Future Advances in Physics...

[benj]

Where does the future of physics lie?

So, you want to be the next "Einstein" developing the next big thing in
physics. Where you do investigate? Spend a lot of tax money to smash
things together and then name all the pieces? Pretty much like studying
architecture by grinding up bricks and studying the dust under a
microscope.

Well, if you look on the INTERNET, it's pretty clear that most current
efforts are all along the lines of word games, proving Relativity
"wrong" and obscure mathematical complexity.

In a way it's just an imitation of Einstein who everyone imagines just
cranked out a complex mathematical theory that nobody understands off
the top of his genius head.

But discoveries really don't work that way, even with Einstein it
started with a simple thing. In his case was the question if Galileo's
theory of relativity held for electromagnetic phenomena. It did.

The point here, gentle reader, is that while so many today in physics
strain mightily with obscure mathematics and word games that literally
make no logical sense in an attempt to "explain" how up is really down
and black is really white and nothing at all can have "behavior", the
place one needs to look for the "next big thing", is on the list of
"forbidden" topics.

As Professor Benade (who I used to work for once) told me: Don't be like
the guy who lost a quarter over there but is looking over here because
the light is better!

Point is while strategic writers like HVAC and Odd try to ridicule any
mention of a forbidden topic and discourage any actual investigation,
this is exactly where the next advances will occur. They say, these
things can't be real (never looking at the actual data, of course)
because there is no theory to explain them! Ding! Ding! Ding!

It is the very FACT that there is no theory that "explains" them that
shows that they NEED to be studied! So today there is a HUGE list of
"forbidden topics" that are off-limits to official support and
publication and it is little wonder that official physics has lapsed
into some monster word game of people trying to "explain" the universe
using ever more and more illogical and meaningless "explanations".

So if you think that "remote viewing" or ESP or PK are not "real" and
are all hoaxes, it probably means you somehow are so lazy that you just
accept some anonymous voice on the INTERNET who proclaims infallible
omniscient truth because he says he does. And that means you are NEVER
going to amount to diddly shit in science no matter how many people
swoon over your complex mathematics and how many editors make sure your
screed hits the "big" journals. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi. Got it?


--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/

[J.B. Wood]

Well, from a practical standpoint, without a follow-up by engineers it
don't mean squat. IOW ya got the foundation but where's the house?
Sincerely,

--
J. B. Wood e-mail: arl_1...@hotmail.com

[john]

They don't have a foundation.
Remember?
Electrons have no structure

[Odd Bodkin]

On 12/16/2015 1:38 AM, benj wrote:
>
> In a way it's just an imitation of Einstein who everyone imagines just
> cranked out a complex mathematical theory that nobody understands off
> the top of his genius head.

Speak for yourself, Ben.
I do not believe that the theory of relativity is all that complex.
I do not believe that nobody understands it.
I do not believe it takes a genius to understand it.

Now, it might be that YOU think nobody understands it. It might be that
YOU think it's complex. It might be that YOU imagine that Einstein just
cranked it out so that it would be above everyone's head. But that's
just YOU, and you don't speak for anyone else but you.

--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Bill Miller]

On 12/16/2015 2:38 AM, benj wrote:
> Where does the future of physics lie?
>

<snip>

I am reminded of Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary Of Defense, who was
well known for saying:

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting
to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we
know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we
know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown
unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know."

All the best, Bill

[Poutnik]

If anybody claims
all what he does not understand is useless nonsense and word salad,
it helps keeping him big in his eyes.

If he admitted
it might be true but out of his league,
he would have also admit
he is not as smart as he thought or claimed.

Such idea is impossible to withstand. So as a Parthian withdrawal,
there is recommended back-shooting of arrows of personal offences
to distract people from his lack of knowledge.

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

[Odd Bodkin]

Right. Ben Jacoby is tired of people telling him he doesn't understand
some things. And so when someone else claims to understand something he
doesn't then Ben overreacts, saying "Oh, so you're claiming to be some
kind of GENIUS!" No. Understanding something that Ben doesn't understand
doesn't require genius.

Ben is also fond of overgeneralizing, saying that if he doesn't
understand something, then NOBODY understands it either. And if he has a
belief, then he's prone to say that EVERYONE believes the same thing.
Which is nonsense.

[Mahipal]

On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 2:38:40 AM UTC-5, benj wrote:
> Where does the future of physics lie?
>
> So, you want to be the next "Einstein" developing the next big thing in
> physics. Where you do investigate? Spend a lot of tax money to smash
> things together and then name all the pieces? Pretty much like studying
> architecture by grinding up bricks and studying the dust under a
> microscope.
>
> Well, if you look on the INTERNET, it's pretty clear that most current
> efforts are all along the lines of word games, proving Relativity
> "wrong" and obscure mathematical complexity.

Word games, Math games, CGI simulations... The Complete Toolset.

The advent of WWW+Internet has made the control of disseminated ideas
far easier and not at all open, as might've been falsely advertised.

> In a way it's just an imitation of Einstein who everyone imagines just
> cranked out a complex mathematical theory that nobody understands off
> the top of his genius head.

Per my History lessons, Einstein's work was instantly recognized by
even the commonest of man, that back in the 1905 days all the coffee
shops the world over plastered his documents on windows, walls, and
toilet paper. Never in the history of physics has the populace been so
impressed and moved! I do not make this stuff up.

> But discoveries really don't work that way, even with Einstein it
> started with a simple thing. In his case was the question if Galileo's
> theory of relativity held for electromagnetic phenomena. It did.
>
> The point here, gentle reader, is that while so many today in physics
> strain mightily with obscure mathematics and word games that literally
> make no logical sense in an attempt to "explain" how up is really down
> and black is really white and nothing at all can have "behavior", the
> place one needs to look for the "next big thing", is on the list of
> "forbidden" topics.

Hidden Variables used to be a unmentionable concept, like DataMining.
One can't undermine Word Games by using phrases like WordSalad which
are themselves made of words. MathSalad = Math + Salad. Squared!

Language is very important, see any AIP Physics Vade Mecum, any
edition. The version I have is in English, 330 small print pages, only
one of which, page 157, per the index, is about SR relativistic
effects. Meaning? Why does there have to be any ...youKnow Meaning?!

> As Professor Benade (who I used to work for once) told me: Don't be like
> the guy who lost a quarter over there but is looking over here because
> the light is better!

KeyQ: Why are you dropping all your change into the outhouse?
KeyA: I ain't going into that sHit for just one quarter!

> Point is while strategic writers like HVAC and Odd try to ridicule any
> mention of a forbidden topic and discourage any actual investigation,
> this is exactly where the next advances will occur. They say, these
> things can't be real (never looking at the actual data, of course)
> because there is no theory to explain them! Ding! Ding! Ding!

Odd's believe Believe BELIEVE... Odd must be kissing up to HVAC.

> It is the very FACT that there is no theory that "explains" them that
> shows that they NEED to be studied! So today there is a HUGE list of
> "forbidden topics" that are off-limits to official support and
> publication and it is little wonder that official physics has lapsed
> into some monster word game of people trying to "explain" the universe
> using ever more and more illogical and meaningless "explanations".

It's all Settled Physics Science, until the Fiscal Year Renewal Dance.

> So if you think that "remote viewing" or ESP or PK are not "real" and
> are all hoaxes, it probably means you somehow are so lazy that you just
> accept some anonymous voice on the INTERNET who proclaims infallible
> omniscient truth because he says he does. And that means you are NEVER
> going to amount to diddly shit in science no matter how many people
> swoon over your complex mathematics and how many editors make sure your
> screed hits the "big" journals. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi. Got it?
>
> --
> ___ ___ ___ ___
> /\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
> /::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
> /:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
> /::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
> /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
> \:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
> \:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
> \:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
> \_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
> \/__/ \/__/

-- Mahipal "IPMM... If you can't monetize it, what's a Universe for?!"

[gilber34]

On 12/16/2015 1:38 AM, benj wrote:

> Where does the future of physics lie?
>

>

> Well, if you look on the INTERNET, it's pretty clear that most current
> efforts are all along the lines of word games,
>

> So if you think that "remote viewing" or ESP or PK are not "real" and
> are all hoaxes, it probably means you somehow are so lazy that you just
> accept some anonymous voice on the INTERNET who proclaims infallible
> omniscient truth because he says he does. And that means you are NEVER
> going to amount to diddly shit in science no matter how many people
> swoon over your complex mathematics and how many editors make sure your
> screed hits the "big" journals. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi. Got it?
>
>

yep, I gots' it !

remote viewing => lazy => anonymous infallible omniscient true voice
=> diddly shit => swoon complex maths => big Journals => passing glory

[HVAC]

On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 7:38:40 AM UTC, benj wrote:
> Where does the future of physics lie?
>
> So, you want to be the next "Einstein" developing the next big thing in
> physics. Where you do investigate? Spend a lot of tax money to smash
> things together and then name all the pieces? Pretty much like studying
> architecture by grinding up bricks and studying the dust under a
> microscope.

Well, not for nothing, but if you wanted to study brick dust, wouldn't that be a good way to do it?

I was just going to let you make the leap of understanding, but since I know you're stupid I will explain.

If you want to study sub atomic particles, MAKING them appear is the first step.

Hopefully that isn't too cryptic for you, BJ

> The point here, gentle reader, is that

Anyone who would use 'gentle reader' in a post is gay.

> Point is while strategic writers like HVAC and Odd try to ridicule any
> mention of a forbidden topic and discourage any actual investigation,
> this is exactly where the next advances will occur. They say, these
> things can't be real (never looking at the actual data, of course)
> because there is no theory to explain them! Ding! Ding! Ding!

Look BJ...If you want to believe in ghosts and shit, feel free. Just don't expect others to follow. Since there is no known modality for consciousness to survive death, it is ludicrous.

> It is the very FACT that there is no theory that "explains" them that
> shows that they NEED to be studied!

That's like asking for an explanation of why the moon is made out of green cheese. YOU may assert it all you want. Just don't be surprised when reputable men of science like Mr. Bodkin and myself don't answer you except with derision.

Note: See Velikovsky

> So if you think that "remote viewing" or ESP or PK are not "real" and
> are all hoaxes, it probably means you somehow are so lazy that you just
> accept some anonymous voice on the INTERNET who proclaims infallible
> omniscient truth because he says he does.

ESP, ghosts, remote viewing and all of the rest of BJ's retarded 'science' are 100% fake. Absolutely nothing there for a scientist to investigate.

Trust me on this.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Poutnik" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:n4ruhb$5eo$1...@dont-email.me...

|If anybody claims
|all what he does not understand is useless nonsense and word salad,
|it helps keeping him big in his eyes.

Both are common sequences between your fellow relativistic
morons.

[benj]

From a practical standpoint engineers work from a theory. Science
starts with the unknown and then (hopefully) provides a theory.

The argument (often presented here) that since there is no theory then
the effects can't exist is clearly nonsense. If followed throughout
science NOTHING new would have ever been figured out!

[benj]

Actually I was speaking about media hype over Einstein to the public,
but you seem to take everything personally.

[benj]

Actually, Bill, if you follow the internet discussions much, you'll know
that the last category doesn't exist. This is because of something known
as "superpowers" among posters that allow them to know everything even
what they don't know! :-)

[benj]

Boinker has been in his Ivory tower so long he is totally unaware of the
media and public perception. In truth Einstein and relativity has been
so hyped by media for so long that the very IMAGE (including hairdoo) of
a science "genius" has been changed in the public mind!

Boinker really needs to get out more.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 12/16/2015 12:04 PM, benj wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 08:46 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 12/16/2015 1:38 AM, benj wrote:
>>>
>>> In a way it's just an imitation of Einstein who everyone imagines just
>>> cranked out a complex mathematical theory that nobody understands off
>>> the top of his genius head.
>>
>> Speak for yourself, Ben.
>> I do not believe that the theory of relativity is all that complex.
>> I do not believe that nobody understands it.
>> I do not believe it takes a genius to understand it.
>>
>> Now, it might be that YOU think nobody understands it. It might be that
>> YOU think it's complex. It might be that YOU imagine that Einstein just
>> cranked it out so that it would be above everyone's head. But that's
>> just YOU, and you don't speak for anyone else but you.
>>
> Actually I was speaking about media hype over Einstein to the public,
> but you seem to take everything personally.
>

Maybe it's just me, but saying "everyone imagines" is quite different
than saying "the media hype is".

As for me, I really don't pay much attention to media hype, celebrity
adoration, meme flairs, or the perceptions of propaganda-loving public.
I don't find much value in any rampant attention paid to the
Kardashians, Donald Trump, Steve Jobs, or Stephen Hawking. Frankly, I
don't think intelligent people do. Whether there is a group of folks who
gush over a man in a wheelchair just because he talks about black holes
and because there was a movie about him, is really not important. To me,
these are the same people who buy copper bracelets and magnetic insoles
and take rhino horn pills to increase potency. So you can rant all you
want about how undeserving Einstein (or the Kardashians) is of media
hype -- it won't change anything, because the people who sell the hype
and who consume the hype will be around forever. All you can do is
choose not to participate and start to look at what KNOWLEDGABLE people
say about Einstein or Hawking or Jobs or Trump. You'll know it when you
see it.

[benj]

On 12/16/2015 11:18 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 7:38:40 AM UTC, benj wrote:
>> Where does the future of physics lie?
>>
>> So, you want to be the next "Einstein" developing the next big
>> thing in physics. Where you do investigate? Spend a lot of tax
>> money to smash things together and then name all the pieces? Pretty
>> much like studying architecture by grinding up bricks and studying
>> the dust under a microscope.
>
>
> Well, not for nothing, but if you wanted to study brick dust,
> wouldn't that be a good way to do it?
>
> I was just going to let you make the leap of understanding, but since
> I know you're stupid I will explain.
>
> If you want to study sub atomic particles, MAKING them appear is the
> first step.
>
> Hopefully that isn't too cryptic for you, BJ
>

WHOOSH! Point going right over the HVAC head.

>
>> The point here, gentle reader, is that
>
>
> Anyone who would use 'gentle reader' in a post is gay.

HVAC is gay. Are you out of the closet yet? You KNOW you want to tell
the world you are gay!

Personalities is all HVAC knows. Ideas don't interest him. He loves
the reality of professional wrestling.

>
>> Point is while strategic writers like HVAC and Odd try to ridicule
>> any mention of a forbidden topic and discourage any actual
>> investigation, this is exactly where the next advances will occur.
>> They say, these things can't be real (never looking at the actual
>> data, of course) because there is no theory to explain them! Ding!
>> Ding! Ding!
>
>
> Look BJ...If you want to believe in ghosts and shit, feel free. Just
> don't expect others to follow. Since there is no known modality for
> consciousness to survive death, it is ludicrous.

Ignorant blather. If science followed this idea, nothing new would EVER
have been discovered. I guess that is too cryptic for you. Anyway, as
usual the piece never mentioned "ghosts" or persistence of
consicousness. You made that up and then pretend I said it. I said no
such thing. You are a liar as always.

>> It is the very FACT that there is no theory that "explains" them
>> that shows that they NEED to be studied!
>
>
> That's like asking for an explanation of why the moon is made out of
> green cheese. YOU may assert it all you want. Just don't be surprised
> when reputable men of science like Mr. Bodkin and myself don't answer
> you except with derision.
>
> Note: See Velikovsky

Derision is all you've got because you have no data and have no facts.
So you go with "personalities". So low level. You think professional
wrestling is a great sport too, I suppose.

