===
here's 116 posts where he mentions his
yammerings about teh maxwell equations;
=
http://tinyurl.com/amwjn5u
=
here's how some describe the Maxwell equations;
===
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxeq.html
Maxwell's equations represent one of the most elegant and concise
ways to state the fundamentals of electricity and magnetism. From
them one can develop most of the working relationships in the field.
Because of their concise statement, they embody a high level of
mathematical sophistication and are therefore not generally
introduced in an introductory treatment of the subject,
except perhaps as summary relationships.
These basic equations of electricity and magnetism can be used
as a starting point for advanced courses, but are usually first
encountered as unifying equations after the study of
electrical and magnetic phenomena.
===
it matters not at all if -archi- is right or wrong...
-you-, are wrong...
"blackhead" is probably a good name for you...
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 4, 2012, 12:52:56 AM11/4/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
>
> "flagged for abuse" by some mindless renta cop
>
> Faraday Law in Symmetrical Maxwell Eq has a positron Chapt13.40095
> all of physics from 4 Maxwell Eq + Chemistry #888 New Physics
> #1008 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
>
> This looks to be a winning combination, where I proffer the idea last
> night and said I would sleep on it to see if it pays in clarity by
> next morning. Last night I offered the idea that the photon is a
> transverse wave of E and B due to Maxwell Equations. So which Equation
> would that be exactly? Well if we look at the Ampere/Maxwell law with
> its displacement current-- A changing electric field or current or
> both yield a magnetic field plus a displacement current.
>
> We can see in the Ampere/Maxwell law that a photon is the Ampere/
> Maxwell law as a transverse wave where the E field is the changing
> electric field and tagging along is the B field as the displacement
> current.
>
> So now, in the Symmetrical Maxwell Equations we no longer have
> Faraday's law as simply-- Changing magnetic field produces a electric
> field. For now, we have to include a magnetic current density J term.
> So in the Symmetrical Maxwell Equations, the Faraday law becomes a --
> Changing magnetic field produces a electric field plus a magnetic
> current density.
> ===
>
> ===https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/sci.physics/E2YhW...
> "flagged for abuse" by some mindless renta cop
>
> Faraday Law in Symmetrical Maxwell Eq has a positron Chapt13.40095
> all of physics from 4 Maxwell Eq + Chemistry #888 New Physics
> #1008 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
>
> This looks to be a winning combination, where I proffer the idea last
> night and said I would sleep on it to see if it pays in clarity by
> next morning. Last night I offered the idea that the photon is a
> transverse wave of E and B due to Maxwell Equations. So which Equation
> would that be exactly? Well if we look at the Ampere/Maxwell law with
> its displacement current-- A changing electric field or current or
> both yield a magnetic field plus a displacement current.
>
> We can see in the Ampere/Maxwell law that a photon is the Ampere/
> Maxwell law as a transverse wave where the E field is the changing
> electric field and tagging along is the B field as the displacement
> current.
>
> So now, in the Symmetrical Maxwell Equations we no longer have
> Faraday's law as simply-- Changing magnetic field produces a electric
> field. For now, we have to include a magnetic current density J term.
> So in the Symmetrical Maxwell Equations, the Faraday law becomes a --
> Changing magnetic field produces a electric field plus a magnetic
> current density.
> ===
>
>
> numerics of superconductivity Chapt13.40091 Superconductivity
> in New Physics #818 New Physics #938 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
>
> The Maxwell Equations, also are the basis for the Aufbau principle and
> can derive that principle and how it is related to temperature. So
> that as we lower the temperature of technetium or niobium or lead or
> mercury we achieve superconductivity yet
> never superconductivity in silver. And if we fabricate compounds of
> atoms, where one specific atom switches subshells and the surrounding
> atoms offer stability for the superconductor, is another means of
> superconductivity. But one mechanism explains all forms of
> superconductivity.
>
> ===
>
> here's 116 posts where he mentions his
> yammerings about teh maxwell equations;
> =http://tinyurl.com/amwjn5u
> numerics of superconductivity Chapt13.40091 Superconductivity
> in New Physics #818 New Physics #938 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
>
> The Maxwell Equations, also are the basis for the Aufbau principle and
> can derive that principle and how it is related to temperature. So
> that as we lower the temperature of technetium or niobium or lead or
> mercury we achieve superconductivity yet
> never superconductivity in silver. And if we fabricate compounds of
> atoms, where one specific atom switches subshells and the surrounding
> atoms offer stability for the superconductor, is another means of
> superconductivity. But one mechanism explains all forms of
> superconductivity.
>
> ===
>
> here's 116 posts where he mentions his
> yammerings about teh maxwell equations;
> =
>
> here's how some describe the Maxwell equations;
>
> ===http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxeq.html
>
> here's how some describe the Maxwell equations;
>
>
> Maxwell's equations represent one of the most elegant and concise
> ways to state the fundamentals of electricity and magnetism. From
> them one can develop most of the working relationships in the field.
> Because of their concise statement, they embody a high level of
> mathematical sophistication and are therefore not generally
> introduced in an introductory treatment of the subject,
> except perhaps as summary relationships.
>
> These basic equations of electricity and magnetism can be used
> as a starting point for advanced courses, but are usually first
> encountered as unifying equations after the study of
> electrical and magnetic phenomena.
> ===
>
> it matters not at all if -archi- is right or wrong...
>
> -you-, are wrong...
>
> "blackhead" is probably a good name for you...
Thanks Tim, for you help on restoring my posts and especially to the
> Maxwell's equations represent one of the most elegant and concise
> ways to state the fundamentals of electricity and magnetism. From
> them one can develop most of the working relationships in the field.
> Because of their concise statement, they embody a high level of
> mathematical sophistication and are therefore not generally
> introduced in an introductory treatment of the subject,
> except perhaps as summary relationships.
>
> These basic equations of electricity and magnetism can be used
> as a starting point for advanced courses, but are usually first
> encountered as unifying equations after the study of
> electrical and magnetic phenomena.
> ===
>
> it matters not at all if -archi- is right or wrong...
>
> -you-, are wrong...
