Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How to Make Anybody Look Like a Crackpot (even someone who isn't)
209 views
Skip to first unread message
Alen
Aug 31, 2012, 6:55:04 AM8/31/12
to
I don't post this to help those who like to qualify people
as crackpots, but to support their targets. It is good for
us to keep a heightened awareness of their character and
methods, and, consequently, how little credibility ought
to be attached to their judgements.
Such methods are used by the lesser scientists, who
are followers only, and not real scientists, in that they
are not original thinkers, are not truth seekers, and do
not have a will and instinct to recognise truth wherever
it may be found, before it is formally established and
proven. Real scientists are persons who are able to do
these things. The followers cannot adopt anything new
until some major figure has said something in favour of
it. When this person is followed by a chorus of approval
from others, then all the followers simply nod their heads
and fall into line. In the normal situation they regard
accepted theory as dogma, overconfirmed by a priesthood
acting as an authority. The resulting sense of certainty
enables them to concentrate all their attention on the
methodology that will be able to discredit and brand
anyone a crackpot who shows any dissent of any kind.
Such persons form an orthodox rabble, which is populated
by modern males of the worst kind - rabidly competitive
triumphalists, reminiscent of those tiresome screaming
'champions' that are so often inflicted on us via the tv screen.
Such people are the least interesting of beings, and a
fundamental requirement for any utopia or paradise to exist
would be a guarantee of never again having to have the
misfortune to encounter such a type of person.
It is a great scandal, however, that an arena supposedly
devoted to the noble task of investigating objective truth
should have fallen into the hands of such a gang of
triumphalist degenerates.
The following is a description of the kinds of triumphalist
rules we can see being implemented by such persons
every day on science ngs, when dealing with anyone
who has the temerity to disagree with them
Rule 1: Never concede anything positive to the person, or
make any positive remarks of any kind. All remarks must
amount to negative assertions only. If they say something
true, ignore it, and look for something that is easier to
criticise.
Rule 2: Make them answer questions. When they answer,
ignore their answers, or declare them to be unclear, and
ask them more questions. Never be satisfied with what
they say. Never concede anything, however small.
Rule 3: If they use terminology, refine and narrow the
terminology to the maximum extent possible. This will help
to create an impression of aberrations in their use of it,
and provide the opportunity to make them appear not to
understand any of it. Don't validate any item of language
they may use. React to everything as if it is confused and
cannot be understood.
Rule 4: Characterise all their assertions as guesswork or
badly prepared fantasies of what they would like reality to
be. This will make it appear that reality itself is, as it were,
on your side, and certainly not on theirs.
Rule 5: Never recognise or discuss anything as an original
or alternative idea. ALWAYS characterise any such idea as
ignorance, laziness, incompetence, or failure to learn.
Rule 7: Always play the role of an examiner and teacher,
not a debater. Make it appear everyone has come out of need
of recognition, assessment, and correction by your supreme
competence, which should play a role equivalent to that of
infallibility. Never descend to the level of debate or discussion.
Characterise everything said only as competent or incompetent,
and focus only what you can portray as incompetent.
Rule 8: If anyone does come up with a difficult argument,
don't even think about it. You are here to triumph over them,
not debate with them. Either ignore it, or call it ignorant and
incompetent. That is always an easy and unanswerable
assertion where persons of no status are concerned.
Rule 9: Always keep recommending that they undertake
some basic studies of the matter. This will create the
appearance that they don't understand and haven't studied
any part of what they discuss. It will thus give them the
appearances of novices who know nothing, and speak
before they have made any proper attempt to learn anything.
Rule 10: No matter what they may have said in the past,
always go back to the beginning, and speak as if they have
never yet said anything at all. In this way, always endeavour
to bring them back to a starting line, so that they can never
appear to make any progress away from it.
A LITTLE ADVICE FOR THE INTENDED TARGETS
The above methodology is a tactic for preventing or
neutralising dissent by anyone who has not received
an imprimatur to dissent in an official, sanctioned way.
One clearly cannot reply to such methodology of orthodox
triumphalists in any expectation of changing their minds.
The methodology has only the superficial appearance
of debate, but is anything but a simple exchange of views.
Replies to their 'comments', however, can be worth while,
in that they can be given an entirely different purpose.
If you are a seeker of truth, and have something to say,
the task is simply to publish what you have to say. Nothing
more is possible. Everything beyond this depends on the
reactions of others, which they alone can determine.
Answering the hostile commentary of orthodox triumphalists,
therefore, can have the benefit of giving you an occasion
to publish additional explanations of what your argument
is. It also serves to keep a thread going longer, and provides
an increased opportunity for it to be read by any actual,
objective seekers of truth who may be passing by.
Alen
as crackpots, but to support their targets. It is good for
us to keep a heightened awareness of their character and
methods, and, consequently, how little credibility ought
to be attached to their judgements.
Such methods are used by the lesser scientists, who
are followers only, and not real scientists, in that they
are not original thinkers, are not truth seekers, and do
not have a will and instinct to recognise truth wherever
it may be found, before it is formally established and
proven. Real scientists are persons who are able to do
these things. The followers cannot adopt anything new
until some major figure has said something in favour of
it. When this person is followed by a chorus of approval
from others, then all the followers simply nod their heads
and fall into line. In the normal situation they regard
accepted theory as dogma, overconfirmed by a priesthood
acting as an authority. The resulting sense of certainty
enables them to concentrate all their attention on the
methodology that will be able to discredit and brand
anyone a crackpot who shows any dissent of any kind.
Such persons form an orthodox rabble, which is populated
by modern males of the worst kind - rabidly competitive
triumphalists, reminiscent of those tiresome screaming
'champions' that are so often inflicted on us via the tv screen.
Such people are the least interesting of beings, and a
fundamental requirement for any utopia or paradise to exist
would be a guarantee of never again having to have the
misfortune to encounter such a type of person.
It is a great scandal, however, that an arena supposedly
devoted to the noble task of investigating objective truth
should have fallen into the hands of such a gang of
triumphalist degenerates.
The following is a description of the kinds of triumphalist
rules we can see being implemented by such persons
every day on science ngs, when dealing with anyone
who has the temerity to disagree with them
Rule 1: Never concede anything positive to the person, or
make any positive remarks of any kind. All remarks must
amount to negative assertions only. If they say something
true, ignore it, and look for something that is easier to
criticise.
Rule 2: Make them answer questions. When they answer,
ignore their answers, or declare them to be unclear, and
ask them more questions. Never be satisfied with what
they say. Never concede anything, however small.
Rule 3: If they use terminology, refine and narrow the
terminology to the maximum extent possible. This will help
to create an impression of aberrations in their use of it,
and provide the opportunity to make them appear not to
understand any of it. Don't validate any item of language
they may use. React to everything as if it is confused and
cannot be understood.
Rule 4: Characterise all their assertions as guesswork or
badly prepared fantasies of what they would like reality to
be. This will make it appear that reality itself is, as it were,
on your side, and certainly not on theirs.
Rule 5: Never recognise or discuss anything as an original
or alternative idea. ALWAYS characterise any such idea as
ignorance, laziness, incompetence, or failure to learn.
Rule 7: Always play the role of an examiner and teacher,
not a debater. Make it appear everyone has come out of need
of recognition, assessment, and correction by your supreme
competence, which should play a role equivalent to that of
infallibility. Never descend to the level of debate or discussion.
Characterise everything said only as competent or incompetent,
and focus only what you can portray as incompetent.
Rule 8: If anyone does come up with a difficult argument,
don't even think about it. You are here to triumph over them,
not debate with them. Either ignore it, or call it ignorant and
incompetent. That is always an easy and unanswerable
assertion where persons of no status are concerned.
Rule 9: Always keep recommending that they undertake
some basic studies of the matter. This will create the
appearance that they don't understand and haven't studied
any part of what they discuss. It will thus give them the
appearances of novices who know nothing, and speak
before they have made any proper attempt to learn anything.
Rule 10: No matter what they may have said in the past,
always go back to the beginning, and speak as if they have
never yet said anything at all. In this way, always endeavour
to bring them back to a starting line, so that they can never
appear to make any progress away from it.
A LITTLE ADVICE FOR THE INTENDED TARGETS
The above methodology is a tactic for preventing or
neutralising dissent by anyone who has not received
an imprimatur to dissent in an official, sanctioned way.
One clearly cannot reply to such methodology of orthodox
triumphalists in any expectation of changing their minds.
The methodology has only the superficial appearance
of debate, but is anything but a simple exchange of views.
Replies to their 'comments', however, can be worth while,
in that they can be given an entirely different purpose.
If you are a seeker of truth, and have something to say,
the task is simply to publish what you have to say. Nothing
more is possible. Everything beyond this depends on the
reactions of others, which they alone can determine.
Answering the hostile commentary of orthodox triumphalists,
therefore, can have the benefit of giving you an occasion
to publish additional explanations of what your argument
is. It also serves to keep a thread going longer, and provides
an increased opportunity for it to be read by any actual,
objective seekers of truth who may be passing by.
Alen
G=EMC^2
Aug 31, 2012, 7:52:42 AM8/31/12
to
their ego.They are low wits that can't come up with an original
thought. They are parrots. We all know who they are. They are
hateful ,and discus no science TreBert
Brad Guth
Aug 31, 2012, 8:27:33 AM8/31/12
to
99.9% of scientists do only whatever can be public funded or leads to
public funding, because almost nothing else that's deductively
discovered or uncovered by independent investigative folks hardly if
ever gets into our K12 textbooks or mainstream media.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”
public funding, because almost nothing else that's deductively
discovered or uncovered by independent investigative folks hardly if
ever gets into our K12 textbooks or mainstream media.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”
David Hume
Aug 31, 2012, 8:32:56 AM8/31/12
to
Alen wrote:
> Rule 9: Always keep recommending that they undertake
> some basic studies of the matter. This will create the
> appearance that they don't understand and haven't studied
"What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics
> Rule 9: Always keep recommending that they undertake
> some basic studies of the matter. This will create the
> appearance that they don't understand and haven't studied
students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my
task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it.
You see my physics students don't understand it. ... That is because I
don't understand it. Nobody does." (Feynman, Richard P. Nobel Lecture,
1966, 1918-1988, QED, The Strange Theory of Light and Matter)
Brad Guth
Aug 31, 2012, 8:34:42 AM8/31/12
to
few and far between. Modern K12s have been redneck taught by their
parents and peers to be inconsiderate bullies from the very get go.
The enlisted and veteran suicide rate has never been greater, because
there's no honorable way out of this mess our parent and peers got us
into, other than WW3.
Brad Guth
Aug 31, 2012, 8:51:29 AM8/31/12
to
look bad, and they never police their own kind (just like how the Pope
never policed their own kind, and how Semites never police within
their oligarch mafia ranks).
So, we get to deal continually with a gauntlet of naysayers and FUD-
masters all the time. We also get to deal with plagiarizers that take
great pleasure in using the works of others in order to make
themselves seem more important and always right, and their 24 hour
rule always applies to anything that ever gets recorded or mainstream
published becomes written in stone so that it can’t ever be revised.
These insiders as mainstream FUD-masters that claim being all-knowing
and always right about everything, never seem to have the time or
ability to actually assist even one other soul on Earth (at least they
can’t seem to point at anyone they’ve helped, other than themselves).
Big Dog
Aug 31, 2012, 9:40:12 AM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 5:55 AM, Alen wrote:
>
> Such methods are used by the lesser scientists, who
> are followers only, and not real scientists, in that they
> are not original thinkers, are not truth seekers, and do
> not have a will and instinct to recognise truth wherever
> it may be found, before it is formally established and
> proven. Real scientists are persons who are able to do
> these things.
Seriously? You actually said this? Good grief.