Velikovsly is an important point. As a forbidden topic you have to place
your derision there as well. You try to obscure what he was really
saying by lying about it at usual. His point, which is a very important
point, is that there MAY be truth in historical myth that is widely
regarded as fantasy. And thus, such myth is worthy of consideration.

You lie and say HE predicted things that proved not true. Perhaps, but
"he" also predicted some things that proved true. But those are not the
point. The point is that after untold years of science pooh-poohing the
"myth" of Troy, it was actually found right where Homer said it was!

>> So if you think that "remote viewing" or ESP or PK are not "real"
>> and are all hoaxes, it probably means you somehow are so lazy that
>> you just accept some anonymous voice on the INTERNET who proclaims
>> infallible omniscient truth because he says he does.
>
>
> ESP, ghosts, remote viewing and all of the rest of BJ's retarded
> 'science' are 100% fake. Absolutely nothing there for a scientist to
> investigate.

Does HVAC have any data? Has he even looked at any? Does a liar need to?
Hardly. Hopefully lots of scientists out there will understand that HVAC
is omniscient, infallible, and possesses superpowers so they will turn
their investigations to other more "productive" works like filling in
the few blank spots in tables. Wouldn't want H&V to blow his hot air all
over you by calling you a "retard", would you?

> Trust me on this.

He's omniscient and infallible! He says so himself. What more proof do
you need? (He's also Napoleon today)

[Odd Bodkin]

On 12/16/2015 12:08 PM, benj wrote:
> Boinker has been in his Ivory tower so long he is totally unaware of the
> media and public perception.

I'm a member of the public. I'm aware of media hype around Einstein. I
do not share the vision hyped by the media, even though I'm a member of
the public. I believe there are lots of intelligent people who are also
unaffected by the media hype, and that they know better to go find
better sources than the media hype. People who are swayed by media hype
deserve exactly the misinformation they get. I see no reason to bitch
about media hype and those who are swayed by it.

There are lots of intelligent people who don't give a flying flip about
Kim Kartrashian, Donald Dumb-as-a-Stump, Classless Hilton,
Whoever-the-hell-left One Direction, or who's on the chopping block at
Dancing With the Stars. And these people don't care about the
lip-foamers about Einstein, either.

Did you know that after 1919, when Einstein published a paper, there
would be department store owners who would paste his paper up in the
display windows so that window-shoppers could read the paper? Do you
know how stupid that is?

> In truth Einstein and relativity has been
> so hyped by media for so long that the very IMAGE (including hairdoo) of
> a science "genius" has been changed in the public mind!
>
> Boinker really needs to get out more.


--

[Odd Bodkin]

On 12/16/2015 12:08 PM, benj wrote:

> In truth Einstein and relativity has been
> so hyped by media for so long that the very IMAGE (including hairdoo) of
> a science "genius" has been changed in the public mind!

So, really the question is: why should anyone care?
Why do YOU care this has happened?

[Jos Bergervoet]

What Donald says may be true (after all he's a politician). But do
you think that even for benj there are unknown unknowns?! I find
that hard to believe..

--
Jos

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 12/16/2015 7:06 PM, benj wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 09:58 AM, Bill Miller wrote:
>> On 12/16/2015 2:38 AM, benj wrote:
>>> Where does the future of physics lie?
>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I am reminded of Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary Of Defense, who was
>> well known for saying:
>>
>> "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting
>> to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we
>> know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we
>> know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown
>> unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know."
>>
>> All the best, Bill
>
>
> Actually, Bill, if you follow the internet discussions much, you'll know
> that the last category doesn't exist.

Thanks benj for clarifying! I already suggested to Bill that this
might simply not apply to what you were writing.

> This is because of something known as "superpowers" among posters

Of course. That is exactly the point I was trying to make.

> that allow them to know everything even
> what they don't know! :-)

I wonder if Bill's Hydrino Power also counts as superpower..
(Thus returning to the subject: It would certainly be a
*future* advance in physics, given the indefinitely postponed
BlackPower demonstration reactors!)

--
Jos

[Odd Bodkin]

On 12/16/2015 1:38 AM, benj wrote:

> So if you think that "remote viewing" or ESP or PK are not "real" and
> are all hoaxes, it probably means you somehow are so lazy that you just
> accept some anonymous voice on the INTERNET who proclaims infallible
> omniscient truth because he says he does. And that means you are NEVER
> going to amount to diddly shit in science no matter how many people
> swoon over your complex mathematics and how many editors make sure your
> screed hits the "big" journals. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi. Got it?

Every scientist does an instinctive risk vs benefit analysis. You can
pour your life into investigating something that is *very likely* hokum
but still stands a tiny chance of changing the world. The problem is
that there are millions of candidates of ideas to pursue:
- That atoms are tiny galaxies, containing microcosms each
- That rocks are in fact alive, but at a metabolic rate that is ten
billion times slower than animal life
- That humans can communicate telepathically
- That faster-than-light communication is possible
- That gravity screening is possible and anti-gravity drives are accessible
- That ghosts exist and souls speak to us after bodily death
- That ETs regularly visit and quite likely walk among us incognito
- That perpetual motion machines are feasible and the laws of
thermodynamics can be broken
- That perfectly rigid materials can be built
- That humans can be shrunk whole to the size of blood cells and operate
completely normally

So which one to pursue? You can piss away your whole life floundering in
some futile direction, and the only solace you'd bring yourself is "But
I'm investigating the unknown, so I'm doing SCIENCE!"

I think this is a matter of taste. I think scientists develop a knack
for pursuing the unknown but usually in directions where there is some
likelihood for it not being futile. And in fact, the successful
scientists are the ones that are talented in pursuing a new direction
that DOES pan out. And you can ask them, "How did you know to choose
THAT direction vs. any of the other million other things you could have
pursued?" And they'll probably say something about gut instinct or
experience or maybe just luck. For the ones that seem to do it over and
over and over again, it's not luck.

But people like Ben can feel free to pursue any of the million
possibilities they want to pursue, happily owning the risk, knowing that
they're more likely to win the lottery than they are of hitting the jackpot.

[Jürgen Großenbach]

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 12/16/2015 12:08 PM, benj wrote:
>> In truth Einstein and relativity has been so hyped by media for so long
>> that the very IMAGE (including hairdoo) of a science "genius" has been
>> changed in the public mind!
>
> So, really the question is: why should anyone care?
> Why do YOU care this has happened?

LHC sees hint of boson heavier than Higgs
http://www.nature.com/news/lhc-sees-hint-of-boson-heavier-than-higgs-1.19036

Amazing how wrong they can be. LHC is already an old obsolete
apparatus, ha ha ha.

[Jürgen Großenbach]

ha ha ha "Corrected: An earlier version of this article stated,
incorrectly, that the two photons have masses of about 750 GeV each and
that the new particle would have a mass of 1,500 GeV."

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

The ’nym-shifting troll posted as “Jürgen Großenbach”:

> LHC sees hint of boson heavier than Higgs
> http://www.nature.com/news/lhc-sees-hint-of-boson-heavier-than-higgs-1.19036
>
> Amazing how wrong they can be.

That is *science*, which you will probably never understand, ’nym-shifting
troll.

*The very purpose* of science (from Latin «scientia» „knowledge“) is
learning things that you did *not* know before. That includes learning that
what you thought you knew before is not quite correct or outright wrong
because now you have found something that contradicts it. Science is the
falsification or confirmation of ideas through experiment or application of
logic.

> LHC is already an old obsolete apparatus, ha ha ha.

It is not.


PointedEars
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door
when he went camping?
A: 'Gone fission'.
(from: WolframAlpha)

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

The ‘nym-shifting troll posted as “Jürgen Großenbach”:

>> LHC sees hint of boson heavier than Higgs
>> http://www.nature.com/news/lhc-sees-hint-of-boson-heavier-than-> higgs-1.19036
>>
>> Amazing how wrong they can be. LHC is already an old obsolete
>> apparatus, ha ha ha.
>
> ha ha ha "Corrected: An earlier version of this article stated,
> incorrectly, that the two photons have masses of about 750 GeV each and
> that the new particle would have a mass of 1,500 GeV."

And *that* is science, too.

*PLONK*


PointedEars
--
Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?
A: It doesn't conduct itself.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:8486258.U...@PointedEars.de...

|because now you have found something that contradicts it. Science is the
|falsification or confirmation of ideas through experiment or application of
|logic.

No, it is not. Science is something, what you will surely never
understand, poor idiot.

[Jürgen Großenbach]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> *The very purpose* of science (from Latin «scientia» „knowledge“) is

Scientia is rather a verb, to sciente, which means *to know*

>> LHC is already an old obsolete apparatus, ha ha ha.
>
> It is not.

Overdimensionated, overcostly, overpaid accumulation of complexity of
totally nonsense.

[Jürgen Großenbach]

Ahaha, good one Maciek, thanks.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> As for me, I really don't pay much attention to media hype, celebrity
> adoration, meme flairs, or the perceptions of propaganda-loving public.
> I don't find much value in any rampant attention paid to the
> Kardashians, Donald Trump, Steve Jobs, or Stephen Hawking.

That’s a game of “odd man out”, isn’t it? Just to mention Hawking in one
sentence with the Kardashians and Donald Trump…


PointedEars
--
Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
(from: WolframAlpha)

[Thomas Heger]

Am 16.12.2015 08:38, schrieb benj:

> Point is while strategic writers like HVAC and Odd try to ridicule any
> mention of a forbidden topic and discourage any actual investigation,
> this is exactly where the next advances will occur. They say, these
> things can't be real (never looking at the actual data, of course)
> because there is no theory to explain them! Ding! Ding! Ding!
>

> It is the very FACT that there is no theory that "explains" them that

> shows that they NEED to be studied! So today there is a HUGE list of
> "forbidden topics" that are off-limits to official support and
> publication and it is little wonder that official physics has lapsed
> into some monster word game of people trying to "explain" the universe
> using ever more and more illogical and meaningless "explanations".
>

I would say, that 'howling with the wolves' does not bring fun.

If someone tries to achieve something in theoretical physics, he should
try something really weird, not something 'normal'.

Reason:

the amount of work is similar if you research - say - ETs or Newton's
law of gravity.

But public attention is not, since Newton's law of gravity belongs
already to Newton.

So I would try to obtain such a list with 'forbidden subjects' and chose
one of those subjects.

This is much more promising, since -after all- they are not as
overcrowded as everything else.

Further I would like to mention, that I had developed that 'next big
thing' already.

;-)

This is my 'bet' and how I think the world would function:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6


TH


>

[benj]

Arrogance is your department Jos. You not only know it all, but you even
know what you don't know! As for my point: Once you admit of the
possibility of higher dimensions in space which create universes that
only tenuously connect to our space, the probability for unknown
unknowns becomes exceeding high.

“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of
in your philosophy.”

[benj]

Obviously you pursue the ones that interest you. But to have hopes of
success one doesn't simply throw darts at a list to choose. One tries to
examine those where there seems to be data indicating that the candidate
has some hope of being something of value. If one starts with a
preconceived notion that all the data is just hoaxes and misguided
adventures, then clearly one has thrown away the very thing you need to
use to choose. On the other hand one also must have discernment. If you
use hoaxes to choose, then you will not choose wisely either.

> I think this is a matter of taste. I think scientists develop a knack
> for pursuing the unknown but usually in directions where there is some
> likelihood for it not being futile. And in fact, the successful
> scientists are the ones that are talented in pursuing a new direction
> that DOES pan out. And you can ask them, "How did you know to choose
> THAT direction vs. any of the other million other things you could have
> pursued?" And they'll probably say something about gut instinct or
> experience or maybe just luck. For the ones that seem to do it over and
> over and over again, it's not luck.

Not taste. It's a combination of evaluations and judgment as to what is
important. One CAN do science filling in the blank spots in tables of
parameters. And people do do that. One can argue that it has a certain
importance. But is it as important as demonstrating FTL transmissions?

> But people like Ben can feel free to pursue any of the million
> possibilities they want to pursue, happily owning the risk, knowing that
> they're more likely to win the lottery than they are of hitting the
> jackpot.

The Problem here is "people like Boinker" have no understanding of what
science is or how it is done. He only has his "liberal arts" descriptive
viewpoint that misses all the essence. He has no idea where even to
START a project like demonstrating low temperature fusion or
transmutations. He thinks you just sit down with an idea and let your
imagination run wild as if you are writing some novel. That's his world.
Not the world of science. In science one stands on the shoulders of
giants to see farther and that is where one begins.

Velikovsky merely suggested that one might find something of value in
the examination of old myths. And the Boinkers and HVACs of the world
all screamed with one voice: THEY ARE ALL MYTH! THEY ARE ALL FANTASY!
YOU HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF WINNING THE LOTTERY THAN FINDING MYTHICAL TROY!

But of course as usual, Boinker is an idiot and HVAC is ignorant and
troy was found right where Homer said it was. And now Boinker is sure to
say "I never doubted there was a real Troy for a minute!" That's how he
works.

The future of physics and science does NOT lie with the Bonkers of the
world...at least not unless it is going to crash and burn.

[Y.Porat]

On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 5:22:14 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 9:06 AM, Poutnik wrote:

> > On 12/16/2015 02:46 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 12/16/2015 1:38 AM, benj wrote:
> >>>

> >>> In a way it's just an imitation of Einstein who everyone imagines just
> >>> cranked out a complex mathematical theory that nobody understands off
> >>> the top of his genius head.
> >>
> >> Speak for yourself, Ben.
> >> I do not believe that the theory of relativity is all that complex.
> >> I do not believe that nobody understands it.
> >> I do not believe it takes a genius to understand it.
> >>
> >> Now, it might be that YOU think nobody understands it. It might be that
> >> YOU think it's complex. It might be that YOU imagine that Einstein just
> >> cranked it out so that it would be above everyone's head. But that's
> >> just YOU, and you don't speak for anyone else but you.
> >>
> >

> > If anybody claims
> > all what he does not understand is useless nonsense and word salad,
> > it helps keeping him big in his eyes.
> >
> > If he admitted
> > it might be true but out of his league,
> > he would have also admit
> > he is not as smart as he thought or claimed.
> >
> > Such idea is impossible to withstand. So as a Parthian withdrawal,
> > there is recommended back-shooting of arrows of personal offences
> > to distract people from his lack of knowledge.
> >
>
> Right. Ben Jacoby is tired of people telling him he doesn't understand
> some things. And so when someone else claims to understand something he
> doesn't then Ben overreacts, saying "Oh, so you're claiming to be some
> kind of GENIUS!" No. Understanding something that Ben doesn't understand
> doesn't require genius.
>
> Ben is also fond of overgeneralizing, saying that if he doesn't
> understand something, then NOBODY understands it either. And if he has a
> belief, then he's prone to say that EVERYONE believes the same thing.
> Which is nonsense.
>

> --
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

=====================
and we are tired of nasty pigs
who pose that they understand every think
for just a little instance:

if spce curves



TO WHICH DIRECTION DOES IT CURVE :

A
to left side
b
to right side
c to up
d
to down side
and if to one of them
WHY ????!!

TIA
Y.Porat
=================================

[benj]

Your wish is my command! Here is a list of "forbidden" topics developed
by the fine denizens of sci.physics.