>
> "blackhead" is probably a good name for you...
archive of Google.
On my iphone, my posts never appear.
On my ipad, not posts of mine since end of August appear in a author
search.
It is highly unfair that Google has given so much control to a rogue.
I would appreciate it if my posts could be restored, especially the
archive.
Otherwise I have to use Drexel's Math Forum to alert readers where
they can follow my posts.
I do not think Google intended this to happen, but it has, and I need
Google to fix it. Any help is appreciated.
AP
Timothy Sutter
Nov 4, 2012, 1:45:32 AM11/4/12
to
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Thanks Tim, for you help on restoring my posts and especially to the
> archive of Google.
> On my iphone, my posts never appear.
if you look here;
> Thanks Tim, for you help on restoring my posts and especially to the
> archive of Google.
> On my iphone, my posts never appear.
http://science.niuz.biz/newsgroup-f113.html
http://science.niuz.biz/sitemap/science-f1.html
you see your posts archived at a different place, not google.
http://science.niuz.biz/sendmessage.php
you may be able to register with Docendi.org
and get posting priveleges there and not
have to worry about google anymore.
have fun...
Jos Bergervoet
Nov 4, 2012, 2:56:28 AM11/4/12
to
On 11/4/2012 1:23 AM, Timothy Sutter wrote:
> Larry Harson wrote:
...
> Larry Harson wrote:
...
> archi feels his posts are topical in these groups;
> sci.physics sci.physics.electromag sci.math sci.chem
They should be in: alt.sci.physics.plutonium
> sci.physics sci.physics.electromag sci.math sci.chem
> in your opinion, his posts are misplaced and this
here. Read the charter.
> because
> you don't seem to like him, personally, because he doesn't
know Archie personally and I can't say I don't
like him (in contrast to you: you succeed in
being really irritating from the start! :-)
...
> i suggest you learn to ignore what you don't like
> and leave archi to his hobby.
> not that i care all that much, because,
> i don't use googlegroups...
The whole matter is of little importance. Still,
> and leave archi to his hobby.
> not that i care all that much, because,
> i don't use googlegroups...
it's nice to see that Archie is really annoyed
by this flagging of his posts! (Kind of returning
the favor he's doing us.)
Go Larry, go!
--
Jos
Timothy Sutter
Nov 4, 2012, 3:39:08 AM11/4/12
to
Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Larry Harson wrote:
> > archi feels his posts are topical in these groups;
> > sci.physics sci.physics.electromag sci.math sci.chem
> They should be in: alt.sci.physics.plutonium
but they -are- in sci.physics sci.physics.electromag sci.math sci.chem
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Larry Harson wrote:
> > archi feels his posts are topical in these groups;
> > sci.physics sci.physics.electromag sci.math sci.chem
> They should be in: alt.sci.physics.plutonium
and all the pissing and moaning and whining in the world will not
alter this fact.
> > in your opinion, his posts are misplaced and this
> In the opinion of most people they are misplaced
> here. Read the charter.
from each of these groups; sci.physics sci.physics.electromag
sci.math sci.chem to post statements to the effect that they
'feel' that archi's posts are untopical, i -may- consider as
how "most" people 'feel' that way, -but- antidisirregardless
of that, archi's posts may still very well -be- topical
in the groups to which he has chosen to offer them up.
that's in -my- version of the so-called 'charter'
that there may be conflicting charters is no strange thing at all.
> > because
> > you don't seem to like him, personally, because he doesn't
> In contrast to Larry (if you're right) I don't
> know Archie personally and I can't say I don't
> like him (in contrast to you: you succeed in
> being really irritating from the start! :-)
and now, certainly, talking -about- archi's posts is topical
and so, you'd better alter your version of the so-called "charter"
to reflect this sub-topic of personal remarks.
apparently, sci.physics.electromag et all
have sub-topics about personal character,
otherwise, -you- would not see fit to make
public statements in these groups to that effect
seeing as how -you- are such an expert on what
-your- version of the so-called "charter"
says is topical.
> ...
> > i suggest you learn to ignore what you don't like
> > and leave archi to his hobby.
> > not that i care all that much, because,
> > i don't use googlegroups...
> The whole matter is of little importance. Still,
> it's nice to see that Archie is really annoyed
> by this flagging of his posts! (Kind of returning
> the favor he's doing us.)
you keep by your bedside.
> Go Larry, go!
oh, and "larry" your newfound boon companion
who need to start up a -nuther- new group
alt.netcop-useless-control-freak
Timothy Sutter
Nov 4, 2012, 4:15:45 AM11/4/12
to
> > > in your opinion, his posts are misplaced and this
> > In the opinion of most people they are misplaced
> > here. Read the charter.
now is about the time to introduce hockey in to the subject matter
> > In the opinion of most people they are misplaced
> > here. Read the charter.
inasmuch as undoubtedly, a great deal of physics and chemistry
and mathermatics and electromagnetism is involved in the game
of hockey and so, reporting the hockey scores, is most definitely,
on topic, if not moreso than archi's posts on the derivation
of quantim mechainics from the maxwell equations.
so, was Bobby Orr a 'nice' guy?
just remember, persoanl character is
on topic according to the charter/s
so, was Bobby Orr a 'nice' guy
or did he have an electrical discharge in his brain
that made him lose all of his teeth?
Timothy Sutter
Nov 4, 2012, 6:42:54 AM11/4/12
to
here's the "charter as set out upon
the inception of sci.physics.electromag
===
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/sci.physics.electromag/PZqfRl8ze78
Automatic-Newsgrou...@tardis.Tymnet.COM Sign in to reply 3/6/94
Other recipients:
tymix.Tymnet.COM!uunet!tale requested that
a new newsgroup called 'sci.physics.electromag' be created.
It was approved by ta...@uunet.uu.net
tymix.Tymnet.COM!uunet!tale says:
sci.physics.electromag is an unmoderated newsgroup which passed its vote
for
creation by 240:11 as reported in news.announce.newgroups on 24 Feb
1994.
For your newsgroups file:
sci.physics.electromag Electromagnetic theory and applications.