>
> Such methods are used by the lesser scientists, who
> are followers only, and not real scientists, in that they
> are not original thinkers, are not truth seekers, and do
> not have a will and instinct to recognise truth wherever
> it may be found, before it is formally established and
> proven. Real scientists are persons who are able to do
> these things.
kenseto
Aug 31, 2012, 9:48:34 AM8/31/12
to
JT
Aug 31, 2012, 10:01:32 AM8/31/12
to
jem
Aug 31, 2012, 10:30:09 AM8/31/12
to
>
> Alen
:) A little humor always starts the day off right.
You live in a dream world, pal. Wake up to the fact that you're a
100% unmitigated babbler regarding all aspects of Science.
It's, obviously, impossible to "debate" a babbler, but what you have
received here are dozens of kid-glove explanations, both direct and by
analogy, of why those grandiose, "free-thinking" conceptions of yours
are pure nonsense, and you got that coddling for years, despite the
fact that everything you were told was just going in one ear and out
the other. And, now that it's clear you can't be taught, you mostly
get just what your gibberish and incorrigibility have earned you -
ridicule.
BTW, I'm still waiting to hear from you re. the chess orthodoxy's
dogmatic insistence that bishops can only move diagonally. Given all
the new discoveries you've made by free-thinking about Einsteinian
Relativity, I'm sure you could come up with proof for at least a few
non-diagonal bishop moves, as well. How about it?
David Hume
Aug 31, 2012, 10:29:17 AM8/31/12
to
Another handy quotation:
"We know that any understanding must be based finally upon the natural
language because it is only there that we can be certain to touch
reality, and hence we must be skeptical about any skepticism with
regard to this natural language and its essential concepts. " - Werner
Heisenberg.
In other words, redefining words is out of order!
"We know that any understanding must be based finally upon the natural
language because it is only there that we can be certain to touch
reality, and hence we must be skeptical about any skepticism with
regard to this natural language and its essential concepts. " - Werner
Heisenberg.
In other words, redefining words is out of order!
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Aug 31, 2012, 11:43:38 AM8/31/12
to
"David Hume" wrote in message
news:xaSdna_H5YplM93N...@eclipse.net.uk...
-- Hume
==========================================================
Science is the observation, investigation and explanation of natural
phenomena.
If the explanation is a theory then it contains investigator bias and error.
Contrary to strange Feynman's strange theories, nobody need understand
another's strange theory, especially if it's the wrong strange theory.
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
news:xaSdna_H5YplM93N...@eclipse.net.uk...
==========================================================
Science is the observation, investigation and explanation of natural
phenomena.
If the explanation is a theory then it contains investigator bias and error.
Contrary to strange Feynman's strange theories, nobody need understand
another's strange theory, especially if it's the wrong strange theory.
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Aug 31, 2012, 11:52:18 AM8/31/12
to
"David Hume" wrote in message
news:rcWdndPeO7WgV93N...@eclipse.net.uk...
===============================================
Hyperbole and propaganda are out of order. The natural language of
physics is mathematics which contains the essential concepts.
In other words, you cherry-picking sound bites and redefining
Heisenberg's meaning is out of order.
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Aug 31, 2012, 11:55:15 AM8/31/12
to
"jem" wrote in message news:k1qhmi$mqu$1...@dont-email.me...
--Jemima Puddleduck.
====================================================
You live in a dream world, snivelling cunt. Wake up to the fact that you're
a
100% unmitigated fuckwitted bigoted moron regarding all aspects of Science.
====================================================
You live in a dream world, snivelling cunt. Wake up to the fact that you're
a
100% unmitigated fuckwitted bigoted moron regarding all aspects of Science.
Dirk Van de moortel
Aug 31, 2012, 12:24:02 PM8/31/12
to
"jem" <x...@xxx.invalid> wrote in message news:k1qhmi$mqu$1...@dont-email.me
> Alen wrote:
[snip funny rant]
>> Alen
>
> :) A little humor always starts the day off right.
>
> You live in a dream world, pal. Wake up to the fact that you're a
> 100% unmitigated babbler regarding all aspects of Science.
>
> It's, obviously, impossible to "debate" a babbler, but what you have
> received here are dozens of kid-glove explanations, both direct and by
> analogy, of why those grandiose, "free-thinking" conceptions of yours
> are pure nonsense, and you got that coddling for years, despite the
> fact that everything you were told was just going in one ear and out
> the other. And, now that it's clear you can't be taught, you mostly
> get just what your gibberish and incorrigibility have earned you -
> ridicule.
>
> BTW, I'm still waiting to hear from you re. the chess orthodoxy's
> dogmatic insistence that bishops can only move diagonally. Given all
> the new discoveries you've made by free-thinking about Einsteinian
> Relativity, I'm sure you could come up with proof for at least a few
> non-diagonal bishop moves, as well. How about it?
Good one.
This is however a sadly missed opportunity. Imagine that *only* other
crackpots would have replied to his thread. Just imagine :-)
On the other hand, if *you* hadn't replied, Alen would probably not
have had that indirect support from Androcles ;-)
Dirk Vdm
> Alen wrote:
[snip funny rant]
>> Alen
>
> :) A little humor always starts the day off right.
>
> You live in a dream world, pal. Wake up to the fact that you're a
> 100% unmitigated babbler regarding all aspects of Science.
>
> It's, obviously, impossible to "debate" a babbler, but what you have
> received here are dozens of kid-glove explanations, both direct and by
> analogy, of why those grandiose, "free-thinking" conceptions of yours
> are pure nonsense, and you got that coddling for years, despite the
> fact that everything you were told was just going in one ear and out
> the other. And, now that it's clear you can't be taught, you mostly
> get just what your gibberish and incorrigibility have earned you -
> ridicule.
>
> BTW, I'm still waiting to hear from you re. the chess orthodoxy's
> dogmatic insistence that bishops can only move diagonally. Given all
> the new discoveries you've made by free-thinking about Einsteinian
> Relativity, I'm sure you could come up with proof for at least a few
> non-diagonal bishop moves, as well. How about it?
This is however a sadly missed opportunity. Imagine that *only* other
crackpots would have replied to his thread. Just imagine :-)
On the other hand, if *you* hadn't replied, Alen would probably not
have had that indirect support from Androcles ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Aug 31, 2012, 12:49:49 PM8/31/12
to
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message
news:k1qof2$pfr$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
"jem" <x...@xxx.invalid> wrote in message news:k1qhmi$mqu$1...@dont-email.me
> Alen wrote:
[snip funny rant]
>> Alen
>
> :) A little humor always starts the day off right.
[ insert funny rant]
-- So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
have aged 10 years (2T) while his travelling twin sister will have
aged 6 years (2T/g).
-- Dork Van de faggot
A little humour always starts the evening off right.
news:k1qof2$pfr$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
"jem" <x...@xxx.invalid> wrote in message news:k1qhmi$mqu$1...@dont-email.me
> Alen wrote:
[snip funny rant]
>> Alen
>
> :) A little humor always starts the day off right.
-- So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
have aged 10 years (2T) while his travelling twin sister will have
aged 6 years (2T/g).
-- Dork Van de faggot
A little humour always starts the evening off right.
JT
Aug 31, 2012, 12:54:18 PM8/31/12
to
On 31 Aug, 18:50, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
<Septem...@2012.org> wrote:
> "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in messagenews:k1qof2$pfr$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
> "jem" <x...@xxx.invalid> wrote in messagenews:k1qhmi$mqu$1...@dont-email.me
upon the gravitational force acting upon it, and is there a formula of
Newton in classic physic describing the change of rotational inertia
depending upon the gravitational field?
<Septem...@2012.org> wrote:
> "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in messagenews:k1qof2$pfr$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
> "jem" <x...@xxx.invalid> wrote in messagenews:k1qhmi$mqu$1...@dont-email.me
> > Alen wrote:
>
> [snip funny rant]
>
> >> Alen
>
> > :) A little humor always starts the day off right.
>
> [ insert funny rant]
>
> -- So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
> have aged 10 years (2T) while his travelling twin sister will have
> aged 6 years (2T/g).
> -- Dork Van de faggot
> A little humour always starts the evening off right.
>
> -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Androcles do you think the inertia of a rotating object is dependent
>
> [snip funny rant]
>
> >> Alen
>
> > :) A little humor always starts the day off right.
>
> [ insert funny rant]
>
> -- So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
> have aged 10 years (2T) while his travelling twin sister will have
> aged 6 years (2T/g).
> -- Dork Van de faggot
> A little humour always starts the evening off right.
>
> -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
upon the gravitational force acting upon it, and is there a formula of
Newton in classic physic describing the change of rotational inertia
depending upon the gravitational field?
Big Dog
Aug 31, 2012, 1:16:57 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 5:55 AM, Alen wrote:
Let me see if I can codify the whiny bitching
>
> Rule 1: Never concede anything positive to the person, or
> make any positive remarks of any kind. All remarks must
> amount to negative assertions only. If they say something
> true, ignore it, and look for something that is easier to
> criticise.
Ego support is critical for "free thinking".
>
> Rule 2: Make them answer questions. When they answer,
> ignore their answers, or declare them to be unclear, and
> ask them more questions. Never be satisfied with what
> they say. Never concede anything, however small.
baked or thought out, ought to be accepted in the condition they are,
recognizing that they may still be premature and not thought out.
>
> Rule 3: If they use terminology, refine and narrow the
> terminology to the maximum extent possible. This will help
> to create an impression of aberrations in their use of it,
> and provide the opportunity to make them appear not to
> understand any of it. Don't validate any item of language
> they may use. React to everything as if it is confused and
> cannot be understood.
should not be an expectation. Otherwise, ordinary people unfamiliar with
the jargon will not be able to make solid contributions. There is no
justifiable rationale for jargon.
>
> Rule 4: Characterise all their assertions as guesswork or
> badly prepared fantasies of what they would like reality to
> be. This will make it appear that reality itself is, as it were,
> on your side, and certainly not on theirs.
just "thinking about things" should be sufficient for establishing
truth. Philosophical assertions should have as much weight as scientific
ones.
>
> Rule 5: Never recognise or discuss anything as an original
> or alternative idea. ALWAYS characterise any such idea as
> ignorance, laziness, incompetence, or failure to learn.
originality should be encouraged over fidelity with facts and
completeness of development. Otherwise, nobody will ever want to pursue
original ideas as they take too much work.
>
> Rule 7: Always play the role of an examiner and teacher,
> not a debater. Make it appear everyone has come out of need
> of recognition, assessment, and correction by your supreme
> competence, which should play a role equivalent to that of
> infallibility. Never descend to the level of debate or discussion.
> Characterise everything said only as competent or incompetent,
> and focus only what you can portray as incompetent.
Complaint 7: The important thing is civilized debate, not the truth of
the subject matter. If there is something that is shown to be false by
critical examination, continued civilized discussion should be fostered
as though there were still something worth talking about.
>
> Rule 8: If anyone does come up with a difficult argument,
> don't even think about it. You are here to triumph over them,
> not debate with them. Either ignore it, or call it ignorant and
> incompetent. That is always an easy and unanswerable
> assertion where persons of no status are concerned.
entertained this idea a long time ago, and it was swiftly evaluated and
dismissed. Every amateur who comes up with the same idea should be
allowed to explore it in the same way and with the same validation as it
was originally.
>
> Rule 9: Always keep recommending that they undertake
> some basic studies of the matter. This will create the
> appearance that they don't understand and haven't studied
> any part of what they discuss. It will thus give them the
> appearances of novices who know nothing, and speak
> before they have made any proper attempt to learn anything.
basics, as they are fastidiously avoiding education, because of the risk
of brainwashing and being forced to believe in orthodoxy.