1. intelligent design (Includes UFO genetic labs)
2. alchemy
3. ESP
4. UFOs
5. Free energy
6. Cold fusion
7. Anti-gravity
8. Radionics
9. Life after death. (And near-death experiences)
10. Cancer cures (that actually work)
11. 9/11 structural failure
12. Murrah building structural failure
13. Life energy
14. Alien Lifeforms/life on other planets (beyond bacteria)
15. AGW deniers
16. Big Bang deniers
17. Relativity deniers
18. Man-made origins of new diseases
19. Psychokinesis
20. Astrology
21. Phrenology
22. Water fluoridation
23. Mandatory shots of mercury
24. Mercury tooth fillings
25. Astral projection
26. Remote viewing
27. Hypnosis (includes Manchurian Candidate)
28. Telepathy
29. ELF mind control
30. ELF weather making
31. ELF earthquake making
32. ELF tsunami making
33. Self replicating machines
34. Real history
35. Ancient technology (includes Cyclopean walls)
36. School brainwashing (Includes control of public Ed.)
37. University brainwashing (Start with censorship of these topics)
38. Tee Vee brainwashing (Include influence by “subs”)
39. (Political) Neurolinguistics
40. Nutrition vs thought pattern (i.e. eating meat makes people
aggressive, poor nutrition triggers primitive survival instincts)
41. Collective conscience
42. Animal intellect (Includes animal speech)
43. Hollow earth (questioning the “iron” core)
44. Growing earth
45. Molecular resonance
46. Automated construction of housing
47. Desert farming
48. Full mind transfer
49. Military artificial intelligence (self-controlled fighting bots)
50. BIO warfare (Includes race-specific diseases)
51. ZOG government (tracking actual authority)
52. Laser tunneling (in earth)
53. Underground secret bases and cities.
54. secret space bases and cities.
55. Air evacuated maglev tunnels (Includes Prehistoric ones)
56. Woman's lib (aka 'freedom is wage slavery')
57. Zionist banking magic (money from nothing)
58. Music intelligence modifier
59. Military psychopathy
60. Anything questioning the necessity of human labor (automation)
61. Anything questioning the necessity of money
62. Reincarnation
63. Telekinesis
64. Geometries enhancing "supernatural" abilities.
65. Longitudinal “scalar” electromagnetic (Actually not “scalar” are
Tesla fields)
66. Backster effect.
67. ORMUS metals (Phrana, CHI, QI, KI, odic force, bioplasma etc...See
Radionics)
68. Homeopathy
69. Acupuncture
70. Herbal medicine
71. The electrical universe (electrostatic force in solar system)
72. Wireless electricity (Tesla power transmission)
73. Rain dancing
74. Biolevitation
75. aquatic ape theory
76. Lunar effect on activity (see astrology)
77. Inertial propulsion
78. Non Newtonian Gyroscope effects (co-gravitation theory)
79. Non Newtonian pendulum effects
80. Symbiosis
81. Electronic voice phenomenon
82. Bacteria from deep underground
83. Vacuum bacteria in space
84. Bacteria in deep ocean trenches
85. Bacteria in ultra high radiation.
86. Cold fusion
87. Low energy Transmutation
88. Late pleistocene submerged cities and civilizations.
89. Humans in early pleistocene.
90. Any evidence of technology prior to 6000 BC.
91. Cyclopean Walls.
92. Feats of Yogis and Fakirs.
93. Seances
94. Prophesy.
95. Time travel.
96. Mantauk Experiments.
97. Project “rainbow”
98. Roswell technology
99. Multi-dimensional space as a logical explanation for all of the above!
100. Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Abominble Snowman

And last but not least Ghosts!

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 12/17/2015 6:45 AM, benj wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 02:18 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>> On 12/16/2015 3:58 PM, Bill Miller wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2015 2:38 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> Where does the future of physics lie?
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> I am reminded of Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary Of Defense, who was
>>> well known for saying:
>>>
>>> "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting
>>> to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we
>>> know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we
>>> know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown
>>> unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know."
>>
>> What Donald says may be true (after all he's a politician). But do
>> you think that even for benj there are unknown unknowns?! I find
>> that hard to believe..
>
> Arrogance is your department Jos.

Speak for yourself, benj!

> As for my point: Once you admit of the
> possibility of higher dimensions in space which create universes that
> only tenuously connect to our space,

That is not your point, that is already contained in
many existing attempts of making advances in physics.

> ... the probability for unknown
> unknowns becomes exceeding high.

Correct, so physics is already doing exactly what you
want it to be doing (for good or for worse..)

> “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of
> in your philosophy.”

If there is one field of science where this is fully
acknowledged, then it is theoretical physics. Hence
the often heard criticism that it has lost touch with
reality. So you are barking up the wrong tree, benj.
But your original question (where will real *advance*
be found) still stands, of course.

And of course a modest man will not hastily try to
answer it..

--
Jos

[Y.Porat]

On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 9:38:40 AM UTC+2, benj wrote:
> Where does the future of physics lie?
>

> So, you want to be the next "Einstein" developing the next big thing in
> physics. Where you do investigate? Spend a lot of tax money to smash
> things together and then name all the pieces? Pretty much like studying
> architecture by grinding up bricks and studying the dust under a
> microscope.
>

> Well, if you look on the INTERNET, it's pretty clear that most current
> efforts are all along the lines of word games, proving Relativity
> "wrong" and obscure mathematical complexity.
>

> In a way it's just an imitation of Einstein who everyone imagines just
> cranked out a complex mathematical theory that nobody understands off
> the top of his genius head.
>

> But discoveries really don't work that way, even with Einstein it
> started with a simple thing. In his case was the question if Galileo's
> theory of relativity held for electromagnetic phenomena. It did.
>
> The point here, gentle reader, is that while so many today in physics
> strain mightily with obscure mathematics and word games that literally
> make no logical sense in an attempt to "explain" how up is really down
> and black is really white and nothing at all can have "behavior", the
> place one needs to look for the "next big thing", is on the list of
> "forbidden" topics.
>
> As Professor Benade (who I used to work for once) told me: Don't be like
> the guy who lost a quarter over there but is looking over here because
> the light is better!
>

> Point is while strategic writers like HVAC and Odd try to ridicule any
> mention of a forbidden topic and discourage any actual investigation,
> this is exactly where the next advances will occur. They say, these
> things can't be real (never looking at the actual data, of course)
> because there is no theory to explain them! Ding! Ding! Ding!
>
> It is the very FACT that there is no theory that "explains" them that
> shows that they NEED to be studied! So today there is a HUGE list of
> "forbidden topics" that are off-limits to official support and
> publication and it is little wonder that official physics has lapsed
> into some monster word game of people trying to "explain" the universe
> using ever more and more illogical and meaningless "explanations".
>

> So if you think that "remote viewing" or ESP or PK are not "real" and
> are all hoaxes, it probably means you somehow are so lazy that you just
> accept some anonymous voice on the INTERNET who proclaims infallible
> omniscient truth because he says he does. And that means you are NEVER
> going to amount to diddly shit in science no matter how many people

> swoon over your complex mathematics and how m \_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
> \/__/ \/__/
========================================
SR is right
GR is big bullshit !!
people who say they understand it
are shameless liers !!
space does not curve and not shmerved !!
====================================
MASS IS THE MOTHER OF ALL FORCES!
INCLUDING GRAVITY
================================
see the Y Circlon mechanism !!!

2
=================================
NO MAS THE ONLY MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS !
========================================
3
the story of the Higgs Boson tha5 'gives mass to particles
and its 'discovery

IS ONE OF THE MOST SHAMEFUL CHAPTERS IN HISTORY OF SCIENCE !!
in science we cant promise success
but we should condemn and reject !!
lies and cheating s from business interests !!!

ATB
Y.Porat
==============

[Y.Porat]

>=============================
you can say it much simpler :

anonymous !! again anonymous ' Bodkin
ie PAUL DRAPER (P D )
is one of the greatest pigs and
shameless thieves here
======================
Y.Porat
==========================

[HVAC]

Every scientist does an instinctive risk vs benefit analysis. You can
pour your life into investigating something that is *very likely* hokum
but still stands a tiny chance of changing the world. The problem is
that there are millions of candidates of ideas to pursue:
- That atoms are tiny galaxies, containing microcosms each
- That rocks are in fact alive, but at a metabolic rate that is ten
billion times slower than animal life
- That humans can communicate telepathically
- That faster-than-light communication is possible
- That gravity screening is possible and anti-gravity drives are accessible
- That ghosts exist and souls speak to us after bodily death
- That ETs regularly visit and quite likely walk among us incognito
- That perpetual motion machines are feasible and the laws of
thermodynamics can be broken
- That perfectly rigid materials can be built
- That humans can be shrunk whole to the size of blood cells and operate
completely normally

------------

The thing is that you have listed two separate groups here. One is a group that has at least a slight possibility of success. The other group is the realm of kooks, quacks and BJ.

While anti gravity would be difficult, it is at least a possibility. Ghosts, while they may live in the fantastic world of BJ, are strictly horror stories.

Others like mental telepathy, can be achieved using technology. We can do it now. But only using technology. Human brains do not have the capability to 'thoughtcast' without mechanical assistance.

To sum up, BJ is a kook.

[HVAC]

Four angry/insane posts in a row. I think that constitutes a rant.

Good thing you're not mad

[Odd Bodkin]

On 12/16/2015 8:42 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> I would say, that 'howling with the wolves' does not bring fun.
>
> If someone tries to achieve something in theoretical physics, he should
> try something really weird, not something 'normal'.
>
> Reason:
>
> the amount of work is similar if you research - say - ETs or Newton's
> law of gravity.
>
> But public attention is not, since Newton's law of gravity belongs
> already to Newton.
>
> So I would try to obtain such a list with 'forbidden subjects' and chose
> one of those subjects.
>
> This is much more promising, since -after all- they are not as
> overcrowded as everything else.
>
> Further I would like to mention, that I had developed that 'next big
> thing' already.

This would be your choice, but I think it also points out the difference
in motivation between you and physicists. A physicist chooses subjects
to research based on where he thinks there is the greatest likelihood of
increase in verifiable knowledge, not on the basis of attention and fame.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

Those are "mysteries" or "fantasies", and if
not fantasies, then there is a physics of them,
and if there's a physics of them, there's a
science of them.

Laws like light speed and information density
are only being bent and not broken. They hold
while what effects about them there are so carry.

Then some of those are simple, others are names
for all kinds of things including mysteries and
fantasies, and "theories of conspiracy and mass
idiocy".


Then there are plenty of mysteries that are "real"
or of the legendary and mythical, but, your search
for the "para-normal" usually belongs to "pseudo-
science" or "alt.*", this is science, not legend.



--
When I see someone omit the usual Oxford comma
in separating a list, I think they have a poor
education, and that grammar is hard for them,
and that's the only rule they know to exercise.
Omitting the standard comma is poor and doesn't
reflect the cadence of statement, where the comma
isn't just syntactical, it's also expressive.

Omitting the standard comma is wrong.

The standard comma is a tacit verbal component,
in statement and expression.

[HVAC]

Not to be the materialistic one here, but most choose a career where they can make money.

Others are born into money and are independently wealthy.

This are the ones that can research into arcane subjects with no concern for pay.

Me? I just want to go fishing and spend my days as I used to as a kid.... Fishing, swimming and enjoying the outdoors.

I still maintain all my old contacts, but work is a thing of the past for me.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 12/17/2015 9:52 AM, HVAC wrote:
> Not to be the materialistic one here, but most choose a career where they can make money.

I beg to differ. Some do, but I would say that there's a lot of people
who do something that interests them and keeps them happy, and then if
they get good at it, the pay takes care of itself.

People who become school teachers are not in it for the money.
Those who enjoy acting and performance arts are definitely not in it for
the money.
People who love music are definitely not in it for the money.

And I love what I do, and I didn't take it up because of the money. And
I've eaten a lot of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese. Fortunately, I've gotten
enough practice and enough people like the special things I do that I'm
now comfortable enough financially.

>
> Others are born into money and are independently wealthy.
>
> This are the ones that can research into arcane subjects with no concern for pay.
>
> Me? I just want to go fishing and spend my days as I used to as a kid.... Fishing, swimming
> and enjoying the outdoors.
>
> I still maintain all my old contacts, but work is a thing of the past for me.
>

[HVAC]

People who become school teachers are not in it for the money.

--------

Academicians really don't work so I have discounted them.

[Odd Bodkin]

I couldn't have said it better.

>
>> I think this is a matter of taste. I think scientists develop a knack
>> for pursuing the unknown but usually in directions where there is some
>> likelihood for it not being futile. And in fact, the successful
>> scientists are the ones that are talented in pursuing a new direction
>> that DOES pan out. And you can ask them, "How did you know to choose
>> THAT direction vs. any of the other million other things you could have
>> pursued?" And they'll probably say something about gut instinct or
>> experience or maybe just luck. For the ones that seem to do it over and
>> over and over again, it's not luck.
>
> Not taste. It's a combination of evaluations and judgment as to what is
> important. One CAN do science filling in the blank spots in tables of
> parameters. And people do do that. One can argue that it has a certain
> importance. But is it as important as demonstrating FTL transmissions?

Not just important. Promising. That means weighing both the impact if
true vs. the risk that it's just trash.

>
>> But people like Ben can feel free to pursue any of the million
>> possibilities they want to pursue, happily owning the risk, knowing that
>> they're more likely to win the lottery than they are of hitting the
>> jackpot.
>
> The Problem here is "people like Boinker" have no understanding of what
> science is or how it is done. He only has his "liberal arts" descriptive
> viewpoint that misses all the essence.

I don't think you have the right to prejudge me.

> He has no idea where even to
> START a project like demonstrating low temperature fusion or
> transmutations. He thinks you just sit down with an idea and let your
> imagination run wild as if you are writing some novel. That's his world.
> Not the world of science. In science one stands on the shoulders of
> giants to see farther and that is where one begins.
>
> Velikovsky merely suggested that one might find something of value in
> the examination of old myths. And the Boinkers and HVACs of the world
> all screamed with one voice: THEY ARE ALL MYTH! THEY ARE ALL FANTASY!
> YOU HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF WINNING THE LOTTERY THAN FINDING MYTHICAL TROY!

Here's where you have exhibited prejudice, lumping me in with a class of
people, a class of your own manufacture, when I have said nothing
whatsoever about Velikovsky.

So mind your tongue and your manners, Ben.

On the other hand, "one might find something of value" is the kind of
thing that doesn't seem very promising to me. It might to you, though.
To me, it's of the sort "one might find gemstones 4 inches below the
surface in the backyard", to which I'm sure some people would promptly
pick up a shovel and spend the next two weeks tearing up their backyard.
Because the "importance" of the possibility seems to outweigh the
likelihood that it's going to turn up nothing.

Each to his own, Ben. You go ahead and pursue ESP and Roswell
technology. Maybe you'll find something earth-shaking. Let us know when
something pans out.

>
> But of course as usual, Boinker is an idiot and HVAC is ignorant and
> troy was found right where Homer said it was. And now Boinker is sure to
> say "I never doubted there was a real Troy for a minute!" That's how he
> works.
>
> The future of physics and science does NOT lie with the Bonkers of the
> world...at least not unless it is going to crash and burn.
>


--

[Odd Bodkin]

I think you need to head back to the bait shop and exchange those dead,
rotting nightcrawlers for something more appealing.