CHARTER
sci.physics.electromag will be dedicated to the discussion of topics
pertaining to electromagnetics. These include, but are not limited
to:
electromagnetic wave theory computational EM modeling
microwave devices and circuits antenna design
electromagnetic interference biological effects
ELF and VLF fields EM measurements
wave propagation shielding
electrostatic discharge new RF devices and technology
===
here's a recent archie post;
a post that was actually marked as "abuse"
===
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/sci.chem/OijUKFXC5BE
We can see in the Ampere/Maxwell law that a photon is the Ampere/
Maxwell law as a transverse wave where the E field is the changing
electric field and tagging along is the B field as the displacement
current.
So now, in the Symmetrical Maxwell Equations we no longer have
Faraday's law as simply-- Changing magnetic field produces a electric
field. For now, we have to include a magnetic current density J term.
So in the Symmetrical Maxwell Equations, the Faraday law becomes a --
Changing magnetic field produces a electric field plus a magnetic
current density.
So what is the Faraday law in Symmetrical Maxwell Equations?
Since the Ampere/Maxwell law is a analog of the photon as a transverse
wave of E and B fields, the Faraday law is a transverse wave of the M-
field and the M+ field.
===
there ain't much of a sci.math charter to be found...
so, if anyone is breaking a "law" here,
it's the netcops who are in the wrong.
no, i'm not against law and order
and things of that nature.
i have respect for police
i have no respect for bogus net cops.
"And that's all I have to say about that."
the inception of sci.physics.electromag
===
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/sci.physics.electromag/PZqfRl8ze78
Automatic-Newsgrou...@tardis.Tymnet.COM Sign in to reply 3/6/94
Other recipients:
tymix.Tymnet.COM!uunet!tale requested that
a new newsgroup called 'sci.physics.electromag' be created.
It was approved by ta...@uunet.uu.net
tymix.Tymnet.COM!uunet!tale says:
sci.physics.electromag is an unmoderated newsgroup which passed its vote
for
creation by 240:11 as reported in news.announce.newgroups on 24 Feb
1994.
For your newsgroups file:
sci.physics.electromag Electromagnetic theory and applications.
CHARTER
sci.physics.electromag will be dedicated to the discussion of topics
pertaining to electromagnetics. These include, but are not limited
to:
electromagnetic wave theory computational EM modeling
microwave devices and circuits antenna design
electromagnetic interference biological effects
ELF and VLF fields EM measurements
wave propagation shielding
electrostatic discharge new RF devices and technology
===
here's a recent archie post;
a post that was actually marked as "abuse"
===
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/sci.chem/OijUKFXC5BE
We can see in the Ampere/Maxwell law that a photon is the Ampere/
Maxwell law as a transverse wave where the E field is the changing
electric field and tagging along is the B field as the displacement
current.
So now, in the Symmetrical Maxwell Equations we no longer have
Faraday's law as simply-- Changing magnetic field produces a electric
field. For now, we have to include a magnetic current density J term.
So in the Symmetrical Maxwell Equations, the Faraday law becomes a --
Changing magnetic field produces a electric field plus a magnetic
current density.
Since the Ampere/Maxwell law is a analog of the photon as a transverse
wave of E and B fields, the Faraday law is a transverse wave of the M-
field and the M+ field.
===
there ain't much of a sci.math charter to be found...
so, if anyone is breaking a "law" here,
it's the netcops who are in the wrong.
no, i'm not against law and order
and things of that nature.
i have respect for police
i have no respect for bogus net cops.
"And that's all I have to say about that."
Timothy Sutter
Nov 4, 2012, 6:50:56 AM11/4/12
to
Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
> here's the "charter as set out upon
> the inception of sci.physics.electromag
>
> ===
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/sci.physics.electromag/PZqfRl8ze78
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/sci.physics.electromag/PZqfRl8ze78
>
> here's the "charter as set out upon
> the inception of sci.physics.electromag
>
> ===
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/sci.physics.electromag/PZqfRl8ze78
Timothy Sutter
Nov 4, 2012, 7:01:48 AM11/4/12
to
> > so, if anyone is breaking a "law" here,
> > it's the netcops who are in the wrong.
> > no, i'm not against law and order
> > and things of that nature.
> > i have respect for police
> > i have no respect for bogus net cops.
> > "And that's all I have to say about that."
see, but this little "flag" for abuse thing
> > it's the netcops who are in the wrong.
> > no, i'm not against law and order
> > and things of that nature.
> > i have respect for police
> > i have no respect for bogus net cops.
> > "And that's all I have to say about that."
tends to criminalize a poster based on
a single person's =accusation= of wrongdoing.
whereupon google drags its feet 'investigating' the situation
meanwhile the post is publicly -called- abusive
based on an =accusation= alone.
and that ain't "kosher"
Timothy Sutter
Nov 4, 2012, 7:10:32 AM11/4/12
to
"google sucks"
sort of like "guilty until proven innocent"
"that man killed my dog"
""bind him hand and foot and throw him in the river,
and if he floats, we'll know he was innocent""
=not= "kosher"
Larry Harson
Nov 4, 2012, 12:48:50 PM11/4/12
to
from Archie's original posting is relevant to sci.physics.electromag?
I flagged this thread because I don't see its relevance here. So
please put me right if you think I'm wrong. Neither do I flag all his
posts, just those which are more in the field of particle physics and
shamelessly using the name "Maxwell" to justify their inclusion in
sci.physics.electromag. Next he'll be posting cooking recipies here
based upon Maxwell's equations.
If he cross-posts, then it increases the likely hood of them being
flagged as not appropriate to some newsgroup, don't you think?
Regards,
Larry.
Timothy Sutter
Nov 4, 2012, 1:39:10 PM11/4/12
to
Larry Harson wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > blackhead wrote:
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > Larry Harson wrote:
> > > > > > > but, evidently, someone has an inordinant control problem and
> > > > > > > feels the need to police usenet newsgroups.
> > > > > > > if given a vote, i'm certain i would vote for archi
> > > > > > > and against the mad post flagger any day of the week.
> > > > > > Do you think it's OK spamming a theory about particle physics in
> > > > > > sci.math and sci.physics.electromag?