>
> Rule 10: No matter what they may have said in the past,
> always go back to the beginning, and speak as if they have
> never yet said anything at all. In this way, always endeavour
> to bring them back to a starting line, so that they can never
> appear to make any progress away from it.
>
publications, so that readers are expected to gather together previous
postings by an author to get the full sweep of their accomplishments.
Don't expect previous references. And by all means, make sure that
volume of output counts for something at least, even if every single
item is individually ridiculous. Someone who is insane and produces ten
pages of densely packed equations every day might be writing nonsense,
but at least validate him for producing several thousand pages of
densely packed equations. That took work!
JT
Aug 31, 2012, 1:19:27 PM8/31/12
to
hope.
JT
Aug 31, 2012, 1:20:07 PM8/31/12
to
bja...@iwaynet.net
Aug 31, 2012, 1:21:23 PM8/31/12
to
back up his thesis. Better, yet, explain how he's uneducated and
stooopid...and not only that "insane" as well. Who needs to pay
attention to anything the "insane" say? Everybody knows that if you want
actual truth, the place to get it is from some anonymous self-proclaimed
"expert" trolling the internet. We are with you "Big Dog"! I totally
believe EVERY LAST WORD you utter! Long live "Big Dog"!
Are you still living in your mom's basement "Internet command center"?
bja...@iwaynet.net
Aug 31, 2012, 1:28:26 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 11:55 AM, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> "jem" wrote in message news:k1qhmi$mqu$1...@dont-email.me...
> "jem" wrote in message news:k1qhmi$mqu$1...@dont-email.me...
> :) A little humor always starts the day off right.
>
> You live in a dream world, pal. Wake up to the fact that you're a
> 100% unmitigated babbler regarding all aspects of Science.
> --Jemima Puddleduck.
> ====================================================
> You live in a dream world, snivelling cunt. Wake up to the fact that
> you're a
> 100% unmitigated fuckwitted bigoted moron regarding all aspects of Science.
> -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
It is also of some interest to note that SOME people don't need to be
>
> You live in a dream world, pal. Wake up to the fact that you're a
> 100% unmitigated babbler regarding all aspects of Science.
> --Jemima Puddleduck.
> ====================================================
> You live in a dream world, snivelling cunt. Wake up to the fact that
> you're a
> 100% unmitigated fuckwitted bigoted moron regarding all aspects of Science.
> -- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
marginalized and demonized to appear as crackpots. Just read what they
write.
Bjacoby, head nutjob and "banned for life" from Physics Forums as a
"crackpot" for speaking against the "theory of uniformity" in the
"lounge". Eat your hearts out you lesser whackos!
Bill Snyder
Aug 31, 2012, 1:38:04 PM8/31/12
to
home^Wtrailer^Wfreeway underpass.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
mpc755
Aug 31, 2012, 1:58:52 PM8/31/12
to
On Aug 31, 1:21 pm, "bjac...@teranews.com" <bjac...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:
You don't understand, do you?
A relativistic ether wave propagates a photon.
We have to redefine what a wave is so that the relativistic ether wave
doesn't pass through both slits in a double slit experiment.
Once we redefine what a wave is we then get to redefine what a
particle is so that the particle can exist in two locations at the
same time.
We then get to make up another term called self-interference. And then
this self-interference causes there to be an interference pattern
formed in a double slit experiment.
See? If we keep the correct definition of a wave which passes through
both slits in a double slit experiment we don't get to be really,
really smart and re-define terms.
We can't have common folk correctly understanding what occurs
physically in nature now can we?
What if common folk actually correctly understood the relativistic
ether wave propagating the photon passes through both slits and the
particle travels through a single slit?
What would that mean for physicists getting on TV and talking about
infinite universes existing in the palm of their hands?
It would mean physicists are full of shit and we can't have that now
can we?
If common folk correctly understood a moving particle has an
associated aether wave then stuff like the 12 dimensions of string
theory would be seen as the bullshit it is and we can't have that now
can we?
Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
the associated aether wave through both.
wrote:
A relativistic ether wave propagates a photon.
We have to redefine what a wave is so that the relativistic ether wave
doesn't pass through both slits in a double slit experiment.
Once we redefine what a wave is we then get to redefine what a
particle is so that the particle can exist in two locations at the
same time.
We then get to make up another term called self-interference. And then
this self-interference causes there to be an interference pattern
formed in a double slit experiment.
See? If we keep the correct definition of a wave which passes through
both slits in a double slit experiment we don't get to be really,
really smart and re-define terms.
We can't have common folk correctly understanding what occurs
physically in nature now can we?
What if common folk actually correctly understood the relativistic
ether wave propagating the photon passes through both slits and the
particle travels through a single slit?
What would that mean for physicists getting on TV and talking about
infinite universes existing in the palm of their hands?
It would mean physicists are full of shit and we can't have that now
can we?
If common folk correctly understood a moving particle has an
associated aether wave then stuff like the 12 dimensions of string
theory would be seen as the bullshit it is and we can't have that now
can we?
Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
the associated aether wave through both.
Big Dog
Aug 31, 2012, 4:11:57 PM8/31/12
to
folk who want to say they understand things simply and in terms of
common-usage terms because they just can't get their heads around any of
the stuff from modern (OR classical) physics and so it must be bullshit.
Big Dog
Aug 31, 2012, 4:12:53 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 5:55 AM, Alen wrote:
>
>
> If you are a seeker of truth, and have something to say,
> the task is simply to publish what you have to say. Nothing
> more is possible. Everything beyond this depends on the
> reactions of others, which they alone can determine.
>
And of course, there are decisions about where you choose to publish. If
> the task is simply to publish what you have to say. Nothing
> more is possible. Everything beyond this depends on the
> reactions of others, which they alone can determine.
>
you choose to publish on unmoderated backwaters because the bar is set
very low for publishing, then of course this is a little like publishing
by affixing printed flyers to public bus stop shelters with masking
tape. You can say it's out there for the world to see, but of course the
most likely outcome is the rubbish bin.
If, on the other hand, you want to *influence* anyone to think
differently, then you publish in a venue that has a higher bar, and you
take those requirements seriously, and you work HARD to make the
submission in proper condition for publication, just like you would if
you were publishing a novel through a publisher, an expose through a
newspaper or magazine editor, or a song through a music studio.
Big Dog
Aug 31, 2012, 4:13:33 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 7:27 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
> 99.9% of scientists do only whatever can be public funded or leads to
> public funding, because almost nothing else that's deductively
> discovered or uncovered by independent investigative folks hardly if
> ever gets into our K12 textbooks or mainstream media.
>
90% of what you will find in a K12 physical science textbook was stuff
> 99.9% of scientists do only whatever can be public funded or leads to
> public funding, because almost nothing else that's deductively
> discovered or uncovered by independent investigative folks hardly if
> ever gets into our K12 textbooks or mainstream media.
>
discovered in the 19th century or before. Virtually none of those
discoveries were publicly funded. As for the mainstream media, I have no
idea what sampling of the mainstream media you visit. Most of it that I
see is consumed by the activities of commercial ventures, which also are
produced by physicists, not publicly funded science.
mpc755
Aug 31, 2012, 5:33:18 PM8/31/12
to
Does the relativistic ether wave exist during a double slit
experiment?
If it does it travels through both slits, if it doesn't then you are
redefining what a wave is in order to believe in bullshit.
Big Dog
Aug 31, 2012, 5:44:57 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 4:33 PM, mpc755 wrote:
>
> If it does it travels through both slits, if it doesn't then you are
> redefining what a wave is in order to believe in bullshit.
>
You don't know what (-12)/(-6) is, and the answers to other 3rd grade
>
> If it does it travels through both slits, if it doesn't then you are
> redefining what a wave is in order to believe in bullshit.
>
questions. How could you possibly know what the physicists' definition
of a wave is? You don't. You have no idea whether it's been redefined or
not, because you don't know what the definition is in the first place.
mpc755
Aug 31, 2012, 6:23:31 PM8/31/12
to
Does the relativistic ether wave exist during a double slit
experiment?
the relativistic ether wave travels through both slits which refutes
your bullshit.
bja...@iwaynet.net
Aug 31, 2012, 6:34:42 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/2012 1:16 PM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 8/31/2012 5:55 AM, Alen wrote:
>
> Let me see if I can codify the whiny bitching
Anonymous "Big Dog" (see even though he is unknown with ZERO
> On 8/31/2012 5:55 AM, Alen wrote:
>
> Let me see if I can codify the whiny bitching
credibility, his very name puts him on "top" as a leader. Dig?
And then what he's saying is that he intends to marginalize both the
author of this piece as well as the ideas contained within to justify
the political subversion of science he has come to engage in.
> > Rule 1: Never concede anything positive to the person, or
> > make any positive remarks of any kind. All remarks must
> > amount to negative assertions only. If they say something
> > true, ignore it, and look for something that is easier to
> > criticise.
>
> Complaint 1: Everyone's ideas are worth encouragement, not criticism.
> Ego support is critical for "free thinking".
(supported by experiment). In politics all that matters is which "side"
the idea is on. All ideas on the other side are "wrong" even if true. To
concede any idea is correct even when that is irrefutable, is to admit
weakeness any you lose the political argument.
> > Rule 2: Make them answer questions. When they answer,
> > ignore their answers, or declare them to be unclear, and
> > ask them more questions. Never be satisfied with what
> > they say. Never concede anything, however small.
>
> Complaint 2: Pointed critiques are unfair. Ideas, now matter how poorly
> baked or thought out, ought to be accepted in the condition they are,
> recognizing that they may still be premature and not thought out.
questions. Ask them even if you know the answers. It keeps the
opposition working on irrelevant nonsense and wastes time they might
have used looking up irrefutable arguments against your position.
> > Rule 3: If they use terminology, refine and narrow the
> > terminology to the maximum extent possible. This will help
> > to create an impression of aberrations in their use of it,
> > and provide the opportunity to make them appear not to
> > understand any of it. Don't validate any item of language
> > they may use. React to everything as if it is confused and
> > cannot be understood.
> Complaint 3: The jargon of a community is an unacceptable barrier and
> should not be an expectation. Otherwise, ordinary people unfamiliar with
> the jargon will not be able to make solid contributions. There is no
> justifiable rationale for jargon.
facts are nothing. Hence YOU define terminology and you can "adjust"
everyday English words to mean anything you SAY they mean. Examples are
choosing the term: "Anthropogenic Global Warming". That immediately is a
"win" for the CO2 tax side because the very term you use to talk about
climate changes has the fact that the change is "warming" and that it's
"man-made" built right into it. "Deniers" lose!
> > Rule 4: Characterise all their assertions as guesswork or
> > badly prepared fantasies of what they would like reality to
> > be. This will make it appear that reality itself is, as it were,
> > on your side, and certainly not on theirs.
>
> Complaint 4: Never require validation against experimental results, as
> just "thinking about things" should be sufficient for establishing
> truth. Philosophical assertions should have as much weight as scientific
> ones.
science nor using the scientific method, all experimental results are
irrelevant! What matters is what the OBSERVERS of the debate (usually
the public) think is valid results. This can be whatever you say they
are. Repeat a lie enough times and it becomes true in this context.
> > Rule 5: Never recognise or discuss anything as an original
> > or alternative idea. ALWAYS characterise any such idea as
> > ignorance, laziness, incompetence, or failure to learn.
>
> Complaint 5: Brain farts and half-baked notions are still original, and
> originality should be encouraged over fidelity with facts and
> completeness of development. Otherwise, nobody will ever want to pursue
> original ideas as they take too much work.
thing. Hence any new idea is totally suspect as having potential to
undermine your current power. The best plan is to ridicule the new ideas
and demonize and marginalize their author(s). It is OK to use all your
current political authority to do this no matter how immoral or
unethical or dishonest that might be. It's "natural selection".