[xxe...@att.net]

On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 2:38:40 AM UTC-5, benj wrote:
> Where does the future of physics lie?
>
> So, you want to be the next "Einstein" developing the next big thing in
> physics. Where you do investigate? Spend a lot of tax money to smash
> things together and then name all the pieces? Pretty much like studying
> architecture by grinding up bricks and studying the dust under a
> microscope.
>
> Well, if you look on the INTERNET, it's pretty clear that most current
> efforts are all along the lines of word games, proving Relativity
> "wrong" and obscure mathematical complexity.
>

> In a way it's just an imitation of Einstein who everyone imagines just
> cranked out a complex mathematical theory that nobody understands off
> the top of his genius head.
>

> But discoveries really don't work that way, even with Einstein it
> started with a simple thing. In his case was the question if Galileo's
> theory of relativity held for electromagnetic phenomena. It did.
>
> The point here, gentle reader, is that while so many today in physics
> strain mightily with obscure mathematics and word games that literally
> make no logical sense in an attempt to "explain" how up is really down
> and black is really white and nothing at all can have "behavior", the
> place one needs to look for the "next big thing", is on the list of
> "forbidden" topics.
>
> As Professor Benade (who I used to work for once) told me: Don't be like
> the guy who lost a quarter over there but is looking over here because
> the light is better!
>

> Point is while strategic writers like HVAC and Odd try to ridicule any
> mention of a forbidden topic and discourage any actual investigation,
> this is exactly where the next advances will occur. They say, these
> things can't be real (never looking at the actual data, of course)
> because there is no theory to explain them! Ding! Ding! Ding!
>
> It is the very FACT that there is no theory that "explains" them that
> shows that they NEED to be studied! So today there is a HUGE list of
> "forbidden topics" that are off-limits to official support and
> publication and it is little wonder that official physics has lapsed
> into some monster word game of people trying to "explain" the universe
> using ever more and more illogical and meaningless "explanations".
>

> So if you think that "remote viewing" or ESP or PK are not "real" and
> are all hoaxes, it probably means you somehow are so lazy that you just
> accept some anonymous voice on the INTERNET who proclaims infallible
> omniscient truth because he says he does. And that means you are NEVER
> going to amount to diddly shit in science no matter how many people
> swoon over your complex mathematics and how many editors make sure your
> screed hits the "big" journals. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi. Got it?
>
>

> --
> ___ ___ ___ ___

> /\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
> /::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
> /:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
> /::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
> /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
> \:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /

> \:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
> \:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
> \_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
> \/__/ \/__/

xxein: While I can appreciate your interest in and opinion of the 'forbidden zone', I think the future of physics had better lie in making sure that what we think we know is actually true and not just another caricature of sorts.

When I started studying Einsteinian relativity as a hobby, I found it rather odd that past common sense was considered out-moded, so to speak. It was so odd that it has captured my heart and soul since.

The common sense that I am talking about is Einstein saying "We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.". Conjecture?

Any way, given that alone, it seems OK. But scientific opinion has raised that simple statement to a level beyond what was postulated. That being the idea that since light is MEASURED (by TWLS) as c in an IFR, it IS isotropic c in every IFR. I'm sure Draper remembers way back then when a lot of OWLS discussions were had. And since then, no genuine proof of this isotropism has surfaced. MMX and its offshoots has been the example of proof of this isotropy despite a showing (a Lorentzian consideration of time dilation and length contraction) that it is not a definitive proof. Even with my meager math skills, I have done the calcs showing no difference between isotropic and anisotropic behavior wrt measurement.

With such a false assumption taken as a fundamental building block of present day's SR-GR, it is no wonder that so many people are considered idiots for not understanding the lot that comes from it. And that is precisely the cause of their confusion with clocks, moving frames and etc.

Yet, the 'house of cards' or 'castle in the sky' works mathematically in spite of this. This is done by making further assumptions that rely upon this unproven isotropism to be true. And because of measure alone, this is heralded as scientific doctrine.

Iow, Einstein painted a pretty picture on the wall with measurements and provided a math to describe and explain it. But a mere showing that it works is not a proof, in and of itself, that this is how nature works. Nevertheless it is a tribute to Einstein's math that SR-GR does work as measured.

As for gravity, I can show you how to get the same results with a completely different model of its nature. No, it is not anything like what you may have read on these pages unless authored by me - and I have only offered hints, not the mechanism itself (so far).

I would beg of all that is science, to dig a little deeper into just what they have poured into the concrete as their foundation for their future pursuit.

Have a nice day today. You might have to re-learn physics tomorrow.

[Thomas Heger]

??

> 2. alchemy
> 3. ESP
> 4. UFOs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8z4SnCDu8
> 5. Free energy
www.free-energy-info.com/PJKbook.pdf

> 6. Cold fusion
> 7. Anti-gravity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GctFKIp8uXI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgiwK8vJde4

> 8. Radionics
> 9. Life after death. (And near-death experiences)
> 10. Cancer cures (that actually work)

https://www.google.de/?gws_rd=ssl#q=royal+Rife

> 11. 9/11 structural failure
http://drjudywood.com/

> 12. Murrah building structural failure

Seemed to be a test

> 13. Life energy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPV-JExUPns

> 14. Alien Lifeforms/life on other planets (beyond bacteria)
> 15. AGW deniers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ&list=PL5A1097F4E958728D
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/Hilgenberg.html
> 16. Big Bang deniers
http://www.sensibleuniverse.net/

> 17. Relativity deniers
kenseto, Pancho Valev

..

> 27. Hypnosis (includes Manchurian Candidate)

Why is that on this list?

> 28. Telepathy
> 29. ELF mind control
> 30. ELF weather making
> 31. ELF earthquake making

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foLDKQ00XJc

> 32. ELF tsunami making
> 33. Self replicating machines
> 34. Real history

Ain't history always real?

> 35. Ancient technology (includes Cyclopean walls)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C76MafUXNec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1C_CYEb9Qpo

..
> 44. Growing earth
already mentioned. In fact I do think, the Earth does grow.

> 45. Molecular resonance
why on the list ?

> 46. Automated construction of housing

why on the list ?

> 47. Desert farming

why on the list ?

..
> 68. Homeopathy
I had a long and fruitless discussion about this subject in the Usenet.
But think, that Homeopathy could actually work.

> 69. Acupuncture
I have studied this for some time, but think, that most western
practitioners have not the sufficient education. But with such knowledge
it may actually be helpful.

...
> 73. Rain dancing

what's that?

..

>
> And last but not least Ghosts!
>

I haven't seen one recently.


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 17.12.2015 16:11, schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>> If someone tries to achieve something in theoretical physics, he should
>> try something really weird, not something 'normal'.
>>
>> Reason:
>>
>> the amount of work is similar if you research - say - ETs or Newton's
>> law of gravity.
>>
>> But public attention is not, since Newton's law of gravity belongs
>> already to Newton.
>>
>> So I would try to obtain such a list with 'forbidden subjects' and chose
>> one of those subjects.
>>
>> This is much more promising, since -after all- they are not as
>> overcrowded as everything else.
>>
>> Further I would like to mention, that I had developed that 'next big
>> thing' already.
>
> This would be your choice, but I think it also points out the difference
> in motivation between you and physicists. A physicist chooses subjects
> to research based on where he thinks there is the greatest likelihood of
> increase in verifiable knowledge, not on the basis of attention and fame.
>

This is kind of true, but I am not a physicist. What I have written is
more like a hobby.

Hobbyists follow other rules than professional researchers.

Professional must do, what the job requires, while hobbyists can do what
they like.


TH

[Jürgen Großenbach]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> This is kind of true, but I am not a physicist. What I have written is
> more like a hobby. Hobbyists follow other rules than professional
> researchers.

You mean they aint followin any.

> Professional must do, what the job requires, while hobbyists can do what
> they like.

Nothing.

[Odd Bodkin]

This is true. You should do what you like as a hobby. If that means
investigating water dowsing or ouija boards, go for it.

But I think you should also be a little honest with yourself about the
likelihood to "achieve something in theoretical physics" and that being
"more like a hobby". Don't you think it's pretty unlikely for a hobbyist
to achieve anything notable in theoretical physics?

[benj]

Bwahahahaha! Since you were just born yesterday, I guess you haven't
had much time to study history both real and imagined.

Actually, I've never seen one.

[benj]

Boinker you are too funny! Anyone with a modicum of intellect can play
a tune on you like a fiddle! I'm sure most of the lurkers here are sharp
enough to note that my "People like Boinker" is nothing but a satire on
your "people like Ben"! <snort> And you think I "have not right"? You
maker of fine toys (I almost said idiot), you GAVE me the right!

>> He has no idea where even to
>> START a project like demonstrating low temperature fusion or
>> transmutations. He thinks you just sit down with an idea and let your
>> imagination run wild as if you are writing some novel. That's his world.
>> Not the world of science. In science one stands on the shoulders of
>> giants to see farther and that is where one begins.
>>
>> Velikovsky merely suggested that one might find something of value in
>> the examination of old myths. And the Boinkers and HVACs of the world
>> all screamed with one voice: THEY ARE ALL MYTH! THEY ARE ALL FANTASY!
>> YOU HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF WINNING THE LOTTERY THAN FINDING MYTHICAL
>> TROY!
>
> Here's where you have exhibited prejudice, lumping me in with a class of
> people, a class of your own manufacture, when I have said nothing
> whatsoever about Velikovsky.
>
> So mind your tongue and your manners, Ben.

So I guess HVAC has the day off as group "moderator" and you've taken
over. He must be Napoleon today!

> On the other hand, "one might find something of value" is the kind of
> thing that doesn't seem very promising to me. It might to you, though.
> To me, it's of the sort "one might find gemstones 4 inches below the
> surface in the backyard", to which I'm sure some people would promptly
> pick up a shovel and spend the next two weeks tearing up their backyard.
> Because the "importance" of the possibility seems to outweigh the
> likelihood that it's going to turn up nothing.

Your ignorance of science defies comprehension, Boinker! You wander in
your fantasy land without a logical, practical thought in your pretty
little head! One does not dig up the back yard simply because one
suddenly got the Lib fantasy that gems could be buried there 4 inches
below the surface. You might as well be cut and paste posting that
global warming "could" kill us all! You did the backyard because you
have some indication that doing such might be a valuable exercise
(treasure mape, a gem already found there, etc.) THAT is how science is
done. That "WHOOSH" noise was my remark about standing on the shoulders
of giants going right over top of your pointy little head!

> Each to his own, Ben. You go ahead and pursue ESP and Roswell
> technology. Maybe you'll find something earth-shaking. Let us know when
> something pans out.

It would be great if what you say were were true. But you have no idea
how forbidden science works any more than you do about how conventional
science works. HVAC can give you lessons on how to deal with preventing
any earth-shaking discoveries in the "wrong" areas and you can give him
lessons in the making of fine wooden toys.

>> But of course as usual, Boinker is an idiot and HVAC is ignorant and
>> troy was found right where Homer said it was. And now Boinker is sure to
>> say "I never doubted there was a real Troy for a minute!" That's how he
>> works.
>>
>> The future of physics and science does NOT lie with the Bonkers of the
>> world...at least not unless it is going to crash and burn.


--

[Thomas Heger]

Am 17.12.2015 22:35, schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>>>> Further I would like to mention, that I had developed that 'next big
>>>> thing' already.
>>>
>>> This would be your choice, but I think it also points out the difference
>>> in motivation between you and physicists. A physicist chooses subjects
>>> to research based on where he thinks there is the greatest likelihood of
>>> increase in verifiable knowledge, not on the basis of attention and
>>> fame.
>>>
>>
>> This is kind of true, but I am not a physicist. What I have written is
>> more like a hobby.
>>
>> Hobbyists follow other rules than professional researchers.
>>
>> Professional must do, what the job requires, while hobbyists can do what
>> they like.
>>
>
> This is true. You should do what you like as a hobby. If that means
> investigating water dowsing or ouija boards, go for it.
>
> But I think you should also be a little honest with yourself about the
> likelihood to "achieve something in theoretical physics" and that being
> "more like a hobby". Don't you think it's pretty unlikely for a hobbyist
> to achieve anything notable in theoretical physics?
>

No, because the real physicists are kind of stuck in the middle between
commercial and and political interests.

The entire terrain is full of land mines, fences and signs saying: keep
away.

But you cannot create any progress, if certain subjects are forbidden.

Since hobbyists don't know such rules, they can do, whatever they find
appropriate. (But only they can.)

I'm actually an engineer, but have some knowledge in adjacent fields:
(Organic) chemistry, mathematics, electronics, thermodynamics and a few
other.

Organic chemistry is in my eyes a good foundation, since this is
relatively close to Quantum mechanics and based on experiments, (similar
electronics). And both I have done since school.

I was also quite good in mathematics and once won a (small) price.

And engineers study stuff as well, that is related to physics.


TH

[Thomas Heger]

This is an assumption and it's wrong, since I have studied a lot of history.

Most of my 'studies' are related to Nazi-Germany.

I have actually my own special theory about this subject. So my guesses
go like this:

I found, that 'My Struggle' was written in English and translated into
German by Rudolph Hess and Hitler in Landsberg.

The person Hitler and the German Kanzler were actually two different
people. One was a gay Austrian looser and the other actually a British
spy. His real identity was Noel Trevenen Huxley (brother of Aldous
Huxley), who was raised/trained in Bavaria in the house of Houston
Steward Chamberlain (son in law of Richard Wagner).

His spouse was the niece of Churchill and the granddaughter of Lord
Redescale, who owned a goldmine in Canada (in the town 'Swastika'). The
shares had also a Nazi-swastika as a logo (as early as before WWI) .

The special salute of the Nazis stems actually from the Bellamy
brothers, who were early American socialists.

The 'Hitler youth' stems as carbon-copy from Baden-Powel's 'Boy Scouts'.

Baden-Powel was member of the so called 'Milners kindergarden' in 2nd
Boer war in South Africa (together with Churchill). And they invented so
called 'concentration camps' (from what the German word
'Konzentrationslager' is derived).

The 'Brown shirts' themselves resemble in a way those kaki uniforms, the
Brits wore in that Boer war.

The so called 'Hitler diaries' are actually scripts, that contain
written instructions (hence had two seals) in the linguistic form 'I do
...', why they are mistaken for diaries.

They were produced by the 'Tavistock Institute for Human relations' in
London, which is a cover for MI6. The 'F.H.' on the books means
actually 'Freud Hilton', what was the unofficial name for that institute
in the 30th, since the director was Sigmund Freud, who tried to cure
soldiers with 'shell shock'.

and so forth...



TH

[benj]

Wait a minute! Isn't writing things like this a serious crime in Euro
countries? I'm think I'm suppose to laugh now and ridicule your
"studies" as being "kook" conspiracy theories etc. to discourage you
(and anyone else) from pursuing them further. Obviously it's all
fabrications! This is almost as insane as the idea that American wealth
provided the resources needed to keep Hitler and WWII going.

PS. You need to dig deeper to discover who REALLY runs Tavistock and
what it's true purpose is.

And you wonder what "real" history means?