> > > > > > I don't.
> > > > but anyway, from what little i've gleaned from
> > > > archi's titles and cursory glances of his posts
> > > > he maintains that quantum mechanics is reducible
> > > > to entailments of the =Maxwell= equations
> > > > so, you, are just plain flat out wrong that
> > > > he is posting off topic to sci.physics.electromag
"titles and posts"
obviously considering other threads and other posts.
> > > Really?
> > > Most of it seems relevant to particle physics or sci.physics such as
> > > this:
> > > "In Old Physics, they had spins
> > > of 1/2, 1, 3/2 but in Old Physics they got those spin numbers from
> > > Algebra demands and demands divorced of geometry or a true theory,
> > > for
> > > the Standard Model is just a patchwork quilt of fake physics."
> > > Which part of the OP do you think has a place in
> > > sci.physics.electromag?
> > here's a few;
> I was asking about THIS thread.
do you really say that this one thread is alone
being considered by this statement?
you say;
of topicallity and not sales or other such things
some people have a problem with.
i obviously was considering many threads and posts
and inasmuch as you say "theory" i suggest that you were speaking
of more than a single post or thread but the entire body of posts
and threads that archi seems intent on posting to several groups
simultaneously, which is a common practice, and allowed by google
groups.
which is to say, that, if google groups objected to crossposting,
googlegroups would not allow it to be done at all.
> So again, what content do you think from Archie's
> original posting is relevant to sci.physics.electromag?
in the first post of this thread, archi is yammering
about "charge" as it relates to "The Standard Model"
===
archie says:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.chem/8JXMY9nMKHk/Pv2WB0tUY1AJ
No-one of the Standard Model ever said that the charges of physics
were the 3 and only 3 geometries of mathematics. No-one of the
Standard Model ever said that the electron was hyperbolic geometry
while the proton was elliptic geometry.
===
here's how wikipedia describes the "standard model";
[sure, wikipedia is good enough for this purpose...]
===
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
The Standard Model of particle physics is
a theory concerning the electromagnetic,
weak, and strong nuclear interactions , which
mediate the dynamics of the known subatomic particles
===
now, if archi is yammering opn about the Standard Model
and this Standard Model concerns itself with electromagnetic
properties of subatomic particles then, -you- tell -me- how
archi's post is not topical in your august opinion.
> I flagged this thread because I don't see its relevance here.
it looks to me like you are just plain flat out wrong in doing so.
> So please put me right if you think I'm wrong.
maybe you should actually read a post
before you decide it is off topic.
it makes it -look- as if you...
it seems as if this will fall on deaf ears so,
i'll "skip it" as it were.
> Neither do I flag all his
> posts, just those which are more in the field of particle physics and
> shamelessly using the name "Maxwell" to justify their inclusion in
> sci.physics.electromag.
it is -possible- that "particle physics" and electromagnetism
are not entirely divorced one from the other and considerable
overlap is inevitable
and so, -crossposting- is a reasonable action -and-
one that is -not- dissallowed by googlegroups.
so, if your major objection -is- "crossposting"
maybe, perhaps, you should take that up with googlegroups first,
before you take it upion yourself to accuse anyone of being
"abusive" to a particular usenet newsgroup.
> Next he'll be posting cooking recipies here
> based upon Maxwell's equations.
he may very well, and if he includes bits
on the Amana radar range, also known as
a "microwave oven" that recipe may very well -be-
related to electromagnetism in some broad fashion.
==
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/11/dangerous-truth-behind-microwaves.html
Microwaves are a form of electromagnetic radiation and are on the low
energy
end of the energy spectrum, second to radio waves. Microwaves are
generated
by something called a magnetron � something found within every microwave
oven.
Magnetrons produce an electromagnetic field with a microwave frequency
of approximate 2,450 megaHertz (MGz), which is the equivalent to 2.4
gigaHertz (GHz).
Microwaves produced within the microwave oven cause dialectric heating �
they bounce around the inside of the oven and are absorbed by whatever
you put in it
==
there, now someone's microwave brownie recipe is topical.
see how easy this is?
> If he cross-posts, then it increases the likely hood of them being
> flagged as not appropriate to some newsgroup, don't you think?
only by some person with a very narrow view
of what constitutes "topicallity"
you may do well to exhaust all aspects of possible topicallity
before you rush to press your little fingers on the new toy
provided to you.
if you say that the topic is not that
interesting to you in the first place
and that your only concern is in keeping
-your- little newsgroup clean and tidy,
then, thank you for -being- the example
that you are being.
albeit, that example is not one that
should be -encouraged- for emulation
nor that i would point to as a model
for appropriate behavior.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > blackhead wrote:
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > Larry Harson wrote:
> > > > > > > but, evidently, someone has an inordinant control problem and
> > > > > > > feels the need to police usenet newsgroups.
> > > > > > > if given a vote, i'm certain i would vote for archi
> > > > > > > and against the mad post flagger any day of the week.
> > > > > > Do you think it's OK spamming a theory about particle physics in
> > > > > > sci.math and sci.physics.electromag?
> > > > > > I don't.
> > > > but anyway, from what little i've gleaned from
> > > > archi's titles and cursory glances of his posts
> > > > he maintains that quantum mechanics is reducible
> > > > to entailments of the =Maxwell= equations
> > > > so, you, are just plain flat out wrong that
> > > > he is posting off topic to sci.physics.electromag
obviously considering other threads and other posts.
> > > Really?
> > > Most of it seems relevant to particle physics or sci.physics such as
> > > this:
> > > "In Old Physics, they had spins
> > > of 1/2, 1, 3/2 but in Old Physics they got those spin numbers from
> > > Algebra demands and demands divorced of geometry or a true theory,
> > > for
> > > the Standard Model is just a patchwork quilt of fake physics."
> > > Which part of the OP do you think has a place in
> > > sci.physics.electromag?
> > here's a few;
> I was asking about THIS thread.
being considered by this statement?
you say;
"" Do you think it's OK spamming a theory about
particle physics in sci.math and sci.physics.electromag?
I don't.""
one thread does not a "spamming" make in the context
particle physics in sci.math and sci.physics.electromag?