> > Rule 7: Always play the role of an examiner and teacher,
> > not a debater. Make it appear everyone has come out of need
> > of recognition, assessment, and correction by your supreme
> > competence, which should play a role equivalent to that of
> > infallibility. Never descend to the level of debate or discussion.
> > Characterise everything said only as competent or incompetent,
> > and focus only what you can portray as incompetent.
> Complaint 6: Never bitch about nonsequential rule numbers.
that somehow is a test of the new idea and proof of the "debunker's"
massive intellect and infallibility. No one will notice that while you
pretend to be the genius of the universe you are so scared of what you
say that you won't even post under your real name. It's just CB radio
all over again.
> Complaint 7: The important thing is civilized debate, not the truth of
> the subject matter. If there is something that is shown to be false by
> critical examination, continued civilized discussion should be fostered
> as though there were still something worth talking about.
your side is the correct one. Hence any real scientific discussion is
out. That demands an actual discussion of facts with both sides giving
and taking as evidence comes out. This is DEATH in a political debate.
Correctness in a political debate is determined by who can brainwash
your audience the best. The way to win any political debate is to get
jay Leno and David Letterman to make jokes ridiculing your opposition.
> > Rule 8: If anyone does come up with a difficult argument,
> > don't even think about it. You are here to triumph over them,
> > not debate with them. Either ignore it, or call it ignorant and
> > incompetent. That is always an easy and unanswerable
> > assertion where persons of no status are concerned.
>
> Complaint 8: Never tell any amateur that someone else already
> entertained this idea a long time ago, and it was swiftly evaluated and
> dismissed. Every amateur who comes up with the same idea should be
> allowed to explore it in the same way and with the same validation as it
> was originally.
are using call them an "amateur" and ridicule their competence.
Everybody knows that science is done by popular vote. If they do have a
difficult and valid argument just follow rule 8. We call that the "Sam
Wormley" rule as he has yet to answer ANY difficult question.
> > Rule 9: Always keep recommending that they undertake
> > some basic studies of the matter. This will create the
> > appearance that they don't understand and haven't studied
> > any part of what they discuss. It will thus give them the
> > appearances of novices who know nothing, and speak
> > before they have made any proper attempt to learn anything.
>
> Complaint 9: Do not expect free thinkers to become educated in the
> basics, as they are fastidiously avoiding education, because of the risk
> of brainwashing and being forced to believe in orthodoxy.
remembering WHERE they heard it. I used to work with a guy a real clown.
(let's call him Ernie). And someone said to me one day: "I heard that
Ernie is really smart!" And I said, "where did you hear that?" They
said, "I don't know!" And I said, "You HEARD IT FROM EARNIE!" Dig?
> > Rule 10: No matter what they may have said in the past,
> > always go back to the beginning, and speak as if they have
> > never yet said anything at all. In this way, always endeavour
> > to bring them back to a starting line, so that they can never
> > appear to make any progress away from it.
> Complaint 10: Always consider usenet forums to be permanent records of
> publications, so that readers are expected to gather together previous
> postings by an author to get the full sweep of their accomplishments.
> Don't expect previous references. And by all means, make sure that
> volume of output counts for something at least, even if every single
> item is individually ridiculous. Someone who is insane and produces ten
> pages of densely packed equations every day might be writing nonsense,
> but at least validate him for producing several thousand pages of
> densely packed equations. That took work!
there is a RECORD of all their lies and stupid statements. So when when
they make statements (Like Sam's insistence durning record cold that
"weather is not climate" and climate takes 30 years of average to
determine any results) when the tables turn (Like Sam's use of record
heat wave in U.S. to imply global warming) take quotes of those orignal
statements and jam them right up your opponent's nose...HARD!
This is an important discussion because often science-types are rather
nerdy and apolitical. So hard-core "dirty tricks" political methods
rather take them by surprise. They are not ready. But they had better
get ready quick, because as should be obvious here and now, politics is
taking over all science in a great many ways and if left unchecked, will
end real science for quite some time. Think about it.
bja...@iwaynet.net
Aug 31, 2012, 6:41:44 PM8/31/12
to
any of the myriad "forbidden" topics. Fill in some blank spot in a table
of properties and everyone will fall all over themselves to publish it.
But even come close to an idea with the POTENTIAL to step on the toes of
some vested interests and you'll see that in "peer-review" the owners
and editors are more equal than others.
Anonymous "Big Dog" spins a nice tale of sweet it is down on the science
farm, but in truth, it's all bullshit. Just like his name, the Big dogs
set the rules and everyone else is forced into line. Examples are so
numerous we need not even mention any.
John Gogo
Aug 31, 2012, 6:42:02 PM8/31/12
to
John Gogo
Aug 31, 2012, 6:51:21 PM8/31/12
to
xxein
Aug 31, 2012, 7:04:34 PM8/31/12
to
Bill Snyder
Aug 31, 2012, 7:16:35 PM8/31/12
to
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:34:42 -0400, "bja...@teranews.com"
<bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>On 8/31/2012 1:16 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 8/31/2012 5:55 AM, Alen wrote:
>>
>> Let me see if I can codify the whiny bitching
>
>Anonymous "Big Dog" (see even though he is unknown with ZERO
>credibility, his very name puts him on "top" as a leader. Dig?
>
>And then what he's saying is that he intends to marginalize both the
>author of this piece as well as the ideas contained within to justify
>the political subversion of science he has come to engage in.
Now, see, this is where Illiteracy Is Not Your Friend. What he's
<bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>On 8/31/2012 1:16 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 8/31/2012 5:55 AM, Alen wrote:
>>
>> Let me see if I can codify the whiny bitching
>
>Anonymous "Big Dog" (see even though he is unknown with ZERO
>credibility, his very name puts him on "top" as a leader. Dig?
>
>And then what he's saying is that he intends to marginalize both the
>author of this piece as well as the ideas contained within to justify
>the political subversion of science he has come to engage in.
actually saying is that he has no great amount of patience with
obvious wackjobs, especially when they start whining about the way
people keep laughing at them.
You might try starting with "See Spot Run," and working your way
up to at least 8th grade stuff, before you start trying to tell
everyone what other people are saying.
xxein
Aug 31, 2012, 7:38:53 PM8/31/12
to
On Aug 31, 6:55 am, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>
> Alen
xxein: On the surface of the reason you post, I have to agree. I am
guilty of disparaging a lot of the crap here also. It's more like a
BBQ cook-off competition than science. "You should like MY recipe or
else you don't know what good food is".
There is no completeness, comprehensiveness or logic contained in that
for understanding the physic. Don't be fooled with one trick
phonies. If you are not prepared to make a complete physical
sentence, don't post.
>
> Alen
xxein: On the surface of the reason you post, I have to agree. I am
guilty of disparaging a lot of the crap here also. It's more like a
BBQ cook-off competition than science. "You should like MY recipe or
else you don't know what good food is".
There is no completeness, comprehensiveness or logic contained in that
for understanding the physic. Don't be fooled with one trick
phonies. If you are not prepared to make a complete physical
sentence, don't post.
Brad Guth
Aug 31, 2012, 8:04:36 PM8/31/12
to
direct commercial value to benefit from, then little if any new
idea(s), invention(s) or discovery can be sustained by the original
author unless that author happens to be an oligarch or Rothschild.
You seem to think the recorded past is every bit as honest and good as
it could ever have been, and the future need not bother to revise a
damn thing of that distorted or fraudulent history.
Brad Guth
Aug 31, 2012, 8:17:16 PM8/31/12
to
On Aug 31, 1:12 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/31/2012 5:55 AM, Alen wrote:
>
> >
> > If you are a seeker of truth, and have something to say,
> > the task is simply to publish what you have to say. Nothing
> > more is possible. Everything beyond this depends on the
> > reactions of others, which they alone can determine.
> >
>
> And of course, there are decisions about where you choose to publish. If
> you choose to publish on unmoderated backwaters because the bar is set
> very low for publishing, then of course this is a little like publishing
> by affixing printed flyers to public bus stop shelters with masking
> tape. You can say it's out there for the world to see, but of course the
> most likely outcome is the rubbish bin.
Of course you and others of your kind can always take a positive and/
> On 8/31/2012 5:55 AM, Alen wrote:
>
> >
> > If you are a seeker of truth, and have something to say,
> > the task is simply to publish what you have to say. Nothing
> > more is possible. Everything beyond this depends on the
> > reactions of others, which they alone can determine.
> >
>
> And of course, there are decisions about where you choose to publish. If
> you choose to publish on unmoderated backwaters because the bar is set
> very low for publishing, then of course this is a little like publishing
> by affixing printed flyers to public bus stop shelters with masking
> tape. You can say it's out there for the world to see, but of course the
> most likely outcome is the rubbish bin.
or constructive stance instead of the usual naysay stance of a closed
mindset.
>
> If, on the other hand, you want to *influence* anyone to think
> differently, then you publish in a venue that has a higher bar, and you
> take those requirements seriously, and you work HARD to make the
> submission in proper condition for publication, just like you would if
> you were publishing a novel through a publisher, an expose through a
> newspaper or magazine editor, or a song through a music studio.
agency like our NASA that basically flipped you off, then what?
Are you saying that our head science cheese and its mostly public
funded fondu of subservient minions isn't really the God of all media
publishing, even though each and every word and eyecandy pixel of
theirs gets automatically published in multiple mainstream media as
is.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”
Brad Guth
Aug 31, 2012, 8:26:56 PM8/31/12
to
On Aug 31, 3:41 pm, "bjac...@teranews.com" <bjac...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:
Exactly, the mainstream status-quo is chock full of self-serving
"bullshit" because, it depends entirely upon who you know and
otherwise exactly as you say, it can't step on toes or rock any of
those mainstream status quo boats with their vested interests that
goes way the hell back.
wrote:
"bullshit" because, it depends entirely upon who you know and
otherwise exactly as you say, it can't step on toes or rock any of
those mainstream status quo boats with their vested interests that
goes way the hell back.
alie...@gmail.com
Aug 31, 2012, 9:06:52 PM8/31/12
to
On Aug 31, 3:55 am, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
> I don't post this to help those who like to qualify people
> as crackpots, but to support their targets. It is good for
> us to keep a heightened awareness of their character and
> methods, and, consequently, how little credibility ought
> to be attached to their judgements.
Helping actual crackpots to not be crackpots is laudable.
I'm not sure that what you write will achieve that.
> Such methods are used by the lesser scientists, who
> are followers only, and not real scientists, in that they
> are not original thinkers, are not truth seekers, and do
> not have a will and instinct to recognise truth wherever
> it may be found, before it is formally established and
> proven.
What do you consider "truth" and "proven" to mean?
In science " truth" means "what Nature shows us regardless of what
theories we may construct", not "what some authority figure says".
"Proven" means "compared against Nature and found to be the same", not
"agreed on by many authority figures".
Also, in science "proven" is always temporary and conditional; new
evidence can come to light demonstrating some detail a theory gets
wrong.
This means that "truth" also changes when we learn that we've not
been looking at Nature correctly.
These last two kinds of events make real scientists very happy.
> Real scientists are persons who are able to do
> these things. The followers cannot adopt anything new
> until some major figure has said something in favour of
> it. When this person is followed by a chorus of approval
> from others, then all the followers simply nod their heads
> and fall into line. In the normal situation they regard
> accepted theory as dogma, overconfirmed by a priesthood
> acting as an authority. The resulting sense of certainty
> enables them to concentrate all their attention on the
> methodology that will be able to discredit and brand
> anyone a crackpot who shows any dissent of any kind.