Say no more.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 12/17/2015 10:17 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 17.12.2015 22:35, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>
>>>>> Further I would like to mention, that I had developed that 'next big
>>>>> thing' already.
>>>>
>>>> This would be your choice, but I think it also points out the
>>>> difference
>>>> in motivation between you and physicists. A physicist chooses subjects
>>>> to research based on where he thinks there is the greatest
>>>> likelihood of
>>>> increase in verifiable knowledge, not on the basis of attention and
>>>> fame.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is kind of true, but I am not a physicist. What I have written is
>>> more like a hobby.
>>>
>>> Hobbyists follow other rules than professional researchers.
>>>
>>> Professional must do, what the job requires, while hobbyists can do what
>>> they like.
>>>
>>
>> This is true. You should do what you like as a hobby. If that means
>> investigating water dowsing or ouija boards, go for it.
>>
>> But I think you should also be a little honest with yourself about the
>> likelihood to "achieve something in theoretical physics" and that being
>> "more like a hobby". Don't you think it's pretty unlikely for a hobbyist
>> to achieve anything notable in theoretical physics?
>>
>
> No, because the real physicists are kind of stuck in the middle between
> commercial and and political interests.

I'm not so sure of that. Physicists generally work at either
institutions of higher learning or at government sponsored research
labs, if they're doing basic research. In both cases, they're rather
insulated from profit concerns or political objectives.

>
> The entire terrain is full of land mines, fences and signs saying: keep
> away.
>
> But you cannot create any progress, if certain subjects are forbidden.
>
> Since hobbyists don't know such rules, they can do, whatever they find
> appropriate. (But only they can.)

Well, as I said, you can study whatever you like. But that wasn't my
question to you. The question was whether you seriously think a hobbyist
can make a significant contribution to theoretical physics? I'm certain
you are free to dabble in unusual areas, but that doesn't translate into
making a significant contribution to theoretical physics.

>
> I'm actually an engineer, but have some knowledge in adjacent fields:
> (Organic) chemistry, mathematics, electronics, thermodynamics and a few
> other.
>
> Organic chemistry is in my eyes a good foundation, since this is
> relatively close to Quantum mechanics and based on experiments, (similar
> electronics). And both I have done since school.
>
> I was also quite good in mathematics and once won a (small) price.
>
> And engineers study stuff as well, that is related to physics.
>
>
> TH

[HVAC]

It would be great if what you say were were true. But you have no idea
how forbidden science works any more than you do about how conventional
science works. HVAC can give you lessons on how to deal with preventing
any earth-shaking discoveries in the "wrong" areas and you can give him
lessons in the making of fine wooden toys.

----------

BJ might be born again, but he wasn't born again yesterday!

BJ I am asking you a legit question. In your research into life after death, what compelling evidence have you found?

Also, can you list any kooky ideas, or as you call them 'forbidden topics', that you DON'T believe in?

So far I have you down as believing in ghosts, remote viewing, god, esp, telekinesis and the 9/11 conspiracy.

But can you list any kook topics that you don't believe in?

Maybe bigfoot? Or past life regression? (I forget what they call that but it was some milk company name I think).

Let's get this all out in the open so we can discuss it like gentlemen.

~
Manners Maketh Man

[Mahipal]

They are not insulated from profit concerns or political objectives.

> > The entire terrain is full of land mines, fences and signs saying: keep
> > away.
> >
> > But you cannot create any progress, if certain subjects are forbidden.
> >
> > Since hobbyists don't know such rules, they can do, whatever they find
> > appropriate. (But only they can.)
>
> Well, as I said, you can study whatever you like. But that wasn't my
> question to you. The question was whether you seriously think a hobbyist
> can make a significant contribution to theoretical physics? I'm certain
> you are free to dabble in unusual areas, but that doesn't translate into
> making a significant contribution to theoretical physics.

Three simple questions:

Since you speak a lot Odd Bodkin, who is it that you exactly speak for?
Who elected you to represent them here on Usenet?
Hiding your real parents' given name serves you well in anonymity?

> >
> > I'm actually an engineer, but have some knowledge in adjacent fields:
> > (Organic) chemistry, mathematics, electronics, thermodynamics and a few
> > other.
> >
> > Organic chemistry is in my eyes a good foundation, since this is
> > relatively close to Quantum mechanics and based on experiments, (similar
> > electronics). And both I have done since school.
> >
> > I was also quite good in mathematics and once won a (small) price.
> >
> > And engineers study stuff as well, that is related to physics.
> >
> > TH
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

TP Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine theoretical toys, tools, tables

-- Mahipal "IPMM... Why do anonymous posters serve The Status Quo?!"

[dobri karagorgov]

> Point is while strategic writers like HVAC and Odd try to ridicule any
> mention of a forbidden topic and discourage any actual investigation,
> this is exactly where the next advances will occur. They say, these
> things can't be real (never looking at the actual data, of course)
> because there is no theory to explain them! Ding! Ding! Ding!
>
> It is the very FACT that there is no theory that "explains" them that
> shows that they NEED to be studied! So today there is a HUGE list of
> "forbidden topics" that are off-limits to official support and
> publication and it is little wonder that official physics has lapsed
> into some monster word game of people trying to "explain" the universe
> using ever more and more illogical and meaningless "explanations".
>

> So if you think that "remote viewing" or ESP or PK are not "real" and
> are all hoaxes, it probably means you somehow are so lazy that you just
> accept some anonymous voice on the INTERNET who proclaims infallible
> omniscient truth because he says he does. And that means you are NEVER
> going to amount to diddly shit in science no matter how many people
> swoon over your complex mathematics and how many editors make sure your
> screed hits the "big" journals. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi. Got it?
>
>

> --
> ___ ___ ___ ___
> /\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
> /::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
> /:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
> /::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
> /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
> \:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
> \:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
> \:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
> \_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
> \/__/ \/__/

you say future; i say how a bow the past ??? if physics was ever to be unified in the end of times doesn't it tell you that physics was always unified from the very first law... to be precise i am most interested for the 250 BC when Archimedes wrote ON EQUILIBRIUM OF PLANES & ON FLOATING OBJECTS >>> ? who was that Roman asshole that killed my dear ancestor with a sword in the unarmored chest; he's the greatest enemy of entire mankind, ArchimEDEN told him nice to not disturb them two circles one of 1 and the other of 0 !!! if the circle of zero is not a point i.e. circle with radius 0 then say if the zero circle has half the radius of that of one then in the origin there ought to be zero@infinity while on the end there ought to be infinite power of infinity... which is introduction in MY UTOPIA !!!

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/16/15 12/16/15 - 1:38 AM, benj wrote:
> Where does the future of physics lie?

With people who actually STUDY physics. Not with fools like you who attempt to
write about subjects they clearly do not understand.

> So, you want to be the next "Einstein" developing the next big thing in physics.
> Where you do investigate? Spend a lot of tax money to smash things together and
> then name all the pieces? Pretty much like studying architecture by grinding up
> bricks and studying the dust under a microscope.

No. A proper analogy would be studying dust by grinding up bricks. FYI the
structure of dust is VERY different from "architecture", but can be just as
interesting....

If instead of "dust" one studies atoms and subatomic particles, the study
becomes fundamental, as everything is made up of atoms and subatomic particles.

Your attempted analogy does not really apply. When you pontificate like this on
subjects you know nothing about, you merely display your personal ignorance.

> Well, if you look on the INTERNET, it's pretty clear that most current efforts
> are all along the lines of word games, proving Relativity "wrong" and obscure
> mathematical complexity.

Well, if I look at this statement, it's pretty clear that you don't know how to
use the internet. You merely describe fools and idiots, like those who mostly
populate this newsgroup, and those who put up websites that masquerade as
science but promulgate nonsense. Yes, that is useless, and not written by
scientists -- your "most current efforts" is napplicable, because you are not
looking at physics.

Around here at Fermilab we use the internet to significantly improve our
productivity, as do virtually all scientists today. It has become an ENORMOUS
help in discovering papers of interest and then getting them, as well as greatly
improving our efficiency in looking up facts (e.g. material properties). Plus
meetings and other modes of communication....

It takes a certain "maturity" to be able to distinguish sense
from nonsense, and you have not even approached the threshold.
The only reliable way I know for newbies and amateurs to do
this is that fools, idiots, and poseurs do not reference
textbooks, while knowledgeable people often do.
For SR I recommend:
Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_.
For GR I recommend:
Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, _Gravitation_.

Of course the traditional way to achieve such "maturity" is to
take courses at a university....


> In a way it's just an imitation of Einstein who everyone imagines [...]

I'll stop here. Your "everyone" consists of PEOPLE LIKE YOU, and not real
scientists. The result is that your writings are just complete nonsense. So
there's no point in my continuing.

You seem to be saying that physics needs a revolution -- new ideas outside the
current theories. There is more than just a grain of truth in that. But let me
point out that in the history of physics nobody has ever made a significant
contribution who was not familiar with the then-current experiments and
theories. So anybody who actually wants to contribute to physics should be
STUDYING the current theories and experiments; you yourself are an INCREDIBLY
POOR example, as are your suggestions.

Your comments on "remote viewing", ESP, and PK show that
YOU are "so lazy" that you have not actually studied them.
And you left out Velikovsky (and many others). I HAVE spent
enough time studying these subjects that I KNOW they do not
stand up to basic tests for FRAUD. It's about REPRODUCIBILITY,
and none of those phenomena are reproducible at all -- that's
why they are not subjects of scientific research, not who might
have said they are unworthy. So it's clear to me that YOU "are
NEVER going to amount to diddly shit in science".

Later on you say:

> If you use hoaxes to choose, then you will not choose wisely either.

So why do you mention "remote viewing, ESP, and PK"?? Because they ARE hoaxes.


And:

> Velikovsky merely suggested that one might find something of value in the examination of old myths.

No, Velikovsky went far beyond such a "suggestion", and wrote FRAUDULENT books
that claimed to show correspondence between those myths and the history of the
solar system.

In grad school (~ 1973) I was amazed by his _Worlds_In_Collision_;
my advisor was highly skeptical. I decided to spend one Saturday
in the physics library checking his references. NOT A SINGLE
ONE CHECKED OUT, and I gave up before noon. Years later I
learned that Carl Sagan had done the same thing in an astronomy
library, with the same result.


From your writings, it is QUITE CLEAR that YOU have not "Got it".


Tom Roberts

[Ezra Farrow]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> If instead of "dust" one studies atoms and subatomic particles, the
> study becomes fundamental, as everything is made up of atoms and
> subatomic particles.

Good you brought it in the front. Exactly how deep you can go into the
sizes in Physics. About 10⁻²⁰ times the size of a proton? I mean, the size
of an atom is about 0.1nm, hence the size of the nucleus e3 times smaller
ie 0.1pm. Disregard the number of protons/neutrons? You caNT be serious.
Lower than this you cant measure anything. Consequently this is my limit,
0.1 picometres. Below this limit nothing makes sense. Is a quark the size
of a proton? Stupid question.

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/18/15 12/18/15 - 12:02 PM, Ezra Farrow wrote:
> Exactly how deep you can go into the
> sizes in Physics. About 10⁻²⁰ times the size of a proton?

No. The LHC can study phenomena at the scale ~ 10^-20 meters, or about 10^-5 the
radius of a proton.

> I mean, the size
> of an atom is about 0.1nm, hence the size of the nucleus e3 times smaller
> ie 0.1pm.

You got it wrong -- the nucleus is about 10^5 times smaller than the size of an
atom. The radius of a proton is about 1.3 femtometer, and a nucleus with A
nucleons has a radius about A^(1/3) larger.

> Disregard the number of protons/neutrons? You caNT be serious.
> Lower than this you cant measure anything. Consequently this is my limit,
> 0.1 picometres. Below this limit nothing makes sense.

Your "limit" is wrong (see above). We _ARE_ probing length scales much smaller
than that, and see no reason why future accelerators could not probe length
scales smaller than 10^-20 meters.

> Is a quark the size
> of a proton? Stupid question.

While not completely "stupid", it is not easy to discuss "size" of quantum
objects. At present there is no evidence for substructure in either quarks or
leptons. Our best model, the standard model, considers quarks and leptons to be
fundamental, pointlike objects with 0 radius. Its accuracy is evidence of the
validity of that assumption.


Tom Roberts

[Thomas Heger]

Am 18.12.2015 10:43, schrieb benj:
..
>
> Wait a minute! Isn't writing things like this a serious crime in Euro
> countries? I'm think I'm suppose to laugh now and ridicule your
> "studies" as being "kook" conspiracy theories etc. to discourage you
> (and anyone else) from pursuing them further. Obviously it's all
> fabrications! This is almost as insane as the idea that American wealth
> provided the resources needed to keep Hitler and WWII going.
>

In 'Euro countries' we still have constitutions (and occasionally
recognise them as valid laws).

The German constitution -for example- states, who releases laws about
what is legal and what is illegal.

The EU is not a nation, but kind of 'club of nations' and has no own
legislative. This belongs to the nations (like in my case Germany).

German laws forbid 'Holocaust denial' (for example). But in fact, that
was not my plan. Actually have no reason to question Nazi crimes and do
not want to deny anything.

But I can question other things. Here the subject was, whether or not
certain elitist groups from the English aristocracy are somehow involved
in Naziism.

And, sure, some have been involved. E.g. then king of England was a
famous Nazi supporter (why he had to resign).

Also Diana and Unity Midfort have been high in the British aristocracy.

The idea of 'Mein Kampf' being a translation from English to German
stems from a regular named 'Topaz' in 'alt.conspiracy', who often quotes
'My Struggle'.

Since I speak (of course) German, I can read both (English and German
version). It is immediately obvious, that the English version is written
much better. The German version is a real pain to read and has this
typical 'Hitler style'. And this can only be, if the German version is a
translation from English.

I can prove this on any given page (just say which page I shall take).

> PS. You need to dig deeper to discover who REALLY runs Tavistock and
> what it's true purpose is.
>

THIS is the million dollar question ...


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 18.12.2015 14:45, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
...

>>
>> But you cannot create any progress, if certain subjects are forbidden.
>>
>> Since hobbyists don't know such rules, they can do, whatever they find
>> appropriate. (But only they can.)
>
> Well, as I said, you can study whatever you like. But that wasn't my
> question to you. The question was whether you seriously think a hobbyist
> can make a significant contribution to theoretical physics? I'm certain
> you are free to dabble in unusual areas, but that doesn't translate into
> making a significant contribution to theoretical physics.

I don't know.

Sure, I think my idea is:
a) new
b) unique
c) mine
d) the best in the world

But d) is not necessarily the case.

TH

[Odd Bodkin]

That's right. New, unique, and yours are freebies. I can take a piece of
wood and make it into something completely different than anything else
that has been made, and it will be new, unique, and mine. But that
doesn't make it valuable, even if *I* treasure it.

The significance of your contribution to theoretical physics would be
something attributed by others, not by you.

When you do your own quality assessment, you end up with same kind of
self-delusion that Ken Fischer indulged himself. He gave himself some
passing of idle time, but did he accomplish anything? Doesn't appear
that he did, no.

[Thomas Heger]

So: what do you think?

Here is what I have to offer:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

It's truly amateurish and most likely not of any practical usefulness.

But I describe a possible way to connect GRT to QM and in this realm
there ain't much competition.

The way I came to my conclusion is this :

I take GR and QM as more or less valid, but do not cover these subjects.
What I try to find is a 'path' to connect both.

This could be understood as finding a way from point 'A' to point 'B'.
Consider: there is a path, but you don't know where that is and how it
may look like.