I don't.""
of topicallity and not sales or other such things
some people have a problem with.
i obviously was considering many threads and posts
and inasmuch as you say "theory" i suggest that you were speaking
of more than a single post or thread but the entire body of posts
and threads that archi seems intent on posting to several groups
simultaneously, which is a common practice, and allowed by google
groups.
which is to say, that, if google groups objected to crossposting,
googlegroups would not allow it to be done at all.
> So again, what content do you think from Archie's
> original posting is relevant to sci.physics.electromag?
about "charge" as it relates to "The Standard Model"
===
archie says:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.chem/8JXMY9nMKHk/Pv2WB0tUY1AJ
No-one of the Standard Model ever said that the charges of physics
were the 3 and only 3 geometries of mathematics. No-one of the
Standard Model ever said that the electron was hyperbolic geometry
while the proton was elliptic geometry.
here's how wikipedia describes the "standard model";
[sure, wikipedia is good enough for this purpose...]
===
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
The Standard Model of particle physics is
a theory concerning the electromagnetic,
weak, and strong nuclear interactions , which
mediate the dynamics of the known subatomic particles
===
now, if archi is yammering opn about the Standard Model
and this Standard Model concerns itself with electromagnetic
properties of subatomic particles then, -you- tell -me- how
archi's post is not topical in your august opinion.
> I flagged this thread because I don't see its relevance here.
> So please put me right if you think I'm wrong.
before you decide it is off topic.
it makes it -look- as if you...
it seems as if this will fall on deaf ears so,
i'll "skip it" as it were.
> Neither do I flag all his
> posts, just those which are more in the field of particle physics and
> shamelessly using the name "Maxwell" to justify their inclusion in
> sci.physics.electromag.
are not entirely divorced one from the other and considerable
overlap is inevitable
and so, -crossposting- is a reasonable action -and-
one that is -not- dissallowed by googlegroups.
so, if your major objection -is- "crossposting"
maybe, perhaps, you should take that up with googlegroups first,
before you take it upion yourself to accuse anyone of being
"abusive" to a particular usenet newsgroup.
> Next he'll be posting cooking recipies here
> based upon Maxwell's equations.
on the Amana radar range, also known as
a "microwave oven" that recipe may very well -be-
related to electromagnetism in some broad fashion.
==
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/11/dangerous-truth-behind-microwaves.html
Microwaves are a form of electromagnetic radiation and are on the low
energy
end of the energy spectrum, second to radio waves. Microwaves are
generated
by something called a magnetron � something found within every microwave
oven.
Magnetrons produce an electromagnetic field with a microwave frequency
of approximate 2,450 megaHertz (MGz), which is the equivalent to 2.4
gigaHertz (GHz).
Microwaves produced within the microwave oven cause dialectric heating �
they bounce around the inside of the oven and are absorbed by whatever
you put in it
==
there, now someone's microwave brownie recipe is topical.
see how easy this is?
> If he cross-posts, then it increases the likely hood of them being
> flagged as not appropriate to some newsgroup, don't you think?
of what constitutes "topicallity"
you may do well to exhaust all aspects of possible topicallity
before you rush to press your little fingers on the new toy
provided to you.
if you say that the topic is not that
interesting to you in the first place
and that your only concern is in keeping
-your- little newsgroup clean and tidy,
then, thank you for -being- the example
that you are being.
albeit, that example is not one that
should be -encouraged- for emulation
nor that i would point to as a model
for appropriate behavior.
Larry Harson
Nov 5, 2012, 9:14:10 PM11/5/12
to
posting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiquette_(technology)
It also includes getting your own group in order before you go around
vandalising another, just to make a point. Have you reposted Archi's
posts on sci.chem, the main group you use? Nope. Did you instead
repost them on one you don't use? Yep. Did you even bother to post
them on sci.physics.particle? Nope.
> > So again, what content do you think from Archie's
> > original posting is relevant to sci.physics.electromag?
>
> in the first post of this thread, archi is yammering
> about "charge" as it relates to "The Standard Model"
>
> ===
> archie says:https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.chem/8JXMY9nMKHk/Pv2WB0tUY1AJ
>
> No-one of the Standard Model ever said that the charges of physics
> were the 3 and only 3 geometries of mathematics. No-one of the
> Standard Model ever said that the electron was hyperbolic geometry
> while the proton was elliptic geometry.
> ===
>
> here's how wikipedia describes the "standard model";
>
> [sure, wikipedia is good enough for this purpose...]
>
>
> The Standard Model of particle physics is
> a theory concerning the electromagnetic,
> weak, and strong nuclear interactions , which
> mediate the dynamics of the known subatomic particles
> ===
>
> now, if archi is yammering opn about the Standard Model
> and this Standard Model concerns itself with electromagnetic
> properties of subatomic particles then, -you- tell -me- how
> archi's post is not topical in your august opinion.
Well, if YOU bothered to read his OP as I suggested, then its obvious
> The Standard Model of particle physics is
> a theory concerning the electromagnetic,
> weak, and strong nuclear interactions , which
> mediate the dynamics of the known subatomic particles
> ===
>
> now, if archi is yammering opn about the Standard Model
> and this Standard Model concerns itself with electromagnetic
> properties of subatomic particles then, -you- tell -me- how
> archi's post is not topical in your august opinion.
he's talking about spin. Look at the title: "charge is geometry and
spin is what?". Further down: "So now I need to finish this up on the
spin". Then right at the end: "My guess is direction of spin relative
to an axis". So you tell me: What has spin got to do with
electromagnetism?
Your posts on sci.chem are competent, yet you seem to have reading
comprehension problems here, or worse still, don't understand what
electromagnetism is. If so, then you shouldn't be sticking your nose
in something you haven't a clue about, should you?
> > I flagged this thread because I don't see its relevance here.
>
> it looks to me like you are just plain flat out wrong in doing so.
>
> > So please put me right if you think I'm wrong.
>
> maybe you should actually read a post
> before you decide it is off topic.
>
> it makes it -look- as if you...
>
> it seems as if this will fall on deaf ears so,
>
> i'll "skip it" as it were.