The above can apply equally to Brown's Gas advocates, aether
enthusiasts, and string theorists (and those who oppose them).
String theorists are different *only* in that their efforts are
grounded in mathematics demonstrated elsewhere to apply to reality,
and hold at least some hope of experimental verification (comparison
against Nature to "prove" them).
Anyone willing to do the work can debunk Brown's Gas on their own.
Aetherists by and large define their aether so that it's effects are
indistinguishable from what's accounted for by standard physics.
Actual crackpots do not pursue "non-mainstream ideas", they pursue
"undemonstrable" or "demonstrably false" ideas.
Consider the Dark Matter/Dark Energy controversy. There is little
consensus on it, yet there are demonstrable holes in standard physics
demanding them, or something like them, to fill in the holes.
Are DM/DE proponents crackpots? No, because they, like string
theorists, recognize the possibility that they are flat-out WRONG.
The first thing real scientists does upon constructing a shiny new
theory is think up ways to falsify it by comparing it against nature.
They look for weak points and apply as much force as they can to break
it.
Mind you if it doesn't break that DOES NOT "prove" a theory; it just
means it hasn't YET been disproven.
Have you done that with your ideas?
(snip)
(Note for Big Dog: There Is No Number Six)
> If you are a seeker of truth, and have something to say,
> the task is simply to publish what you have to say. Nothing
> more is possible. Everything beyond this depends on the
> reactions of others, which they alone can determine.
In real science, don't forget to publish the details of how you
arrive at your conclusions and any results of experiments that support
them.
Science is NOT a debate. Science consists of understanding Nature by
examining it and comparing results. If you find something new,
describe what you found and how you found it so that others can repeat
your methods and check your results.
.
> Answering the hostile commentary of orthodox triumphalists,
> therefore, can have the benefit of giving you an occasion
> to publish additional explanations of what your argument
> is. It also serves to keep a thread going longer, and provides
> an increased opportunity for it to be read by any actual,
> objective seekers of truth who may be passing by.
Sure, fine, just remember that Nature is the final arbiter.
Mark L. Fergerson
> I don't post this to help those who like to qualify people
> as crackpots, but to support their targets. It is good for
> us to keep a heightened awareness of their character and
> methods, and, consequently, how little credibility ought
> to be attached to their judgements.
Helping actual crackpots to not be crackpots is laudable.
I'm not sure that what you write will achieve that.
> Such methods are used by the lesser scientists, who
> are followers only, and not real scientists, in that they
> are not original thinkers, are not truth seekers, and do
> not have a will and instinct to recognise truth wherever
> it may be found, before it is formally established and
> proven.
In science " truth" means "what Nature shows us regardless of what
theories we may construct", not "what some authority figure says".
"Proven" means "compared against Nature and found to be the same", not
"agreed on by many authority figures".
Also, in science "proven" is always temporary and conditional; new
evidence can come to light demonstrating some detail a theory gets
wrong.
This means that "truth" also changes when we learn that we've not
been looking at Nature correctly.
These last two kinds of events make real scientists very happy.
> Real scientists are persons who are able to do
> until some major figure has said something in favour of
> it. When this person is followed by a chorus of approval
> from others, then all the followers simply nod their heads
> and fall into line. In the normal situation they regard
> accepted theory as dogma, overconfirmed by a priesthood
> acting as an authority. The resulting sense of certainty
> enables them to concentrate all their attention on the
> methodology that will be able to discredit and brand
> anyone a crackpot who shows any dissent of any kind.
The above can apply equally to Brown's Gas advocates, aether
enthusiasts, and string theorists (and those who oppose them).
String theorists are different *only* in that their efforts are
grounded in mathematics demonstrated elsewhere to apply to reality,
and hold at least some hope of experimental verification (comparison
against Nature to "prove" them).
Anyone willing to do the work can debunk Brown's Gas on their own.
Aetherists by and large define their aether so that it's effects are
indistinguishable from what's accounted for by standard physics.
Actual crackpots do not pursue "non-mainstream ideas", they pursue
"undemonstrable" or "demonstrably false" ideas.
Consider the Dark Matter/Dark Energy controversy. There is little
consensus on it, yet there are demonstrable holes in standard physics
demanding them, or something like them, to fill in the holes.
Are DM/DE proponents crackpots? No, because they, like string
theorists, recognize the possibility that they are flat-out WRONG.
The first thing real scientists does upon constructing a shiny new
theory is think up ways to falsify it by comparing it against nature.
They look for weak points and apply as much force as they can to break
it.
Mind you if it doesn't break that DOES NOT "prove" a theory; it just
means it hasn't YET been disproven.
Have you done that with your ideas?
(snip)
(Note for Big Dog: There Is No Number Six)
> If you are a seeker of truth, and have something to say,
> the task is simply to publish what you have to say. Nothing
> more is possible. Everything beyond this depends on the
> reactions of others, which they alone can determine.
arrive at your conclusions and any results of experiments that support
them.
Science is NOT a debate. Science consists of understanding Nature by
examining it and comparing results. If you find something new,
describe what you found and how you found it so that others can repeat
your methods and check your results.
.
> Answering the hostile commentary of orthodox triumphalists,
> therefore, can have the benefit of giving you an occasion
> to publish additional explanations of what your argument
> is. It also serves to keep a thread going longer, and provides
> an increased opportunity for it to be read by any actual,
> objective seekers of truth who may be passing by.
Sure, fine, just remember that Nature is the final arbiter.
Mark L. Fergerson
mpc755
Aug 31, 2012, 9:23:45 PM8/31/12
to
exist until detected or particles which are traveling an infinite
number of paths simultaneously.
All in order to not understand a moving particle has an associated
aether wave.
You can call it 'standard' if you choose. Bizarre and absurd are more
accurate.
All of the following is evidence of the aether.
'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-402_AGU_Voyager.html
"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like
cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity
of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar
space is compacting it."
It is the aether which is displaced by the matter the solar system
consists of which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
the solar system.
'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a
sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1004/1004.1475v1.pdf
"Our data strongly support the idea that the gravitational potential
in clusters is mainly due to a non-baryonic fluid, and any exotic
field in gravitational theory must resemble that of CDM fields very
closely."
The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether.
The analogy is a submarine moving through the water. You are under
water. Two miles away from you are many lights. Moving between you and
the lights one mile away is a submarine. The submarine displaces the
water. The state of displacement of the water causes the center of the
lensing of the light propagating through the water to be offset from
the center of the submarine itself. The offset between the center of
the lensing of the light propagating through the water displaced by
the submarine and the center of the submarine itself is going to
remain the same as the submarine moves through the water. The
submarine continually displaces different regions of the water. The
state of the water connected to and neighboring the submarine remains
the same as the submarine moves through the water even though it is
not the same water the submarine continually displaces. This is what
is occurring physically in nature as the galaxy clusters move through
the aether.
'Surprise! IBEX Finds No Bow ‘Shock’ Outside our Solar System'
http://www.universetoday.com/95094/surprise-ibex-finds-no-bow-shock-o...
'“While bow shocks certainly exist ahead of many other stars, we’re
finding that our Sun’s interaction doesn’t reach the critical
threshold to form a shock,” said Dr. David McComas, principal
investigator of the IBEX mission, “so a wave is a more accurate
depiction of what’s happening ahead of our heliosphere — much like the
wave made by the bow of a boat as it glides through the water.”'
The wave ahead of our heliosphere is an aether displacement wave. This
is evidence of a moving 'particle', the solar system, having an
associated aether wave.
'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html
"Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view
of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two
galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is
somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the
water."
The 'pond' consists of aether. The moving 'particles' are the galaxy
clusters. The ripple is an aether displacement wave. The ripple is a
gravitational wave. This is also evidence of a moving 'particle', the
galaxy clusters, having an associated aether wave.
'Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in NASA Hubble Image'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/mar/HQ_12-068_Hubble_Dark_Core.html
"This technique revealed the dark matter in Abell 520 had collected
into a "dark core," containing far fewer galaxies than would be
expected if the dark matter and galaxies were anchored together. Most
of the galaxies apparently have sailed far away from the collision.
"This result is a puzzle," said astronomer James Jee of the University
of California in Davis, lead author of paper about the results
available online in The Astrophysical Journal. "Dark matter is not
behaving as predicted, and it's not obviously clear what is going on.
It is difficult to explain this Hubble observation with the current
theories of galaxy formation and dark matter.""
The dark matter core does not defy explanation. The dark matter core
is not a puzzle. The dark matter core is not difficult to explain. It
is obviously clear what is going on.
Dark matter and galaxies are not anchored together. Matter moves
through and displaces the aether.
'Giant black hole kicked out of home galaxy'
http://www.astronomy.com/en/News-Observing/News/2012/06/Giant%20black...
"But these new data support the idea that gravitational waves —
ripples in the fabric of space first predicted by Albert Einstein but
never detected directly — can exert an extremely powerful force."
The fabric of space is the aether.
Gravitational waves are ripples in the aether.
What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double
slit experiment; the aether.
Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave.
They are both aether displacement waves.
Aether displaced by matter unifies general relativity and quantum
mechanics.
Brad Guth
Aug 31, 2012, 10:01:06 PM8/31/12
to
On Aug 31, 6:40 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/31/2012 5:55 AM, Alen wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/31/2012 5:55 AM, Alen wrote:
>
>
>
> > Such methods are used by the lesser scientists, who
> > are followers only, and not real scientists, in that they
> > are not original thinkers, are not truth seekers, and do
> > not have a will and instinct to recognise truth wherever
> > it may be found, before it is formally established and
> > proven. Real scientists are persons who are able to do
> > are followers only, and not real scientists, in that they
> > are not original thinkers, are not truth seekers, and do
> > not have a will and instinct to recognise truth wherever
> > it may be found, before it is formally established and
> > these things.
>
> Seriously? You actually said this? Good grief.
Most of your friends here in Usenet/newsgroups think they already know
everything there is to know, and none of that thinking is ever allowed
to get the least bit contrary to our mainstream published status-quo
that has a long standing policy of never rocking a boat or stepping on
any comrade toes with any vested interest that could be put at risk by
some fresh interpretations of science that wasn't approved by those of
your kind. (whew, add commas to suit)
The rules or policy of mainstream publishing are clearly skewed by and
otherwise conformed by those of your kind, in order to best protect
and/or benefit those of your kind. Obviously you see nothing wrong
with that.
Sam Wormley
Aug 31, 2012, 11:16:05 PM8/31/12
to
On 8/31/12 9:01 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> Most of your friends here in Usenet/newsgroups think they already know
> everything there is to know, and none of that thinking is ever allowed
> to get the least bit contrary to our mainstream published status-quo
> that has a long standing policy of never rocking a boat or stepping on
> any comrade toes with any vested interest that could be put at risk by
> some fresh interpretations of science that wasn't approved by those of
> your kind.
Physics educated folks are generally well aware of what they don't
> Most of your friends here in Usenet/newsgroups think they already know
> everything there is to know, and none of that thinking is ever allowed
> to get the least bit contrary to our mainstream published status-quo
> that has a long standing policy of never rocking a boat or stepping on
> any comrade toes with any vested interest that could be put at risk by
> some fresh interpretations of science that wasn't approved by those of
> your kind.
know! And they are also pretty good a spotting the kinds on nonsense
that you spew, Guth!
mpc755
Aug 31, 2012, 11:32:36 PM8/31/12
to
you do not know what occurs physically in nature in a double slit
experiment.
Are you well aware of this?
Y
Sep 1, 2012, 4:45:44 AM9/1/12
to
On Aug 31, 3:55 am, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
> I don't post this to help those who like to qualify people
> as crackpots, but to support their targets. It is good for
> us to keep a heightened awareness of their character and
> methods, and, consequently, how little credibility ought
> to be attached to their judgements.