But if these 'ends' are fixed and assumed valid, then a connection could
be found by certain estimates.

The method is similar to a fractal: draw a line from 'A' to 'B' and
search around the midpoint until you find something fitting.

Then take this point ('C') as new endpoint and repeat (with A and C and
with C and B).

This is a recursive process and will reveal the path (to some degree).

If the path is actually possible, a solution is found.

I have actually started at the 'GR side' and have tried to build
particles out of spacetime.


TH

[Odd Bodkin]

On 12/18/2015 2:23 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> So: what do you think?
>
> Here is what I have to offer:
>
> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>
> It's truly amateurish and most likely not of any practical usefulness.

To be honest, yes, it looks amateurish and does not look like a work of
theoretical physics.

I notice there isn't much in the way of a prediction of measurable
quantity to test it against.

>
> But I describe a possible way to connect GRT to QM and in this realm
> there ain't much competition.
>
> The way I came to my conclusion is this :
>
> I take GR and QM as more or less valid, but do not cover these subjects.
> What I try to find is a 'path' to connect both.
>
> This could be understood as finding a way from point 'A' to point 'B'.
> Consider: there is a path, but you don't know where that is and how it
> may look like.
>
> But if these 'ends' are fixed and assumed valid, then a connection could
> be found by certain estimates.
>
> The method is similar to a fractal: draw a line from 'A' to 'B' and
> search around the midpoint until you find something fitting.
>
> Then take this point ('C') as new endpoint and repeat (with A and C and
> with C and B).
>
> This is a recursive process and will reveal the path (to some degree).
>
> If the path is actually possible, a solution is found.
>
> I have actually started at the 'GR side' and have tried to build
> particles out of spacetime.

Actually, it looks like you ASSUMED particles of spacetime, via some
logic that reads, "Any physical system is composed of discrete elements,
and since spacetime is a physical system, it must then be composed of
discrete elements." Of course you then say something like "But spacetime
is a continuum" (which of course completely denies the discreteness you
just claimed) "and therefore the elements must be points with properties."

I think you would do well to look hard at some of the other attempts to
unify GR and QM. There are quite a few of them, with a lot of variety.
This might teach you how to more properly attack the problem.

[Ezra Farrow]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 12/18/15 12/18/15 - 12:02 PM, Ezra Farrow wrote:
>> Exactly how deep you can go into the sizes in Physics. About 10⁻²⁰
>> times the size of a proton?
>
> No. The LHC can study phenomena at the scale ~ 10^-20 meters, or about
> 10^-5 the radius of a proton.

But this is 10¹⁵ larger than the Plank distance. That's the point. They
never go down to that resolution. What is bellow Plank distance, pure
discretization of the continuum?

>> I mean, the size of an atom is about 0.1nm, hence the size of the
>> nucleus e3 times smaller ie 0.1pm.
>
> You got it wrong -- the nucleus is about 10^5 times smaller than the

That's not much wrong 100 times is nothing in that region, because no
meter stick can measure it accurately. Those are merely probabilities, I
guess. Saying that the nucleus is 1E5 times smaller does not solve
anything, since the electrons cloud is a soft Probabilistic blurred
domain, which inflates and deflate (periodically?)

You can say for certain that 1E5 times smaller. Can you? To me 1fm is
utopia.

> size of an atom. The radius of a proton is about 1.3 femtometer, and a
> nucleus with A nucleons has a radius about A^(1/3) larger.

Thanks. Good to know.

> Your "limit" is wrong (see above). We _ARE_ probing length scales much
> smaller than that, and see no reason why future accelerators could not
> probe length scales smaller than 10^-20 meters.

I am not questioning that, but the derivation of the size, may be
deceptive. What infact they see at the large hadrons are Pixels in display
say Full-HD (1920x1080) of 4k (3840x2160) which is not much. The
measurements are more than likely Derivations, not direct.

>> Is a quark the size of a proton? Stupid question.
>
> While not completely "stupid", it is not easy to discuss "size" of
> quantum objects.

Absolutely, I already implied that. The best "direct" measurement of the
sizes of particles supposes Correlation of Laser Scattering. (wavelengths
region particles).

[benj]

Thomas, have you EVER seen a human being so throughly out of touch with
reality as Boinker? Utterly amazing! He is totally oblivious to the fact
that virtually all research in universities and government labs is
sponsored by... you guessed it. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
Even in industry where products are sold to government same control gets
exerted through money.

>>
>> The entire terrain is full of land mines, fences and signs saying: keep
>> away.
>>
>> But you cannot create any progress, if certain subjects are forbidden.
>>
>> Since hobbyists don't know such rules, they can do, whatever they find
>> appropriate. (But only they can.)
>
> Well, as I said, you can study whatever you like. But that wasn't my
> question to you. The question was whether you seriously think a hobbyist
> can make a significant contribution to theoretical physics? I'm certain
> you are free to dabble in unusual areas, but that doesn't translate into
> making a significant contribution to theoretical physics.

Take it up a notch. Do you think an autodidact genius can make a
significant contribution to Theoretical physics even if he already HAS
that contribution worked out in all details. Those who control
publication will see you don't. Take it up even on step higher! Do you
think full professors with tenure are capable of making a contribution
if the topic is "forbidden"? We have some excellent examples of where
they not only were prevented, but also lost their jobs.

So much for tenure protection from politics!

>>
>> I'm actually an engineer, but have some knowledge in adjacent fields:
>> (Organic) chemistry, mathematics, electronics, thermodynamics and a few
>> other.
>>
>> Organic chemistry is in my eyes a good foundation, since this is
>> relatively close to Quantum mechanics and based on experiments, (similar
>> electronics). And both I have done since school.
>>
>> I was also quite good in mathematics and once won a (small) price.
>>
>> And engineers study stuff as well, that is related to physics.

And even better than that, engineers have to build crap that actually
works in the real world. Word games like "probability waves in nothing
at all" may fly in amongst the dogma purveyors that Boinker so
desperately believes in. but among engineers it's obviously babbling
insanity.

[benj]

On 12/18/2015 11:58 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 12/16/15 12/16/15 - 1:38 AM, benj wrote:
>> Where does the future of physics lie?
>
> With people who actually STUDY physics. Not with fools like you who
> attempt to write about subjects they clearly do not understand.

Uh oh! Here's another one with "superpowers"!

>> So, you want to be the next "Einstein" developing the next big thing
>> in physics.
>> Where you do investigate? Spend a lot of tax money to smash things
>> together and
>> then name all the pieces? Pretty much like studying architecture by
>> grinding up
>> bricks and studying the dust under a microscope.

> No. A proper analogy would be studying dust by grinding up bricks. FYI
> the structure of dust is VERY different from "architecture", but can be
> just as interesting....

So study dust. But please keep your "cosmology" that you invented as a
result to yourself. The dust is not the same as the "big picture".

> If instead of "dust" one studies atoms and subatomic particles, the
> study becomes fundamental, as everything is made up of atoms and
> subatomic particles.

Anybody here (without superpowers) know what the actual structure of an
atom is? Didn't think so. Better look at some more brick dust!

> Your attempted analogy does not really apply. When you pontificate like
> this on subjects you know nothing about, you merely display your
> personal ignorance.

And the way you know I know nothing is? Oh that's right. Superpowers!

>> Well, if you look on the INTERNET, it's pretty clear that most current
>> efforts
>> are all along the lines of word games, proving Relativity "wrong" and
>> obscure
>> mathematical complexity.
>
> Well, if I look at this statement, it's pretty clear that you don't know
> how to use the internet. You merely describe fools and idiots, like
> those who mostly populate this newsgroup, and those who put up websites
> that masquerade as science but promulgate nonsense. Yes, that is
> useless, and not written by scientists -- your "most current efforts" is
> napplicable, because you are not looking at physics.

Sonny, I was on the INTERNET BEFORE it was the INTERENT. However, your
description of posting denizens here is correct. You don't count the
lurkers though. Use your superpowers to get a list of scientist lurkers.
Obviously you are a lurker. Hence I'm speaking to YOU!

> Around here at Fermilab we use the internet to significantly improve our
> productivity, as do virtually all scientists today. It has become an
> ENORMOUS help in discovering papers of interest and then getting them,
> as well as greatly improving our efficiency in looking up facts (e.g.
> material properties). Plus meetings and other modes of communication....

Internet as superphone? Whoda thunk it? And of course it helps a lot
when you have taxpayers (me) forking over all the fees needed to
actually see papers on the Internet. However, the days of Usenet as
intelligent conversations on science are pretty much gone. And forums
are all so controlled any new ideas are censored out. So just WHERE do
you go to "discover" new papers? What you are saying is you've all
turned the internet into a private network through use of fees and that
means that you keep all new ideas OUT! Which is exactly the OPPOSITE to
the point I was making as to where progress is located.

> It takes a certain "maturity" to be able to distinguish sense
> from nonsense, and you have not even approached the threshold.
> The only reliable way I know for newbies and amateurs to do
> this is that fools, idiots, and poseurs do not reference
> textbooks, while knowledgeable people often do.
> For SR I recommend:
> Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_.
> For GR I recommend:
> Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, _Gravitation_.
>
> Of course the traditional way to achieve such "maturity" is to
> take courses at a university....

Glad to hear that in your opinion I'm both "traditional" and "mature"
having taken some courses at a university.

>> In a way it's just an imitation of Einstein who everyone imagines [...]
>
> I'll stop here. Your "everyone" consists of PEOPLE LIKE YOU, and not
> real scientists. The result is that your writings are just complete
> nonsense. So there's no point in my continuing.

That's funny I've got a business card that says "scientist" on it
printed by an organization probably running your lab! <snort>! Your
superpowers are failing you!

> You seem to be saying that physics needs a revolution -- new ideas
> outside the current theories. There is more than just a grain of truth
> in that. But let me point out that in the history of physics nobody has
> ever made a significant contribution who was not familiar with the
> then-current experiments and theories. So anybody who actually wants to
> contribute to physics should be STUDYING the current theories and
> experiments; you yourself are an INCREDIBLY POOR example, as are your
> suggestions.

And the way you know this is? Ah! Superpowers again! I'd love to see
just what your hero costume looks like! Does it have a cape? I hope so!

Whoosh was the sound of my comment to Boinker about standing on the
shoulders of giants going right over both your and his pointy little heads!

> Your comments on "remote viewing", ESP, and PK show that
> YOU are "so lazy" that you have not actually studied them.
> And you left out Velikovsky (and many others). I HAVE spent
> enough time studying these subjects that I KNOW they do not
> stand up to basic tests for FRAUD. It's about REPRODUCIBILITY,
> and none of those phenomena are reproducible at all -- that's
> why they are not subjects of scientific research, not who might
> have said they are unworthy. So it's clear to me that YOU "are
> NEVER going to amount to diddly shit in science".
>
> Later on you say:
>> If you use hoaxes to choose, then you will not choose wisely either.
>
> So why do you mention "remote viewing, ESP, and PK"?? Because they ARE
> hoaxes.

Obviously you haven't studied the data at all. You are the EXACT
"incredibly poor example" that you accuse me of being. To call these
things Hoaxes and try to pass that off as "learning" is incredibly
ignorant and is the EXACT reason I posted the original piece. It means
that YOU and people like you are the VERY reason that science is
stagnant. You refuse to actually examine any actual data because your
mind is already made up! Some science.

> And:
>> Velikovsky merely suggested that one might find something of value in
>> the examination of old myths.
>
> No, Velikovsky went far beyond such a "suggestion", and wrote FRAUDULENT
> books that claimed to show correspondence between those myths and the
> history of the solar system.
>
> In grad school (~ 1973) I was amazed by his _Worlds_In_Collision_;
> my advisor was highly skeptical. I decided to spend one Saturday
> in the physics library checking his references. NOT A SINGLE
> ONE CHECKED OUT, and I gave up before noon. Years later I
> learned that Carl Sagan had done the same thing in an astronomy
> library, with the same result.

Given the way his books seem to give everyone diarrhea in science, and
how hard you all work to "debunk" what was merely the idea that there
may be truth to ancient myth, he obviously was onto something. No need
for you and the late establishment mouthpiece Sagan to work so hard at
proving he wasn't an astronomer. He wasn't. Never said he was. What are
you guys trying to hide?

> From your writings, it is QUITE CLEAR that YOU have not "Got it".

Sure just join the crowd. I'm ignorant. I'm uneducated. I'm batshit
crazy. I'm a "conspiracy theorist". I'm afraid of mathematics. I'm a
Christian fundamentalists. I'm a kook. I'm a gunnutter. Did I forget
anything? Just use your superpowers to complete the list.

Oh wait. I actually AM a gunnut!


"There is an emotional prejudice behind the choice of 'the facts' the
scientist is willing to take seriously; a feeling that certain facts are
'good taste' and certain others are bad taste. Quite unconsciously he
has come to limit his interest to the kind of facts that fit into the
kind of jigsaw puzzle he is good at solving."

Colin Wilson

[benj]

On 12/18/2015 02:26 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 18.12.2015 10:43, schrieb benj:
> ..
>>
>> Wait a minute! Isn't writing things like this a serious crime in Euro
>> countries? I'm think I'm suppose to laugh now and ridicule your
>> "studies" as being "kook" conspiracy theories etc. to discourage you
>> (and anyone else) from pursuing them further. Obviously it's all
>> fabrications! This is almost as insane as the idea that American wealth
>> provided the resources needed to keep Hitler and WWII going.
>>
>
> In 'Euro countries' we still have constitutions (and occasionally
> recognise them as valid laws).
>
> The German constitution -for example- states, who releases laws about
> what is legal and what is illegal.
>
> The EU is not a nation, but kind of 'club of nations' and has no own
> legislative. This belongs to the nations (like in my case Germany).
>
> German laws forbid 'Holocaust denial' (for example). But in fact, that
> was not my plan. Actually have no reason to question Nazi crimes and do
> not want to deny anything.
>
> But I can question other things. Here the subject was, whether or not
> certain elitist groups from the English aristocracy are somehow involved
> in Naziism.

Well, perhaps you need to look a bit closer. Germany is particularly
sensitive about the Nazi era (for understandable reasons) and there have
been bone-fide historians trying to research and write a history of that
era who have run afoul of bureaucratic excesses of the law also
obviously with no intention of denying anything.

> And, sure, some have been involved. E.g. then king of England was a
> famous Nazi supporter (why he had to resign).
>
> Also Diana and Unity Midfort have been high in the British aristocracy.

Not to mention the name change earlier to Windsor to hide the German blood.

> The idea of 'Mein Kampf' being a translation from English to German
> stems from a regular named 'Topaz' in 'alt.conspiracy', who often quotes
> 'My Struggle'.
>
> Since I speak (of course) German, I can read both (English and German
> version). It is immediately obvious, that the English version is written
> much better. The German version is a real pain to read and has this
> typical 'Hitler style'. And this can only be, if the German version is a
> translation from English.

This is a very interesting theory which I've never heard before,
although I must admit it makes perfect sense.

> I can prove this on any given page (just say which page I shall take).
>
>
>> PS. You need to dig deeper to discover who REALLY runs Tavistock and
>> what it's true purpose is.
>>
> THIS is the million dollar question ...

Yes it is.

Just need to dig down to the level of "real history"! :-)

[benj]

On 12/16/2015 02:38 AM, benj wrote:
> Where does the future of physics lie?