>
> > Neither do I flag all his
> > posts, just those which are more in the field of particle physics and
> > shamelessly using the name "Maxwell" to justify their inclusion in
> > sci.physics.electromag.
>
> it is -possible- that "particle physics" and electromagnetism
> are not entirely divorced one from the other and considerable
> overlap is inevitable
>
> and so, -crossposting- is a reasonable action -and-
> one that is -not- dissallowed by googlegroups.
>
> so, if your major objection -is- "crossposting"
>
> maybe, perhaps, you should take that up with googlegroups first,
> before you take it upion yourself to accuse anyone of being
> "abusive" to a particular usenet newsgroup.
diagonal argument over here,and into the physics groups. He then posts
particle physics into the maths forum. He hasn't got a clue.
> > Next he'll be posting cooking recipies here
> > based upon Maxwell's equations.
>
> he may very well, and if he includes bits
> on the Amana radar range, also known as
> a "microwave oven" that recipe may very well -be-
> related to electromagnetism in some broad fashion.
>
> ==
>
>
> Microwaves are a form of electromagnetic radiation and are on the low
> energy
> end of the energy spectrum, second to radio waves. Microwaves are
> generated
> by something called a magnetron – something found within every microwave
> oven.
>
> Magnetrons produce an electromagnetic field with a microwave frequency
> of approximate 2,450 megaHertz (MGz), which is the equivalent to 2.4
> gigaHertz (GHz).
> Microwaves produced within the microwave oven cause dialectric heating –
> they bounce around the inside of the oven and are absorbed by whatever
> you put in it
> ==
>
> there, now someone's microwave brownie recipe is topical.
>
> see how easy this is?
And that would be OK, but Archie seems incapable of understanding when
> Microwaves are a form of electromagnetic radiation and are on the low
> energy
> end of the energy spectrum, second to radio waves. Microwaves are
> generated
> by something called a magnetron – something found within every microwave
> oven.
>
> Magnetrons produce an electromagnetic field with a microwave frequency
> of approximate 2,450 megaHertz (MGz), which is the equivalent to 2.4
> gigaHertz (GHz).
> Microwaves produced within the microwave oven cause dialectric heating –
> they bounce around the inside of the oven and are absorbed by whatever
> you put in it
> ==
>
> there, now someone's microwave brownie recipe is topical.
>
> see how easy this is?
a post is relevant to a particular group.
> > If he cross-posts, then it increases the likely hood of them being
> > flagged as not appropriate to some newsgroup, don't you think?
>
> only by some person with a very narrow view
views compared to one chaotic USENET where there's no control over
content people want to see.
> of what constitutes "topicallity"
>
> you may do well to exhaust all aspects of possible topicallity
> before you rush to press your little fingers on the new toy
> provided to you.
flagging it for abuse. You may do well thinking about your own
newsgroup first before you decide to wreck another you don't use.
> if you say that the topic is not that
> interesting to you in the first place
> and that your only concern is in keeping
> -your- little newsgroup clean and tidy,
>
> then, thank you for -being- the example
>
> that you are being.
>
> albeit, that example is not one that
>
> should be -encouraged- for emulation
>
> nor that i would point to as a model
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I can't think of anything about your behaviour that I would encourage
in my own. But thanks for your opinion.
Larry.
Timothy Sutter
Nov 6, 2012, 12:12:46 AM11/6/12
to
aspects which are clearly of an electromagnetic nature, archi -may-
want to shop it around where people who are all keen on electromagnetism
would catch wind of it, and so,
crossposting is tolerated for just that sort of reason.
archi's 'theory', -is- that quantum mechanics
can be derived from the maxwell equations.
you are trying to be chief moderator in
an unmoderated newsgroup and doing
a poor job of it.
and below you say this:
# I don't mind intelligent cross posting.
so, why you're wasting time posting some blurb
about how crossposting is bad form is not very "intelligent"
you like crossposting if it fits your opinion
of what is acceptable and 'intelligent'
but if someone else has a different opinon of acceptable and
intelligent, you start pissing and moaning and whining about
how it's abusively off topic.
now, here's how you describe archi;
==
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.chem/8JXMY9nMKHk/GCNlRPJLpXQJ
you say;
> I'm not against Archie posting his theory in sci.physics.particle
> where it belongs. Yet despite being told this, he continues to spam in
> a selfish way without any thought for the people within that group. He
> comes across as a self-absorbed egotist who can't look outside of
> himself.
==
> where it belongs. Yet despite being told this, he continues to spam in
> a selfish way without any thought for the people within that group. He
> comes across as a self-absorbed egotist who can't look outside of
> himself.
now i ask you, -who- _really_ looks like the "self absorbed egotist?"
isn't it really =you= who looks like a "self absorbed egotist"
in that you think that you and you alone are able to decide what
is on topic in electromag whereas archi simply minds his own
business and quietly posts his babblings where he
thinks they are topical?
yes, -you- look like the self absorbed egotists and archi does not.
> It also includes getting your own group in order before you go around
> vandalising another, just to make a point. Have you reposted Archi's
> posts on sci.chem, the main group you use? Nope. Did you instead
> repost them on one you don't use? Yep. Did you even bother to post
> them on sci.physics.particle? Nope.
i vandalized nothing, and why you keep posting in to a thread
that you have flagged for abuse is asinine.
generate a magnetic field of sorts.
strange things have happened, with copper coils and magnets
> Your posts on sci.chem are competent, yet you seem to have reading
> comprehension problems here, or worse still, don't understand what
> electromagnetism is. If so, then you shouldn't be sticking your nose
> in something you haven't a clue about, should you?
concerns itself with electromagnetic behaviors -of- particles
and if archi wants to yammer about particles and their
electromagnetic behavior in a set of usenet newsgroups,
archi can do so even if not each and every post is
explicittly and narrowly focused on the aspects
of electromagnetism that strike -your- fancy.
you are still wrong to flag archi's posts for abuse
as none of them fit the criteria for abuse as set
out -by- googlegroups.
===
Report Abuse
Google takes abuse of its services very seriously.