>
> I don't post this to help those who like to qualify people
> as crackpots, but to support their targets. It is good for
> us to keep a heightened awareness of their character and
> methods, and, consequently, how little credibility ought
> to be attached to their judgements.
>
> Such methods are used by the lesser scientists, who
> are followers only, and not real scientists, in that they
> are not original thinkers, are not truth seekers, and do
> not have a will and instinct to recognise truth wherever
> it may be found, before it is formally established and
> proven. Real scientists are persons who are able to do
> are followers only, and not real scientists, in that they
> are not original thinkers, are not truth seekers, and do
> not have a will and instinct to recognise truth wherever
> it may be found, before it is formally established and
> proven. Real scientists are persons who are able to do
> these things. The followers cannot adopt anything new
> until some major figure has said something in favour of
> it. When this person is followed by a chorus of approval
> from others, then all the followers simply nod their heads
> and fall into line. In the normal situation they regard
> accepted theory as dogma, overconfirmed by a priesthood
> acting as an authority. The resulting sense of certainty
> enables them to concentrate all their attention on the
> methodology that will be able to discredit and brand
> anyone a crackpot who shows any dissent of any kind.
>
> Such persons form an orthodox rabble, which is populated
> until some major figure has said something in favour of
> it. When this person is followed by a chorus of approval
> from others, then all the followers simply nod their heads
> and fall into line. In the normal situation they regard
> accepted theory as dogma, overconfirmed by a priesthood
> acting as an authority. The resulting sense of certainty
> enables them to concentrate all their attention on the
> methodology that will be able to discredit and brand
> anyone a crackpot who shows any dissent of any kind.
>
> by modern males of the worst kind - rabidly competitive
> triumphalists, reminiscent of those tiresome screaming
> 'champions' that are so often inflicted on us via the tv screen.
> Such people are the least interesting of beings, and a
> fundamental requirement for any utopia or paradise to exist
> would be a guarantee of never again having to have the
> misfortune to encounter such a type of person.
>
> It is a great scandal, however, that an arena supposedly
> devoted to the noble task of investigating objective truth
> should have fallen into the hands of such a gang of
> triumphalist degenerates.
>
> The following is a description of the kinds of triumphalist
> rules we can see being implemented by such persons
> every day on science ngs, when dealing with anyone
> who has the temerity to disagree with them
>
> Rule 1: Never concede anything positive to the person, or
> make any positive remarks of any kind. All remarks must
> amount to negative assertions only. If they say something
> true, ignore it, and look for something that is easier to
> criticise.
>
> Rule 1: Never concede anything positive to the person, or
> make any positive remarks of any kind. All remarks must
> amount to negative assertions only. If they say something
> true, ignore it, and look for something that is easier to
> criticise.
>
> Rule 2: Make them answer questions. When they answer,
> ignore their answers, or declare them to be unclear, and
> ask them more questions. Never be satisfied with what
> they say. Never concede anything, however small.
>
> ignore their answers, or declare them to be unclear, and
> ask them more questions. Never be satisfied with what
> they say. Never concede anything, however small.
>
> Rule 3: If they use terminology, refine and narrow the
> terminology to the maximum extent possible. This will help
> to create an impression of aberrations in their use of it,
> and provide the opportunity to make them appear not to
> understand any of it. Don't validate any item of language
> they may use. React to everything as if it is confused and
> cannot be understood.
>
> terminology to the maximum extent possible. This will help
> to create an impression of aberrations in their use of it,
> and provide the opportunity to make them appear not to
> understand any of it. Don't validate any item of language
> they may use. React to everything as if it is confused and
> cannot be understood.
>
> Rule 4: Characterise all their assertions as guesswork or
> badly prepared fantasies of what they would like reality to
> be. This will make it appear that reality itself is, as it were,
> on your side, and certainly not on theirs.
>
> badly prepared fantasies of what they would like reality to
> be. This will make it appear that reality itself is, as it were,
> on your side, and certainly not on theirs.
>
> Rule 5: Never recognise or discuss anything as an original
> or alternative idea. ALWAYS characterise any such idea as
> ignorance, laziness, incompetence, or failure to learn.
>
> or alternative idea. ALWAYS characterise any such idea as
> ignorance, laziness, incompetence, or failure to learn.
>
> Rule 7: Always play the role of an examiner and teacher,
> not a debater. Make it appear everyone has come out of need
> of recognition, assessment, and correction by your supreme
> competence, which should play a role equivalent to that of
> infallibility. Never descend to the level of debate or discussion.
> Characterise everything said only as competent or incompetent,
> and focus only what you can portray as incompetent.
>
> not a debater. Make it appear everyone has come out of need
> of recognition, assessment, and correction by your supreme
> competence, which should play a role equivalent to that of
> infallibility. Never descend to the level of debate or discussion.
> Characterise everything said only as competent or incompetent,
> and focus only what you can portray as incompetent.
>
> Rule 8: If anyone does come up with a difficult argument,
> don't even think about it. You are here to triumph over them,
> not debate with them. Either ignore it, or call it ignorant and
> incompetent. That is always an easy and unanswerable
> assertion where persons of no status are concerned.
>
> don't even think about it. You are here to triumph over them,
> not debate with them. Either ignore it, or call it ignorant and
> incompetent. That is always an easy and unanswerable
> assertion where persons of no status are concerned.
>
> Rule 9: Always keep recommending that they undertake
> some basic studies of the matter. This will create the
> appearance that they don't understand and haven't studied
> any part of what they discuss. It will thus give them the
> appearances of novices who know nothing, and speak
> before they have made any proper attempt to learn anything.
>
> some basic studies of the matter. This will create the
> appearance that they don't understand and haven't studied
> any part of what they discuss. It will thus give them the
> appearances of novices who know nothing, and speak
> before they have made any proper attempt to learn anything.
>
> Rule 10: No matter what they may have said in the past,
> always go back to the beginning, and speak as if they have
> never yet said anything at all. In this way, always endeavour
> to bring them back to a starting line, so that they can never
> appear to make any progress away from it.
>
> A LITTLE ADVICE FOR THE INTENDED TARGETS
> always go back to the beginning, and speak as if they have
> never yet said anything at all. In this way, always endeavour
> to bring them back to a starting line, so that they can never
> appear to make any progress away from it.
>
>
> The above methodology is a tactic for preventing or
> neutralising dissent by anyone who has not received
> an imprimatur to dissent in an official, sanctioned way.
>
> One clearly cannot reply to such methodology of orthodox
> triumphalists in any expectation of changing their minds.
> The methodology has only the superficial appearance
> of debate, but is anything but a simple exchange of views.
>
> Replies to their 'comments', however, can be worth while,
> in that they can be given an entirely different purpose.
>
> If you are a seeker of truth, and have something to say,
> the task is simply to publish what you have to say. Nothing
> more is possible. Everything beyond this depends on the
> reactions of others, which they alone can determine.
>
> If you are a seeker of truth, and have something to say,
> the task is simply to publish what you have to say. Nothing
> more is possible. Everything beyond this depends on the
> reactions of others, which they alone can determine.
>
> Answering the hostile commentary of orthodox triumphalists,
> therefore, can have the benefit of giving you an occasion
> to publish additional explanations of what your argument
> is. It also serves to keep a thread going longer, and provides
> an increased opportunity for it to be read by any actual,
> objective seekers of truth who may be passing by.
>
> Alen
> therefore, can have the benefit of giving you an occasion
> to publish additional explanations of what your argument
> is. It also serves to keep a thread going longer, and provides
> an increased opportunity for it to be read by any actual,
> objective seekers of truth who may be passing by.
>
You've nicely described usenet.
-y
Y
Sep 1, 2012, 4:55:56 AM9/1/12
to
On Aug 31, 10:21 am, "bjac...@teranews.com" <bjac...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:
with delivering important ideas. Just think, the only reason people
are crazy is because they can't stop thinking about a certain thing.
Physics attracts allot of "crazy" people because of all the unanswered
questions. Crazy people are often obsessed with finding the truth of a
situation. Often though, with insanity comes poor communication. I
have no doubt that at some point in history, particularly in recent
times, a theory of everything has been right there in someone's mind,
they just haven't been able to communicate it.
-y
wrote:
> On 8/31/2012 9:40 AM, Big Dog wrote:
>
> > On 8/31/2012 5:55 AM, Alen wrote:
>
>
> > On 8/31/2012 5:55 AM, Alen wrote:
>
> >> Such methods are used by the lesser scientists, who
> >> are followers only, and not real scientists, in that they
> >> are not original thinkers, are not truth seekers, and do
> >> not have a will and instinct to recognise truth wherever
> >> it may be found, before it is formally established and
> >> proven. Real scientists are persons who are able to do
> >> these things.
>
> >> are followers only, and not real scientists, in that they
> >> are not original thinkers, are not truth seekers, and do
> >> not have a will and instinct to recognise truth wherever
> >> it may be found, before it is formally established and
> >> proven. Real scientists are persons who are able to do
> >> these things.
>
> > Seriously? You actually said this? Good grief.
>
>
> Come "Big Dog", just come out and ask him a question. Ask for cites to
> back up his thesis. Better, yet, explain how he's uneducated and
> stooopid...and not only that "insane" as well. Who needs to pay
> attention to anything the "insane" say? Everybody knows that if you want
Newton had repeated mental breakdowns. Crazy people are often obsessed
> back up his thesis. Better, yet, explain how he's uneducated and
> stooopid...and not only that "insane" as well. Who needs to pay
> attention to anything the "insane" say? Everybody knows that if you want
with delivering important ideas. Just think, the only reason people
are crazy is because they can't stop thinking about a certain thing.
Physics attracts allot of "crazy" people because of all the unanswered
questions. Crazy people are often obsessed with finding the truth of a
situation. Often though, with insanity comes poor communication. I
have no doubt that at some point in history, particularly in recent
times, a theory of everything has been right there in someone's mind,
they just haven't been able to communicate it.
-y
Big Dog
Sep 1, 2012, 5:20:35 AM9/1/12
to
maybe. But then again, you imagine lots of things that just ain't so.
Big Dog
Sep 1, 2012, 5:31:44 AM9/1/12
to
On 8/31/2012 5:34 PM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
> On 8/31/2012 1:16 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 8/31/2012 5:55 AM, Alen wrote:
>>
>> Let me see if I can codify the whiny bitching
>
> Anonymous "Big Dog" (see even though he is unknown with ZERO
> credibility, his very name puts him on "top" as a leader. Dig?
>
> And then what he's saying is that he intends to marginalize both the
> author of this piece as well as the ideas contained within to justify
> the political subversion of science he has come to engage in.
>
>> > Rule 1: Never concede anything positive to the person, or
>> > make any positive remarks of any kind. All remarks must
>> > amount to negative assertions only. If they say something
>> > true, ignore it, and look for something that is easier to
>> > criticise.
>>
>> Complaint 1: Everyone's ideas are worth encouragement, not criticism.
>> Ego support is critical for "free thinking".
>
> Comment #1. In science what matters is which ideas are "correct"
> (supported by experiment). In politics all that matters is which "side"
> the idea is on. All ideas on the other side are "wrong" even if true. To
> concede any idea is correct even when that is irrefutable, is to admit
> weakeness any you lose the political argument.
I am fascinated by this idea you have that scientific ideas "on the
> On 8/31/2012 1:16 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 8/31/2012 5:55 AM, Alen wrote:
>>
>> Let me see if I can codify the whiny bitching
>
> Anonymous "Big Dog" (see even though he is unknown with ZERO
> credibility, his very name puts him on "top" as a leader. Dig?
>
> And then what he's saying is that he intends to marginalize both the
> author of this piece as well as the ideas contained within to justify
> the political subversion of science he has come to engage in.