So we've seen the list of "forbidden" topics generated by those in this
newsgroup. So how about I pick one topic and give an example?

OK. I pick Alchemy. (Sorry for those of you hoping it would be Ghosts,
or ESP or Remote Viewing or the like...but really you'll find the story
basically the same no matter which one is picked)

Back in history there was the myth of Alchemy. It was the story that
lead (relatively inexpensive) could be turned into gold (valuable)
by some means. So the thought of limitless riches had men grinding and
melting and vaporizing and condensing and in essence inventing much of
chemistry in an attempt to create this transformation. Some stories said
it was possible others just said it was myth.

Enter science. In particular, the Law of Lavoisier. This with "atomic
theory" created the dogma expounded by the most learned of ladies and
gentlemen for many years that alchemy was simply a "hoax". Foolery
designed to bamboozle the ignorant kings of yore! Science and great
learning NOW had ALL the answers! There is no such thing as
transmutation. It was the "settled science" of it's day!

Except, of course, all the "learned gentlemen" were just completely
wrong. All those years of science dogma down the drain as atomic physics
demonstrated beyond any doubt that transmutations were indeed possible.
Does anyone notice here that this particular advance in physics actually
came about through a "forbidden" topic, namely that alchemy was actually
possible?

But there is something about Alchemy I neglected to mention. Namely that
traditional "mythical" alchemy is "cold transmutations". The
transformation of lead to gold takes place at the melting point of lead
through the addition of a material known as the "Philosopher's stone"
that effects the transmutation.

So again while science has adjusted to transmutations actually being
real, the "forbidden" topic is now Low energy transmutations since the
transmutations of nuclear physics require high energies to occur.

So once again it is hoped the whole issue can be avoided. But such is
not the case. An autodidact of the name Corentin Louis Kervran notices
some things that simply do not make scientific sense. Violations, if you
will, in nature, of the law of Lavoisier. He develops myriad connections
of low energy transmutation explanations for heretofore unexplained
features of physics, geology, agriculture, medicine and so forth. It
looks like a major advance in the offing!

But did you forget "forbidden"? Did you not hear "autodidact"? Can you
not see the enormous economic and political earthquake industrial level
alchemy could cause if gold were so cheap you could just back your
trailer to the city gold pile and fill up? There is a LOT at stake here!

And unsurprisingly, the debunkers descend. While the Japanese are so
impressed they said they nominated Kervran for a Nobel prize, everyone
else was in denier mode nominating him for the Ignoble Prize where he
can be laughed at as a kook and his theories discounted as "insane".
Just all the usual stuff. No surprises. Anyway he was French and
everybody know all Frenchmen are nuts.

So Kervran's theories, his data, his speculations all sit there in his
books (in French) laughed at and dismissed from any serious
consideration. No experiments. No follow-ups. Even Wikipedia took a
factual article on Kervran and cleverly "spun" it to paint him as a nut
job and misrepresent his ideas.

So just WHERE are the advances in Geology, in Agriculture, in Medicine
or even industrial ore concentrations? Some actually are there believe
it or not, but hidden well down below the surface. And certainly making
sure nothing points back toward the late C.L. Kervran.

One can find similar stories by researching virtually ANY topic on that
list.

[Thomas Heger]

The book 'Mein Kampf' is not absolutely, but almost, illegal in Germany.

Also there is little reason to obtain and actually read this book, since
- after all - the Germans are not particularly proud about the Nazis.

And then: Germany was occupied by US, UK and USSR troops.

They confiscated all available copies of Nazi-literature (several
hundred titles) and among them (obviously) 'Mein Kampf'.

So Germans could not read this book and actually didn't want.

Other people could read this book, but not in German, since that
language is spoken mainly in Germany, Austria and Swiss.

So most readers read 'My Struggle' and had neither reason nor ability to
read 'Mein Kampf'.

And these readers had the impression of a well written book. German
readers, on the other hand, had to fight with sleep, if they read more
than a page.

So it was at its time a typical coffee-table-book, which nobody really
have read. But everybody had a copy and NEVER admitted, not to read it.

And critique of any kind on this book could cause the secret police
knock at your door, early in the morning. So this didn't happen.

But the Brits made an extremely stupid mistake: the book had to be
reversely translated from German to English again, before it could be
published. The original version is 'toxic' in public hands.


TH

[Thomas Heger]

http://www.rexresearch.com/kervran/kervran.htm


Actually VERY interesting person.

I have never heard that name before, but read something from George Lochack.

This is also a French physicist, who found hints for transmutation in
experiments with large discharges under water.

For some odd reasons he used the term 'magnetic monopoles' as title,
while actually he proves transmutation.


The method he used was a discharge of high voltage and large currents
into a pressure chamber full of water.

Accidentally the electrodes had been analysed and Lochack found, their
composition in elements had changed after that giant spark happened.



TH

[rickman]

On 12/19/2015 12:52 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Accidentally the electrodes had been analysed and Lochack found, their
> composition in elements had changed after that giant spark happened.

Cold fusion perhaps?

--

Rick

[Y.Porat]

On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 9:41:04 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 12/16/2015 1:38 AM, benj wrote:
> > So if you think that "remote viewing" or ESP or PK are not "real" and
> > are all hoaxes, it probably means you somehow are so lazy that you just
> > accept some anonymous voice on the INTERNET who proclaims infallible
> > omniscient truth because he says he does. And that means you are NEVER
> > going to amount to diddly shit in science no matter how many people
> > swoon over your complex mathematics and how many editors make sure your
> > screed hits the "big" journals. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi. Got it?
>

> Every scientist does an instinctive risk vs benefit analysis. You can
> pour your life into investigating something that is *very likely* hokum
> but still stands a tiny chance of changing the world. The problem is
> that there are millions of candidates of ideas to pursue:
> - That atoms are tiny galaxies, containing microcosms each
> - That rocks are in fact alive, but at a metabolic rate that is ten
> billion times slower than animal life
> - That humans can communicate telepathically
> - That faster-than-light communication is possible
> - That gravity screening is possible and anti-gravity drives are accessible
> - That ghosts exist and souls speak to us after bodily death
> - That ETs regularly visit and quite likely walk among us incognito
> - That perpetual motion machines are feasible and the laws of
> thermodynamics can be broken
> - That perfectly rigid materials can be built
> - That humans can be shrunk whole to the size of blood cells and operate
> completely normally
>
> So which one to pursue? You can piss away your whole life floundering in
> some futile direction, and the only solace you'd bring yourself is "But
> I'm investigating the unknown, so I'm doing SCIENCE!"
>

> I think this is a matter of taste. I think scientists develop a knack
> for pursuing the unknown but usually in directions where there is some
> likelihood for it not being futile. And in fact, the successful
> scientists are the ones that are talented in pursuing a new direction
> that DOES pan out. And you can ask them, "How did you know to choose
> THAT direction vs. any of the other million other things you could have
> pursued?" And they'll probably say something about gut instinct or
> experience or maybe just luck. For the ones that seem to do it over and
> over and over again, it's not luck.
>

> But people like Ben can feel free to pursue any of the million
> possibilities they want to pursue, happily owning the risk, knowing that
> they're more likely to win the lottery than they are of hitting the jackpot.
>

> --
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

================================
ANONYMOUS pomous P D CROCK mumbler of words
JUST ANSWER THAT

IS SPACE CURVED OR NOT ??!
and by that you cab save a huge amount of wasted
human resources

TIA
Y.Porat
================================













111

[Y.Porat]

=====================
wrong just from that pint:
TAKE A FRIENDLY ADVICE:

IF YOU BELIEVE IN 'CURVED SPACE
YOU ARE WASTING YOUR LIFE ON NONSENSE PHYSICS !!

AB
Y.PORAT
================================================

[szczepan bialek]

"rickman" <gnu...@gmail.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:n52u51$9ge$1...@dont-email.me...

"The method he used was a discharge of high voltage and large currents
into a pressure chamber full of water."

It was rather hot fusion.
The new elements are the result of colisions. See:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1970/alfven-lecture.pdf
S*



---
Ta wiadomosc zostala sprawdzona na obecnosc wirusow przez oprogramowanie antywirusowe Avast.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Timo]

On Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 2:39:16 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>
> Back in history there was the myth of Alchemy. It was the story that
> lead (relatively inexpensive) could be turned into gold (valuable)
> by some means. So the thought of limitless riches had men grinding and
> melting and vaporizing and condensing and in essence inventing much of
> chemistry in an attempt to create this transformation. Some stories said
> it was possible others just said it was myth.

Cartoon/soundbite representation of alchemy, rather than accurate. Is the correct presentation of ancient and medieval science a forbidden topic? If not, do it right!

> Does anyone notice here that this particular advance in physics actually
> came about through a "forbidden" topic, namely that alchemy was actually
> possible?

No. It didn't come about through alchemy. It came about through mainstream science. Novel, Nobel Prize recognised mainstream science. Alchemy contributed nothing (except through its contribution to chemistry in general).

> But there is something about Alchemy I neglected to mention. Namely that
> traditional "mythical" alchemy is "cold transmutations". The
> transformation of lead to gold takes place at the melting point of lead
> through the addition of a material known as the "Philosopher's stone"
> that effects the transmutation.

OK, go ahead and use alchemical theories of 4/5 elements to achieve transmutation. The theories are sometimes interesting, generally wrong, and sometimes led to interesting innovations. The experimental techniques developed in alchemy were really useful to the development of chemistry (and chemical engineering, even).

Don't get too hung up on the words people used. Democritus isn't a theoretical ancestor of Dalton in any useful sense, even if they both called them "atom". Words are words, not magic.

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 12/19/2015 4:24 AM, benj wrote:
> On 12/18/2015 11:58 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 12/16/15 12/16/15 - 1:38 AM, benj wrote:
>>> Where does the future of physics lie?
>>
>> With people who actually STUDY physics. Not with fools like you who
>> attempt to write about subjects they clearly do not understand.
>
> Uh oh! Here's another one with "superpowers"!

They understand math, for instance. While you do not even
allow it to be used . "Not even willing to look through
the telescope," that's benj. As in Galileo's time

...

>> No. A proper analogy would be studying dust by grinding up bricks. FYI
>> the structure of dust is VERY different from "architecture", but can be
>> just as interesting....
>
> So study dust. But please keep your "cosmology" that you invented

The people who "study dust" are the particle physicists.
They are not the cosmologists who invented the Lambda-CDM
cosmology (which is the model that prevails nowadays).

I even think the particle physicists *never would have
invented it* because it mainly consists *not* of known
particles! They would not have included the CDM because
they would have naturally assumed their own particle zoo
to suffice. And they would not have included Lambda
because that also looks like a fudge to fit things (but
real cosmological observations require it nevertheless).

> as a
> result to yourself. The dust is not the same as the "big picture".

The ingredients of (known) particle physics only make up
4% of it! But indeed it's mainly Lambda and for a large
part CDM.

So here you have a revolution already: the complete
(for 96% at least) change of our notion of the contents
of the cosmos would be spectacular enough to begin
with, but the fact that the content not even consists
of known matter goes further. And the reappearance of
Einstein's earlier dismissed Lambda then completes the
three-strikes picture, unless it is not completed yet
of course! So these are two likely future advances:
Either (1) Lambda-CDM is wrong, which can only be shown
by future advances in comology (undoing a revolution!),
or (2) Lambda-CDM is correct, which can only be shown
by finding the CDM.

..

> Anybody here (without superpowers) know what the actual
> structure of an atom is?

Since understanding things is derided by you as "having
superpowers" and believing in fairy tales is all you want
to do, the question answers itself.

--
Jos

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 12/19/2015 5:51 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
..

> Other people could read this book, but not in German, since that
> language is spoken mainly in Germany, Austria and Swiss.

So no-one else in the world understands German?! Ach so ja..

--
Jos

[HVAC]

- show quoted text -

Thomas, have you EVER seen a human being so throughly out of touch with
reality as Boinker? Utterly amazing! He is totally oblivious to the fact
that virtually all research in universities and government labs is
sponsored by... you guessed it. He

--------

Anyone ever wonder exactly WHY BJ is mad all the time?

It's got to be more that having his kooky ghost physics debunked and ridiculed here on a daily basis.

I think that the lab where he worked as a janitor got it's funding cut in order to spend more money on people like me. As one may expect, this didn't sit very well with BJ. Soon he was on the government dole.

Now he is old and his spirit is broken...His dreams, shattered.

His love of all things kook remains however. These days BJ spend his time looking for proof of ghosts on YouTube.

[benj]

On 12/19/2015 12:52 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Not to discuss forbidden topics or anything, but the Rexresearch paper
is just a fragment and doesn't include remarks by the late O. Costa de
Beauregard the eminent physicist on the energy problem of how
transmutations can occur at low energy (In other words how energy is
conserved). Yet laughing continues...

Kervran in his other books showed promising results that geological
transmutations can occur under very high pressures from a press or in
the case of underground nuclear explosions (From the pressure not the
radiation). All very kooky science according to debunkers.

There is an English translation of some earlier works and a couple
"popular" books as well.

[benj]

Well, obviously cold fusion is cold transmutation. Ah! The "forbidden"
plot thickens!

[benj]

Jos, as I've told HVAC a hundred times. Science is not about belief. It
is about measurements and observations.

[benj]

On 12/19/2015 10:48 AM, HVAC wrote:
> - show quoted text - Thomas, have you EVER seen a human being so
> throughly out of touch with reality as Boinker? Utterly amazing! He
> is totally oblivious to the fact that virtually all research in
> universities and government labs is sponsored by... you guessed it.
> He --------
>
> Anyone ever wonder exactly WHY BJ is mad all the time?

We have Strategic writer Froth about to Begin!

> It's got to be more that having his kooky ghost physics debunked and
> ridiculed here on a daily basis.
>
> I think that the lab where he worked as a janitor got it's funding
> cut in order to spend more money on people like me. As one may
> expect, this didn't sit very well with BJ. Soon he was on the
> government dole.
>
> Now he is old and his spirit is broken...His dreams, shattered.
>
> His love of all things kook remains however. These days BJ spend his
> time looking for proof of ghosts on YouTube.

Told you so!

Hey, H&V, you forgot "never married" and "has no children"! And what
about "gay" too? Oh wait. That's YOU!

And yeah, I am on the dole. SS is the dole, right? They call it a "trust
fund" but every conspiracy theorist knows that's hogwash.
Yep. DOLE!

PS. in spite of your best efforts to the contrary, I am happy as a clam!
It must be hell to have a job like yours where you have to pretend to be
mad all the time.

[HVAC]

- show quoted text -

Jos, as I've told HVAC a hundred times. Science is not about belief. It
is about measurements and observations

-------

Yet despite this, BJ still believes in ghosts, esp, telekinesis, bigfoot and the 9/11 conspiracy.

Lately he has been trying to divert attention away from his kooky beliefs by using the 'alchemy' defense.

I suppose it's better than Bert who uses the alch defense. As in alch-oholic.

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 1:04:13 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 17.12.2015 16:11, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>
> >> If someone tries to achieve something in theoretical physics, he should
> >> try something really weird, not something 'normal'.
> >>
> >> Reason:
> >>
> >> the amount of work is similar if you research - say - ETs or Newton's
> >> law of gravity.
> >>
> >> But public attention is not, since Newton's law of gravity belongs
> >> already to Newton.