We're committed to dealing with such abuse according
to the laws in your country of residence. When you
submit a report, we'll investigate it and take the
appropriate action. We'll get back to you only if
we require additional details or have more information to share.
Group name: sci.physics.electromag
Subject: is Google committing a crime of freedom of speech??
Author: Archimedes Plutonium
Not abuse
This content has been incorrectly marked as abuse
and does not contain any of the following:
Spam
Hateful or violent content
Illegal pornography
Personal or private information
Illegal content according to the laws of my country
Content violating our Terms of Service
===
> > > I flagged this thread because I don't see its relevance here.
> > it looks to me like you are just plain flat out wrong in doing so.
> > > So please put me right if you think I'm wrong.
> > maybe you should actually read a post
> > before you decide it is off topic.
> > it makes it -look- as if you...
> > it seems as if this will fall on deaf ears so,
> > i'll "skip it" as it were.
> > > Neither do I flag all his
> > > posts, just those which are more in the field of particle physics and
> > > shamelessly using the name "Maxwell" to justify their inclusion in
> > > sci.physics.electromag.
> > it is -possible- that "particle physics" and electromagnetism
> > are not entirely divorced one from the other and considerable
> > overlap is inevitable
> > and so, -crossposting- is a reasonable action -and-
> > one that is -not- dissallowed by googlegroups.
> > so, if your major objection -is- "crossposting"
> > maybe, perhaps, you should take that up with googlegroups first,
> > before you take it upion yourself to accuse anyone of being
> > "abusive" to a particular usenet newsgroup.
> I don't mind intelligent cross posting. But Archie posts Cantor's
> diagonal argument over here,and into the physics groups. He then posts
> particle physics into the maths forum. He hasn't got a clue.
being a "self absorbed egotist" again.
what would you call someone who takes it upon itself
to make topicallity decisions for other people
in an unmoderated usenet newsgroup?
junior napolean?
self appointed tryant?
certainly not a napolean nor a tyrant
and maybe not even egotistical
but rude comes to mind.
a person who appoints itself as moderator
of an unmoderated newsgroup is just plain rude.
archi really seems to believe that his posts are on topic
and you have done nothing to show otherwise.
archi isn't harassing anyone
===
Report Abuse
Google takes abuse of its services very seriously.
We're committed to dealing with such abuse according
to the laws in your country of residence. When you
submit a report, we'll investigate it and take the
appropriate action. We'll get back to you only if
we require additional details or have more information to share.
Group name: sci.physics.electromag
Subject: is Google committing a crime of freedom of speech??
Author: Archimedes Plutonium
Not abuse
This content has been incorrectly marked as abuse
and does not contain any of the following:
Spam
Hateful or violent content
Illegal pornography
Personal or private information
Illegal content according to the laws of my country
Content violating our Terms of Service
===
arch isn't doing any of this.
in fact, it is -you- who are being hateful to archi.
you should flag your own self for abuse.
but you seem to be blind to this.
> > > If he cross-posts, then it increases the likely hood of them being
> > > flagged as not appropriate to some newsgroup, don't you think?
> > only by some person with a very narrow view
> Yes, and that's why USENET is partitioned into groups with narrow
> views compared to one chaotic USENET where there's no control over
> content people want to see.
he most certainly does not seem to be posting his posts for
the simple pleasure of annoying =you=
if you didn't exist, i dare say, archi would post his posts to
electromag.
-you- seem to be the obne sticking its proboscis where it has not
business.
-and- you have the unmitigated dorkishness to continue posting
in to a thread that -you- have flagged for abuse.
you must really have your head stuck in a dark place.
> > of what constitutes "topicallity"
> > you may do well to exhaust all aspects of possible topicallity
> > before you rush to press your little fingers on the new toy
> > provided to you.
> As I said before, I look carefully at each post of Archie's before
> flagging it for abuse. You may do well thinking about your own
> newsgroup first before you decide to wreck another you don't use.
why don't you try and set yourself up as
the tin plated autocrat in sci.physics?
or do you run around from group to group deciding what is topical?
seems there was a political thread in sci.physics the other day
maybe , just maybe, some of the regular posters didn't even think
it was off topic and that is why theuy posted in to it.
but there's a screw loose somewhere and you just feel the need
to tighten it down, only you seem to be mistaking teh wrong
loose screw for the one that needs tightening and spending
too much time forcing your opinion on other people's work
and not directing your attentions on your own shortcomings.
> > if you say that the topic is not that
> > interesting to you in the first place
> > and that your only concern is in keeping
> > -your- little newsgroup clean and tidy,
> > then, thank you for -being- the example
> > that you are being.
> > albeit, that example is not one that
> > should be -encouraged- for emulation
> > nor that i would point to as a model
> > for appropriate behavior.
> I can't think of anything about your behaviour that I would encourage
> in my own. But thanks for your opinion.
your slip is showing...
> in my own. But thanks for your opinion.
Timothy Sutter
Nov 6, 2012, 6:28:26 AM11/6/12
to
bacle...@gmail.com wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Larry Harson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > but, evidently, someone has an inordinant control problem and
> >
> > > > > feels the need to police usenet newsgroups.
> >
> > > > > if given a vote, i'm certain i would vote for archi
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > and against the mad post flagger any day of the week.
>
> Really? How about this:
>
> http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2411387 about
>
> "Topic: NOVA on Otzi the 5,000 year old iceman mummy; A better conclusion--
> ritual burial"?
>
> Please do tell how the [---] comments on an iceman mummy belong in sci.math
first of all, mathematics is such a broad subject
that sci.math has no real "charter" to speak of.
second, the title itself is of a mathematical nature
how do you suppose anyone decided that the mummy was
purportedly 5000 years old without any use of
mathematical 'equipment'?
> Really? How about this post:
>
> " more AT&T; hope Mayor Bloomberg runs in 2016 #601 Optimal Strategy of Playing the StockMarket via VonNeumann Game Theory"
the title itself is suggestive of mathematics
as stocks and game theory are of a mathematical nature.