>
>> > Rule 1: Never concede anything positive to the person, or
>> > make any positive remarks of any kind. All remarks must
>> > amount to negative assertions only. If they say something
>> > true, ignore it, and look for something that is easier to
>> > criticise.
>>
>> Complaint 1: Everyone's ideas are worth encouragement, not criticism.
>> Ego support is critical for "free thinking".
>
> Comment #1. In science what matters is which ideas are "correct"
> (supported by experiment). In politics all that matters is which "side"
> the idea is on. All ideas on the other side are "wrong" even if true. To
> concede any idea is correct even when that is irrefutable, is to admit
> weakeness any you lose the political argument.
other side" can be "irrefutably correct" even when it opposes that which
is experimentally supported. In science, if an idea is not supported by
experiment, that is refutation enough. You don't seem to think so.
>
>> > Rule 2: Make them answer questions. When they answer,
>> > ignore their answers, or declare them to be unclear, and
>> > ask them more questions. Never be satisfied with what
>> > they say. Never concede anything, however small.
>>
>> Complaint 2: Pointed critiques are unfair. Ideas, now matter how poorly
>> baked or thought out, ought to be accepted in the condition they are,
>> recognizing that they may still be premature and not thought out.
>
> Comment #2. In a political debate always make the opposition answer your
> questions. Ask them even if you know the answers. It keeps the
> opposition working on irrelevant nonsense and wastes time they might
> have used looking up irrefutable arguments against your position.
how they get tested. Now, you may want to call that politics, but it's
science.
>
>> > Rule 3: If they use terminology, refine and narrow the
>> > terminology to the maximum extent possible. This will help
>> > to create an impression of aberrations in their use of it,
>> > and provide the opportunity to make them appear not to
>> > understand any of it. Don't validate any item of language
>> > they may use. React to everything as if it is confused and
>> > cannot be understood.
>
>> Complaint 3: The jargon of a community is an unacceptable barrier and
>> should not be an expectation. Otherwise, ordinary people unfamiliar with
>> the jargon will not be able to make solid contributions. There is no
>> justifiable rationale for jargon.
>
> Comment #3. In a political argument appearance is everything. Actual
> facts are nothing. Hence YOU define terminology and you can "adjust"
> everyday English words to mean anything you SAY they mean. Examples are
> choosing the term: "Anthropogenic Global Warming". That immediately is a
> "win" for the CO2 tax side because the very term you use to talk about
> climate changes has the fact that the change is "warming" and that it's
> "man-made" built right into it. "Deniers" lose!
>
science, definitions are conventions established by consensus of the
target group, in this case scientists. And yes, that allows meanings
different than everyday usage. Because definitions are not facts.
>
>
>> > Rule 4: Characterise all their assertions as guesswork or
>> > badly prepared fantasies of what they would like reality to
>> > be. This will make it appear that reality itself is, as it were,
>> > on your side, and certainly not on theirs.
>>
>> Complaint 4: Never require validation against experimental results, as
>> just "thinking about things" should be sufficient for establishing
>> truth. Philosophical assertions should have as much weight as scientific
>> ones.
>
> Comment #4. Since it's already determined the "debate" is NOT about
> science nor using the scientific method, all experimental results are
> irrelevant! What matters is what the OBSERVERS of the debate (usually
> the public) think is valid results. This can be whatever you say they
> are. Repeat a lie enough times and it becomes true in this context.
scientific method dominates and public opinion doesn't really matter.
>
>
>> > Rule 5: Never recognise or discuss anything as an original
>> > or alternative idea. ALWAYS characterise any such idea as
>> > ignorance, laziness, incompetence, or failure to learn.
>>
>> Complaint 5: Brain farts and half-baked notions are still original, and
>> originality should be encouraged over fidelity with facts and
>> completeness of development. Otherwise, nobody will ever want to pursue
>> original ideas as they take too much work.
>
> In politics maintaining the status quo (your power) is the important
> thing. Hence any new idea is totally suspect as having potential to
> undermine your current power. The best plan is to ridicule the new ideas
> and demonize and marginalize their author(s). It is OK to use all your
> current political authority to do this no matter how immoral or
> unethical or dishonest that might be. It's "natural selection".
proposal meet certain minimum standards required of all scientific
proposals.
>
>
>> > Rule 7: Always play the role of an examiner and teacher,
>> > not a debater. Make it appear everyone has come out of need
>> > of recognition, assessment, and correction by your supreme
>> > competence, which should play a role equivalent to that of
>> > infallibility. Never descend to the level of debate or discussion.
>> > Characterise everything said only as competent or incompetent,
>> > and focus only what you can portray as incompetent.
>
>> Complaint 6: Never bitch about nonsequential rule numbers.
>
> Comment 6: Always flame the critic over typos and spelling errors as if
> that somehow is a test of the new idea and proof of the "debunker's"
> massive intellect and infallibility. No one will notice that while you
> pretend to be the genius of the universe you are so scared of what you
> say that you won't even post under your real name. It's just CB radio
> all over again.
>
>> Complaint 7: The important thing is civilized debate, not the truth of
>> the subject matter. If there is something that is shown to be false by
>> critical examination, continued civilized discussion should be fostered
>> as though there were still something worth talking about.
>
> In politics YOU need to control the debate and give the impression that
> your side is the correct one. Hence any real scientific discussion is
> out. That demands an actual discussion of facts with both sides giving
> and taking as evidence comes out. This is DEATH in a political debate.
> Correctness in a political debate is determined by who can brainwash
> your audience the best. The way to win any political debate is to get
> jay Leno and David Letterman to make jokes ridiculing your opposition.
matters. I think you have politics and science confused.
>
>> > Rule 8: If anyone does come up with a difficult argument,
>> > don't even think about it. You are here to triumph over them,
>> > not debate with them. Either ignore it, or call it ignorant and
>> > incompetent. That is always an easy and unanswerable
>> > assertion where persons of no status are concerned.
>>
>> Complaint 8: Never tell any amateur that someone else already
>> entertained this idea a long time ago, and it was swiftly evaluated and
>> dismissed. Every amateur who comes up with the same idea should be
>> allowed to explore it in the same way and with the same validation as it
>> was originally.
>
>
> Comment #8 If anyone starts to point out the political techniques you
> are using call them an "amateur" and ridicule their competence.
> Everybody knows that science is done by popular vote. If they do have a
> difficult and valid argument just follow rule 8. We call that the "Sam
> Wormley" rule as he has yet to answer ANY difficult question.
proposals. You want to call that politics.
>
>> > Rule 9: Always keep recommending that they undertake
>> > some basic studies of the matter. This will create the
>> > appearance that they don't understand and haven't studied
>> > any part of what they discuss. It will thus give them the
>> > appearances of novices who know nothing, and speak
>> > before they have made any proper attempt to learn anything.
>>
>> Complaint 9: Do not expect free thinkers to become educated in the
>> basics, as they are fastidiously avoiding education, because of the risk
>> of brainwashing and being forced to believe in orthodoxy.
>
> Comment #9. If you tell people you "know it all" they will repeat it not
> remembering WHERE they heard it. I used to work with a guy a real clown.
> (let's call him Ernie). And someone said to me one day: "I heard that
> Ernie is really smart!" And I said, "where did you hear that?" They
> said, "I don't know!" And I said, "You HEARD IT FROM EARNIE!" Dig?
I see saying that is you.
>
>> > Rule 10: No matter what they may have said in the past,
>> > always go back to the beginning, and speak as if they have
>> > never yet said anything at all. In this way, always endeavour
>> > to bring them back to a starting line, so that they can never
>> > appear to make any progress away from it.
>
>> Complaint 10: Always consider usenet forums to be permanent records of
>> publications, so that readers are expected to gather together previous
>> postings by an author to get the full sweep of their accomplishments.
>> Don't expect previous references. And by all means, make sure that
>> volume of output counts for something at least, even if every single
>> item is individually ridiculous. Someone who is insane and produces ten
>> pages of densely packed equations every day might be writing nonsense,
>> but at least validate him for producing several thousand pages of
>> densely packed equations. That took work!
>
> Comment #10. Word to the wise. Debaters forget that this is USENET and
> there is a RECORD of all their lies and stupid statements. So when when
> they make statements (Like Sam's insistence durning record cold that
> "weather is not climate" and climate takes 30 years of average to
> determine any results) when the tables turn (Like Sam's use of record
> heat wave in U.S. to imply global warming) take quotes of those orignal
> statements and jam them right up your opponent's nose...HARD!
mpc755
Sep 1, 2012, 8:41:47 AM9/1/12
to
double slit experiment?
Why can't you answer the above question?
Does it or doesn't it?
You are asked a very simple question which you should be able to
respond with a yes or no. What happens when you read the question? Do
you know that the relativistic ether wave passes through both slits
but can't respond saying it does because you know that is what pilot-
wave theory states occurs? Do you think the relativistic ether wave
doesn't exist during a double slit experiment but can't figure out
what happens to it?
What are you thinking when you refuse to answer a simple and direct
question?
Does the relativistic ether wave propagating the photon exist during a
double slit experiment?
Yes or no?
Do you realize how bizarre and absurd it appears that you act like you
understand what occurs in a double slit experiment and you can't even
answer this direct and simple question?
Brad Guth
Sep 1, 2012, 10:19:04 AM9/1/12
to
It's actually the mainstream status-quo that's represented by Usenet/
newsgroups that are being privately and/or vested group moderated in
order to keep as many K12s and others as far away as possible.
Alen
Sep 1, 2012, 11:44:54 AM9/1/12
to
not answering any contrary comments by the orthodox
on this thread because, essentially, I regard all my replies
as already contained in my original post above.
As far as the favourable comments are concerned,
for me it feels really good to read the remarks of those
who are also able to see through the unobjective
orthodox babble. As long as you remain, hope for
change remains alive, imo :)
Alen
shuba
Sep 1, 2012, 12:45:51 PM9/1/12
to
Brother Alen wrote:
> As far as the favourable comments are concerned,
> for me it feels really good to read the remarks of those
> who are also able to see through the unobjective
> orthodox babble. As long as you remain, hope for
> change remains alive, imo :)
Not even any of the other cranks have shown support for the
> As far as the favourable comments are concerned,
> for me it feels really good to read the remarks of those
> who are also able to see through the unobjective
> orthodox babble. As long as you remain, hope for
> change remains alive, imo :)
unmitigated garbage on your website. This puts your status as
lower than Ken Seto, who at least was able to generate a five-star
'reader review' on Amazon dot com.
---Tim Shuba---
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Sep 1, 2012, 12:56:24 PM9/1/12
to
"Alen" wrote in message
news:faabd51d-999c-4907...@qa3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
========================================================
Answering yourself is very unproductive, it only reinforces your
own opinions with your personal bias. Far better to dispute with
dissenters and challenge those who agree with you in principle
but not in detail. When one teaches, two learn. You need to learn
not to be smug. You can still stick to your guns, but the new guns
fire the energy of a laser beam from an orthodox cordite charge.
Think of it, then invent it. Okay, so nobody has done it yet, but
that doesn't mean it can't be done as long as it obeys Newtonian
physics, and nothing in Newtonian physics prevents it.
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
news:faabd51d-999c-4907...@qa3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
Answering yourself is very unproductive, it only reinforces your
own opinions with your personal bias. Far better to dispute with
dissenters and challenge those who agree with you in principle
but not in detail. When one teaches, two learn. You need to learn
not to be smug. You can still stick to your guns, but the new guns
fire the energy of a laser beam from an orthodox cordite charge.
Think of it, then invent it. Okay, so nobody has done it yet, but
that doesn't mean it can't be done as long as it obeys Newtonian
physics, and nothing in Newtonian physics prevents it.