Let me direct the attention of this segment of the public to the fact that even "normal" old Newton's law of gravity isn't "settled science"; people are still refining Eotvos' work:

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/

...but Newton's G, the supposed "constant" that sets the strength of the gravitational interaction between ALL MATTER EVERYWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE, stubbornly *varies* sinusoidally with a 5.9 year period as measured on Earth:

http://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html

That weird enough for you?

> >> So I would try to obtain such a list with 'forbidden subjects' and chose
> >> one of those subjects.

Subjects amenable to human-scale experiment offer the possibility of more convincing evidence than say alternate mathematics-based cosmologies.

> >> This is much more promising, since -after all- they are not as
> >> overcrowded as everything else.

> >>
> >> Further I would like to mention, that I had developed that 'next big
> >> thing' already.

Okay, fine- does your math describe how to build a QM-based device that generates controllable gravity fields?

> > This would be your choice, but I think it also points out the difference
> > in motivation between you and physicists. A physicist chooses subjects
> > to research based on where he thinks there is the greatest likelihood of
> > increase in verifiable knowledge, not on the basis of attention and fame.
>
> This is kind of true, but I am not a physicist. What I have written is
> more like a hobby.
>
> Hobbyists follow other rules than professional researchers.

Pros typically seek funding from others- "hobbyists" typically spend their own money.

> Professional must do, what the job requires, while hobbyists can do what
> they like.

I prefer the word "amateur" to hobbyist. It means one who does a thing for the sheer love of it, rather than for gain.

I am a proud amateur scientist. I have built, calibrated, and used my own instruments to investigate all sorts of things with varying results.

I haven't made any breakthroughs yet, but I'm not in it for that.

I just love doing it.


Mark L. Fergerson

[benj]

Timo, quit acting like a nerd! we are not talking about the scientific
details here, but the large sweep of politics and belief. You've got the
wrong hat on. When atomic transmutation was discovered it doesn't matter
that it came about through means other than traditional alchemy. Not the
point. The point is the that the TOPIC of "transmutations existing" was
politically forbidden. That someone chose to actually buck the tradition
(even in another area) is of some note. Just try publishing a paper that
involves "intelligent design" even in a totally unrelated discipline.

[dobri karagorgov]

the future of physics is THERE'LL BE NO PHYSICS (as product of newton's ill imagination). instead all that will remain will be en-math-ed.

[Mapple Babble]

Mahipal, 14 August 2015:

> A lot of posters do not like me. Apparently. By a
> lot, I mean a lot Lot LOT of people. I hurt their
> sensibilities. It's like I was once married to them
> all. Regardless... I am leaving Usenet now and
> forever. It's their playground and I obviously
> I'm not welcome.

> So goodbye Goodbye GOODBYE.

> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sci.physics/UIfOYtrXEMc/DCrgBtWzmxUJ
> -> this one

Goodbye, you insane moron.

Everything you post is stupid and boring.

Goodbye GOODBYE

[Mahipal]

On Saturday, December 19, 2015 at 2:28:32 PM UTC-5, Mapple Babble wrote:
> Mahipal, 14 August 2015:
>
> > A lot of posters do not like me. Apparently. By a
> > lot, I mean a lot Lot LOT of people. I hurt their
> > sensibilities. It's like I was once married to them
> > all. Regardless... I am leaving Usenet now and
> > forever. It's their playground and I obviously
> > I'm not welcome.
>
> > So goodbye Goodbye GOODBYE.
>
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sci.physics/UIfOYtrXEMc/DCrgBtWzmxUJ
> > -> this one

Yawn yawn YAWN! Again, read that whole post, from subject line to signature line.

> Goodbye, you insane moron.
>
> Everything you post is stupid and boring.
>
> Goodbye GOODBYE

Tell your Dad Mr. Babble, I presume, about your posting history:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!activity/sci.physics/MSzTxq12DAAJ

you nym shifting mind wasting piece of useless humanity. Voting for Trump?

-- Mahipal "IPMM... Mapple, show your mom Mrs. Babble, your contributions."

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 12/19/2015 7:32 PM, benj wrote:
> On 12/19/2015 12:52 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 19.12.2015 05:39, schrieb benj:

...
..

> on the energy problem of how
> transmutations can occur at low energy

I vaguely remember the simplest set-up needed is something
not more complicated than an old-fashioned CRT..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor
There must be other links somewhere for a do-it-yourself
nuclear fusion reactor. (That actually works!)

> ... that geological

> transmutations can occur under very high pressures from a press

That seems more speculative..

> All very kooky science according to debunkers.

If it has been debunked then forget it. As a matter of
fact, the nice thing about Sheldrake was that he actually
favored doing tests to verify his ideas:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake#Seven_Experiments_That_Could_Change_the_World>

Most likely he would even have welcomed mathematical
descriptions of these morphic fields, had they been found.
So probably you have to remove him from your list again,
benj. He does not play by your rules..

--
Jos

[Mahipal]

On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 11:24:26 AM UTC-5, Mahipal wrote:

> On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 8:46:04 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > On 12/17/2015 10:17 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:

[trim]

> > > The entire terrain is full of land mines, fences and signs saying: keep
> > > away.
> > >

> > > But you cannot create any progress, if certain subjects are forbidden.
> > >
> > > Since hobbyists don't know such rules, they can do, whatever they find
> > > appropriate. (But only they can.)
> >
> > Well, as I said, you can study whatever you like. But that wasn't my
> > question to you. The question was whether you seriously think a hobbyist
> > can make a significant contribution to theoretical physics? I'm certain
> > you are free to dabble in unusual areas, but that doesn't translate into
> > making a significant contribution to theoretical physics.
>

> Three simple questions:
>
> Since you speak a lot Odd Bodkin, who is it that you exactly speak for?
> Who elected you to represent them here on Usenet?
> Hiding your real parents' given name serves you well in anonymity?

Day 1, Strike 1.

You Odd may answer anytime now. Before others begin to ask you for
your credentials. For others will. I predict it.

Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server

Same as from Mapple Babble, as demonstrated by its:
Organization: Stop reading my headers you retarded faggot!

-- Mahipal "IPMM... Why do anonymous posters post?!"

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:38:40 PM UTC-8, benj wrote:
(Top-posting, just this once)

Benj, why did you crosspost to alt.sci.physics of you won't bother reading replies there?

Anyway.

> Where does the future of physics lie?

Same place it always has and always will, just beyond "Hmm, that's odd".

> So, you want to be the next "Einstein" developing the next big thing in
> physics. Where you do investigate?

IIRC Einstein wasn't a professional physicist when he published his first "big thing".

> Spend a lot of tax money to smash
> things together and then name all the pieces? Pretty much like studying
> architecture by grinding up bricks and studying the dust under a
> microscope.

Ya know, that looks like a false analogy, but it's not. Architecture is just castles in the sky without an understanding of materials and their properties.

> Well, if you look on the INTERNET, it's pretty clear that most current
> efforts are all along the lines of word games, proving Relativity
> "wrong" and obscure mathematical complexity.

A very very few perform or even suggest experiments. Most as you say play word games by e. g. challenging the mainstream interpretation of MMX.

> In a way it's just an imitation of Einstein who everyone imagines just
> cranked out a complex mathematical theory that nobody understands off
> the top of his genius head.
>
> But discoveries really don't work that way, even with Einstein it
> started with a simple thing. In his case was the question if Galileo's
> theory of relativity held for electromagnetic phenomena. It did.
>
> The point here, gentle reader, is that while so many today in physics
> strain mightily with obscure mathematics and word games that literally
> make no logical sense in an attempt to "explain" how up is really down
> and black is really white and nothing at all can have "behavior", the
> place one needs to look for the "next big thing", is on the list of
> "forbidden" topics.
>
> As Professor Benade (who I used to work for once) told me: Don't be like
> the guy who lost a quarter over there but is looking over here because
> the light is better!

I think I've told you that I like "hard" science fiction. That's the kind that allows one or two scientific impossibilities (or "new" science) like faster-than-light travel, time travel, gravity control, stuff like that.

One of my favorite stories (Cities In Flight) has a Government effort to achieve FTL that begins with searching through what publishers call the slush pile- theories that are way outside the mainstream. They stumble across an obscure theory that not only ties together gravity, electromagnetism, spin, and momentum but also yields a technology to manipulate them (the spindizzy), and the story takes off.

The fun part is that the obscure theory in the story was extrapolated by the author from a real theory which, sadly, was falsified by its originator after the story was published.

> Point is while strategic writers like HVAC and Odd try to ridicule any
> mention of a forbidden topic and discourage any actual investigation,
> this is exactly where the next advances will occur. They say, these
> things can't be real (never looking at the actual data, of course)
> because there is no theory to explain them! Ding! Ding! Ding!

Some of that is about philosophical investment in resource allocation; "Why spend money on flashy space rockets when we have starving children living in the streets? Why spend money on remote viewing when spy cameras are proven tech?"

Some of it is religious bias; "Such things are sorcery".

Some of it is materialist reductionism; "If I can't see it, hold it in my hand, or build an instrument to detect it, it ain't real".

In any case, yes, "there can't be a theory to explain it because we won't look for one" is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

> It is the very FACT that there is no theory that "explains" them that
> shows that they NEED to be studied! So today there is a HUGE list of
> "forbidden topics" that are off-limits to official support and
> publication and it is little wonder that official physics has lapsed
> into some monster word game of people trying to "explain" the universe
> using ever more and more illogical and meaningless "explanations".

Meaning is the key here. For the materialist, meaning is utility (E=mc^2 -> nuclear bombs/reactors). For the mathematically inclined it is "elegance", and for experimentalists it's predictive power.

What meaning do you have in mind?

Also, why do you assume the Universe gives a crap about human logic?

> So if you think that "remote viewing" or ESP or PK are not "real" and
> are all hoaxes, it probably means you somehow are so lazy that you just
> accept some anonymous voice on the INTERNET who proclaims infallible
> omniscient truth because he says he does. And that means you are NEVER
> going to amount to diddly shit in science no matter how many people
> swoon over your complex mathematics and how many editors make sure your
> screed hits the "big" journals. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi. Got it?

Such fields are only taken seriously by those who have direct personal experience in them. There are exceptions like Rhine, who had no personal experiences of his own but looked relatively carefully for evidence that others had.

I find it really hard to blame those who doubt the existence of a thing because they've had no experience of it.

It's hard (for me, anyway) to give the same credence to someone who claims he has spoken with a deity as to someone who claims that the Earth moves through space, yet there seem to be a lot of people who would believe the first over the second.

What can you do?


Mark L. Fergerson

[Timo]

Forbidden? The discovery was loudly acclaimed by The Establishment, given multiple Nobel Prizes, and made science superstars. In what way was it "forbidden"?

> That someone chose to actually buck the tradition
> (even in another area) is of some note. Just try publishing a paper that
> involves "intelligent design" even in a totally unrelated discipline.

Want to publish in science? Ideally, you should have science in your paper. If, in principle, you had actual scientific evidence of ID, what would the real obstacle be? The bar would be a bit higher, due to the non-science of ID that's out there, so your scientific ID paper would be suspected of being a non-science ID attempt to get respectable scientific publications.

If you're putting it into a paper in a totally unrelated discipline, swift rejection might well be in order. Because "totally unrelated".

("Intelligent design", in the human-done sense is a sadly diminishing art. After a recent DIY task, I was asked "Was it easy?". Except for idiot design, it would have been easy. What kind of moron puts screw holes where the rest of the thing stops easy access to the screw heads, and there is plenty of structurally sound space 1cm away where access would be easy. Plus needing to actually fix the thing because idiot designers made it so that essential moving parts would jam. Engineering schools out there: your job is to stop this kind of thing.)

[Timo]

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 6:17:11 AM UTC+10, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:38:40 PM UTC-8, benj wrote:
>
> > So, you want to be the next "Einstein" developing the next big thing in
> > physics. Where you do investigate?
>
> IIRC Einstein wasn't a professional physicist when he published his first "big thing".

Between PhD and academic position. The job market back then wasn't walk-into-tenure.

His PhD work was mainstream statistical mechanics (thermodynamics). A relatively new and innovative field at the time. His "big things":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers
included stuff straight from that work (Brownian motion, for long his most-cited paper, though iirc the approach of 2005 changed that), and (at least some of) the others were influenced by it.

The Einstein lesson is that if you want to overthrow orthodox physics in a revolution, do a PhD in orthodox physics. Revolution comes from the inside.

As for "forbidden", he published his revolutionary work in mainstream physics journals. Many of the older generation of German physicists immediately recognised the quality and value of his work. He got the tail end of the multiple Nobel Prizes for the thermodynamics of light (Wien and Planck got the others). To try to redo Einstein, train within the system, do a PhD within the system, and have a Good Idea. Publish. And don't be surprised if you end up working in patent law after your PhD (this part still happens today).

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/18/15 12/18/15 9:24 PM, benj wrote:
> On 12/18/2015 11:58 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 12/16/15 12/16/15 - 1:38 AM, benj wrote:

>>> Where does the future of physics lie?

>> With people who actually STUDY physics. Not with fools like you who
>> attempt to write about subjects they clearly do not understand.
>
> Uh oh! Here's another one with "superpowers"!

So sad, that you think an ability to study and learn is a "superpower". It
isn't, and anyone with a modicum of intelligence and interest can do it. Too bad
that those requirements are so hard for you.

> Anybody here (without superpowers) know what the actual structure of an atom is?

We have excellent models of that structure. Of course no human can know what it
"actually is" (absent some God whispering in their ear).


> [... much nonsense and antagonism, based mostly on ignorance]
> So just WHERE do you go to "discover" new papers?

Google.com, scholar.google.com, arxiv.org, aps.org, prola.aps.org,
inspirehep.net, and surely more which don't come right to mind.

A more powerful method is contained in the emails I receive from various
journals giving their tables of contents.

A still more powerful method is to use the references section in papers I have read.


> What you are
> saying is you've all turned the internet into a private network

NONSENSE! You can't see much through your incredible anger and antagonism. Take
off your shit-colored glasses.


> through use of
> fees

People have a right to be compensated for their work.

You OBVIOUSLY have not noticed, but most government-sponsored research is now
freely available on the internet. And at least in physics, a majority of
articles published in journals with access fees are also available on the (free)
preprint servers.


> and that means that you keep all new ideas OUT!

Impossible! Again, you just cannot see very much through your shit-colored
glasses. Why you choose to wear them and write with such blind anger is beyond me.

Of course new ideas are important to science, but they are not useful unless
they have some basis in fact. What you seem to mean is that "new ideas based on
fantasies and dreams" are kept out of peer-reviewed journals -- YES! MOST
DEFINITELY! the purpose of peer review is to avoid wasting the journals'
readers' time with nonsense.


> [about Velikovsky]
> Given the way his books seem to give everyone diarrhea in science, and how hard
> you all work to "debunk" what was merely the idea that there may be truth to
> ancient myth, he obviously was onto something.

You REALLY should learn basic logic. And you should learn to take off your
shit-colored glasses.

Like you, back in grad school I though he had something, based
on reading his books (three of which are still on my shelf).
UNLIKE you, I TESTED his ideas, and found them wanting --
if he truly "had something", he would not need to lie about
references. And he was STUPID about it.

When someone writes a book with so many FRAUDULENT references, there is no basis
to believe he is "onto" anything (except deceiving others).

There's no point in continuing. Goodbye.


Tom Roberts