> There are no actual mathematics related to Von Neumann Game Theory, only
>
> a statement about archi's actions, of the sort:
>
> "..... But before then, I would like to see the telecoms be able to put a
> > phone on the ipad, because I do not like to look at a tiny box of the
> > cellphone. I like my phone to be the size of the ipad. So that if they
> > packed the ipad with a phone, would boost the sales of the telecoms to
> > provide those ipad telephones."
boosting sales is a mathematical phenomenon.
> How the HELL does this belong in sci.math? Please, do tell where is the
>
> mathematical content of the following :
>
> http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2412817
>
> http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2411759
>
> http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2411579
>
> http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2411415
geometry and group theory have mathematical underpinnings.
symettry elements of gropup theory are practically
a mathematical discipline in themselves.
> Notice that the few posts of plutonium with some mathematical
> content _have not_ been censored.
none of them have been 'censored' from all view
they have only been set for removal from an -archive- supported by
googlegroups.
now, for an -archive- to remove -any- posts tends to make that archive
nullified.
yes, certainly, some people have the ability
to keep their postings from being archived at google
but even these tend to show up on other archive services.
> Sci.math is not a place for archi's personal blog/journal. He forces
>
> his garbage here, some respond by censoring him; it is call payback:
>
> plutonium shows no concern for anyone but himself, he gets payback:
>
> what is wrong with that?
you call it 'garbage' he calls is 'academics'
even -if- you both are 'correct' and academics is garbage
future generations won't get to realize this
because -you- have seen fit to cut out half the story
sure, you can piss and moan about things all you like,
go right ahead, i do not care.
=but= and there's that big fat =but= again...
=but= it is -possible- that there are people
reading posts who never post themselves
who do not subscribe to -your- view of things at all.
did you -ever- think of that?
apparently not
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Larry Harson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > but, evidently, someone has an inordinant control problem and
> >
> > > > > feels the need to police usenet newsgroups.
> >
> > > > > if given a vote, i'm certain i would vote for archi
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > and against the mad post flagger any day of the week.
>
>
> http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2411387 about
>
> "Topic: NOVA on Otzi the 5,000 year old iceman mummy; A better conclusion--
> ritual burial"?
>
> Please do tell how the [---] comments on an iceman mummy belong in sci.math
first of all, mathematics is such a broad subject
that sci.math has no real "charter" to speak of.
second, the title itself is of a mathematical nature
how do you suppose anyone decided that the mummy was
purportedly 5000 years old without any use of
mathematical 'equipment'?
> Really? How about this post:
>
> " more AT&T; hope Mayor Bloomberg runs in 2016 #601 Optimal Strategy of Playing the StockMarket via VonNeumann Game Theory"
the title itself is suggestive of mathematics
as stocks and game theory are of a mathematical nature.
> There are no actual mathematics related to Von Neumann Game Theory, only
>
> a statement about archi's actions, of the sort:
>
> "..... But before then, I would like to see the telecoms be able to put a
> > phone on the ipad, because I do not like to look at a tiny box of the
> > cellphone. I like my phone to be the size of the ipad. So that if they
> > packed the ipad with a phone, would boost the sales of the telecoms to
> > provide those ipad telephones."
boosting sales is a mathematical phenomenon.
> How the HELL does this belong in sci.math? Please, do tell where is the
>
> mathematical content of the following :
>
> http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2412817
>
> http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2411759
>
> http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2411579
>
> http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2411415
geometry and group theory have mathematical underpinnings.
symettry elements of gropup theory are practically
a mathematical discipline in themselves.
> Notice that the few posts of plutonium with some mathematical
> content _have not_ been censored.
none of them have been 'censored' from all view
they have only been set for removal from an -archive- supported by
googlegroups.
now, for an -archive- to remove -any- posts tends to make that archive
nullified.
yes, certainly, some people have the ability
to keep their postings from being archived at google
but even these tend to show up on other archive services.
> Sci.math is not a place for archi's personal blog/journal. He forces
>
> his garbage here, some respond by censoring him; it is call payback:
>
> plutonium shows no concern for anyone but himself, he gets payback:
>
> what is wrong with that?
you call it 'garbage' he calls is 'academics'
even -if- you both are 'correct' and academics is garbage
future generations won't get to realize this
because -you- have seen fit to cut out half the story
sure, you can piss and moan about things all you like,
go right ahead, i do not care.
=but= and there's that big fat =but= again...
=but= it is -possible- that there are people
reading posts who never post themselves
who do not subscribe to -your- view of things at all.
did you -ever- think of that?
apparently not
Brad Guth
Nov 6, 2012, 7:31:35 AM11/6/12
to
On Nov 3, 5:21 am, "G=EMC^2" <herbertglazi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Google has gone in the same direction as America. Censership is in,
> and freedoms are out. Free speech is long gone. TreBert
You are actively posting and thus publishing to the world as is, and
>
> Google has gone in the same direction as America. Censership is in,
> and freedoms are out. Free speech is long gone. TreBert
for the most part Google nor Usenet/newsgroups hasn't been removing
that freedom of speech, although they do tend to have an army of brown-
nosed clowns and FUD-masters employed in order to accomplish as much
mainstream mafia damage-control as possible.
There are some key phrases or wordings that can get you into serious
trouble, especially if those should get interpreted by authorities as
a national threat, or to others or even as a threat to yourself should
you start ranting in such a way that makes us afraid of what your next
actions are going to be potentially destructive or lethal.
This is not to mention that Google Groups and especially their Groups+
version of Usenet/newsgroups isn't getting messed up from time to
time, with server and archive outages causing the re-indexing of
topics to get more than a little slow or even lost along the way. The
older original plain text or hypertext version of Usenet/newsgroups
was and still is way better than their fancier but technically more
restrictive Groups+ version that has a few scripting bugs, runs
considerably slower and doesn't allow nearly the browsing freedoms of
the previous version that only a few of us seem to still have access
to.
At any rate, you can publish your books right here, or start a fresh
and as privet as you like newsgroup with your very own name on it, and
everything you contribute will become readable by the world, with the
exception of K12s in public schools and most private schools that
simply filter out and/or exclude any access to these public Usenet/
newsgroups, because that's exactly what ZNR mafia oligarchs and their
Hitler would have done.
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”
0 new messages