-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Sep 1, 2012, 1:01:32 PM9/1/12
to
"shuba" wrote in message news:k1te3v$uh6$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
==========================================
Fuck off, Shuba, you are a whinging jealous unmitigated bigot and a
clueless cunt with nothing to add to anyone or anything.
Fuck off, Shuba, you are a whinging jealous unmitigated bigot and a
clueless cunt with nothing to add to anyone or anything.
Brad Guth
Sep 1, 2012, 4:38:04 PM9/1/12
to
On Sep 1, 9:57 am, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
Hitler and his cabal/mafia of oligarchs had loads of "personal bias",
and it almost put them in charge of Earth. GW Bush and Dick Cheney
each had butt loads of "personal bias", which only cost us a few
thousand civilian lives and trillions of our hard earned dollars. So,
why were those biases OK and Alen's bias not?
and it almost put them in charge of Earth. GW Bush and Dick Cheney
each had butt loads of "personal bias", which only cost us a few
thousand civilian lives and trillions of our hard earned dollars. So,
why were those biases OK and Alen's bias not?
Will Janoschka
Sep 1, 2012, 5:03:53 PM9/1/12
to
On Sat, 1 Sep 2012 15:44:54, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>
> I am posting this answer to myself to say that I am
> not answering any contrary comments by the orthodox
> on this thread because, essentially, I regard all my replies
> as already contained in my original post above.
>
> As far as the favourable comments are concerned,
> for me it feels really good to read the remarks of those
> who are also able to see through the unobjective
> orthodox babble. As long as you remain, hope for
> change remains alive, imo :)
>
> Alen
I agree with all your first post and this reply to let us know
>
> I am posting this answer to myself to say that I am
> not answering any contrary comments by the orthodox
> on this thread because, essentially, I regard all my replies
> as already contained in my original post above.
>
> As far as the favourable comments are concerned,
> for me it feels really good to read the remarks of those
> who are also able to see through the unobjective
> orthodox babble. As long as you remain, hope for
> change remains alive, imo :)
>
> Alen
you are still in the land of the unorthodox, ot aorthodox.
All the rules apply to almost any political non-debate.
I try to do as you do but many times when they pull #
7, while not knowing anything of my background,
I apear upset tn my reply, because I am upset.
bja...@iwaynet.net
Sep 1, 2012, 6:42:21 PM9/1/12
to
losing? Remember Ed Muskie?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Muskie
Do I have to teach you guys everything?
ronal...@gmail.com
Sep 1, 2012, 7:03:44 PM9/1/12
to
You've clearly hit a lot of nails on the head with this post.
And it seems a lot of thumbs were sitting on top of them.
Yes, we should clearly have unoriginal thinkers appointed to
'peer review' others, and leave the people with new ideas out
of the process altogether. NOT!
And it seems a lot of thumbs were sitting on top of them.
Yes, we should clearly have unoriginal thinkers appointed to
'peer review' others, and leave the people with new ideas out
of the process altogether. NOT!
Brad Guth
Sep 1, 2012, 11:46:08 PM9/1/12
to
Some of those you speak highly of do not even support many of your
interpretations. But then you get paid to obfuscate/exclude anything
that displeases your closed mindset.
Brad Guth
Sep 1, 2012, 11:48:27 PM9/1/12
to
individual photon wave moves beyond its wavelength.
mpc755
Sep 2, 2012, 11:05:38 AM9/2/12
to
'their' minds work. Not one of 'them' can explain what occurs
physically in nature in a double slit experiment yet 'they' think
'they' know what does.
It is amazing the level of denial which exists with those who think
'they' are knowledgeable about mainstream physics. I wonder if 'they'
think someone else has actually figured it out and it is just beyond
'their' level of comprehension.
All anyone has to do in order to correctly understand what occurs
physically in nature in a double slit experiment is to understand the
aether behaves as other mediums do and is displaced by objects moving
through it.
‘Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory –
Louis de BROGLIE’
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
“If a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its nature
would seem desirable. It certainly is of quite complex character. It
could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be
contrary to relativity theory.”
de Broglie is referring to a relativistic aether. The same aether as
Einstein.
‘Ether and the Theory of Relativity – Albert Einstein’
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
“As to the mechanical nature of the Lorentzian ether, it may be said
of it, in a somewhat playful spirit, that immobility is the only
mechanical property of which it has not been deprived by H. A.
Lorentz. It may be added that the whole change in the conception of
the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about,
consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality,
namely, its immobility.”
An immobile aether is a universal reference medium. Both de Broglie
and Einstein are stating the aether is not an immobile universal
reference medium.
“It is ironic that Einstein’s most creative work, the general theory
of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium
when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such
medium existed [..] The word ‘ether’ has extremely negative
connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association
with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped
of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most
physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually
says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading
the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic
symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time
relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began
showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure
similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent
studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand
that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian
emptiness. It is filled with ‘stuff’ that is normally transparent but
can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a
part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day
by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this
because it is taboo.” – Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics,
endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
The following article describes wave-particle duality as a physical
particle and a physical wave where the particle travels through a
single slit and the associated wave passes through both.
‘New ‘Double Slit’ Experiment Skirts Uncertainty Principle’
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-experiment-skirts-uncertainty-principle
“Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an
unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave
theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that
takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through
both slits.”
The aether waves. The aether behaves as other mediums do and is
displaced by objects moving through it.
Brad Guth
Sep 2, 2012, 2:06:05 PM9/2/12
to
Their vested interest that's focused upon getting their hands on as
much public and private funding as possible is only matched by their
keen suppression upon any competition for such public or private loot.
The very last thing they want to allow through their mainstream
gauntlet, is any revisions or disqualification of previously recorded
and published science (especially of anything of theirs found in our
K12 textbooks).
New and improved interpretations of physics and science is simply not
allowed if it's derived by outsiders, and most of them would rather
die and/or allow as many others to die rather than allow any of us
outsiders to get one iota of any new or improved evidence past their
mainstream media and textbook security gates.
Brad Guth
Sep 2, 2012, 4:42:34 PM9/2/12
to
>
> “Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an
> unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave
> theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that
> takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through
> both slits.”
>
> The aether waves. The aether behaves as other mediums do and is
> displaced by objects moving through it.
Without a mainstream policy of selective obfuscation/exclusion of
> “Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an
> unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave
> theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that
> takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through
> both slits.”
>
> The aether waves. The aether behaves as other mediums do and is
> displaced by objects moving through it.
evidence and/or their use of conditional physics, many of their public
funded theories upon theories would fall apart.
A displacement of aether would certainly help to better explain many
things, including the unmoving photon wave that mainstream continually
interprets as each and every individual photon wave always moving from
point A to point B, and of their secondaries all doing the same
quantum dance at the speed of light...
Why doesn't any given point-source of light skip any atto(1e-18)
degree of radiating photons, and as always regardless of the distance?
Brad Guth
Sep 2, 2012, 5:03:19 PM9/2/12
to
expertise of physics and science at risk. One false move on his part
and everything he has ever stood for and/or having supported is at
risk of being disqualified, and he's not going to do that unless
there's a substantial carrot as a failsafe conclusion or alternative
to death.
mpc755
Sep 2, 2012, 5:26:29 PM9/2/12
to
mathematicians.
They'd rather be ignorant than understand the aether is a medium and
it is displaced by the objects which exist in it.
'They' insist 'they' are open minded about a unified theory as long as
it doesn't include the aether.
Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether is physically displaced by matter.
Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit
while the associated aether wave passes through both.
What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double
slit experiment; the aether.
Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave.
They are both aether displacement waves.
mpc755
Sep 2, 2012, 5:31:11 PM9/2/12
to
external aether displacement wave of the photon 'particle' consists of
a very small region of the wave itself.
In a double slit experiment the photon 'particle' travels through a
single slit and the associated aether wave through both.
Photons of light physically travel from the Sun to the Earth.
mpc755
Sep 2, 2012, 5:39:49 PM9/2/12
to
of a boat where the wave moves but the water does not travel with the
boat. If that is how you are describing the photon wave then you are
correct.
Will Janoschka
Sep 2, 2012, 9:45:38 PM9/2/12
to
Here on Earth, everything is in the toilet.
We still have lovely earthling ladies.
Why not come join the fun?
>
>
Vilas Tamhane
Sep 3, 2012, 12:21:51 AM9/3/12
to
religion is followed on the basis of faith and not on reason.
Vilas Tamhane
Sep 3, 2012, 1:21:42 AM9/3/12
to
On Aug 31, 10:16 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/31/2012 5:55 AM, Alen wrote:
>
> Let me see if I can codify the whiny bitching
>
Whiny Bitching! Similar words are always used by a strong believer.
> On 8/31/2012 5:55 AM, Alen wrote:
>
> Let me see if I can codify the whiny bitching
>
> Complaint 1: Everyone's ideas are worth encouragement, not criticism.
> Ego support is critical for "free thinking".
>
criticism idea becomes religion. Even if I don’t know, who created
God, I have every right to criticize idea of a God. Could not
understand meaning of your second sentence.
> Complaint 2: Pointed critiques are unfair. Ideas, now matter how poorly
> baked or thought out, ought to be accepted in the condition they are,
> recognizing that they may still be premature and not thought out.
>
correct but I don’t think they are ever followed. On the contrary
there is a term in vogue, “Established theories”. IOW, any idea that
goes against dogmatic theories cannot ever be replaced. On criticism,
well I need not be a cook to criticize delicacy of a dish.
>
> Complaint 3: The jargon of a community is an unacceptable barrier and
> should not be an expectation. Otherwise, ordinary people unfamiliar with
> the jargon will not be able to make solid contributions. There is no
> justifiable rationale for jargon.
>
>
In free net groups, you cannot always expect use of jargon. In any
> Complaint 3: The jargon of a community is an unacceptable barrier and
> should not be an expectation. Otherwise, ordinary people unfamiliar with
> the jargon will not be able to make solid contributions. There is no
> justifiable rationale for jargon.
>
>
case Jargon conveys nothing. Your notion that I should come up with
correct alternate theory to explain SR otherwise I should not even
criticize it, is rabidly wrong.
> Complaint 4: Never require validation against experimental results, as
> just "thinking about things" should be sufficient for establishing
> truth. Philosophical assertions should have as much weight as scientific
> ones.
>
Philosophy in loose sense is applying reason and humans having mind
> just "thinking about things" should be sufficient for establishing
> truth. Philosophical assertions should have as much weight as scientific
> ones.
>
can never escape it. The only exception is religion. 3000 years ago
people thought that earth doesn’t fall because it is supported by the
hood of a cobra. Is it necessary at that time for me to possess
Newton’s intelligence to provide correct scientific reason? I would
only say that this theory is wrong as earth can still fall along with
cobra.
> >
> Complaint 5: Brain farts and half-baked notions are still original, and
> originality should be encouraged over fidelity with facts and
> completeness of development. Otherwise, nobody will ever want to pursue
> original ideas as they take too much work.
>
Original idea should not be attacked unless you study it with unbiased
> Complaint 5: Brain farts and half-baked notions are still original, and
> originality should be encouraged over fidelity with facts and
> completeness of development. Otherwise, nobody will ever want to pursue
> original ideas as they take too much work.
>
mind. If you don’t have time, don’t criticize it.
> >
>
> Complaint 6: Never bitch about nonsequential rule numbers.
>
>
> Complaint 6: Never bitch about nonsequential rule numbers.
>
> Complaint 7: The important thing is civilized debate, not the truth of
> the subject matter. If there is something that is shown to be false by
> critical examination, continued civilized discussion should be fostered
> as though there were still something worth talking about.
>
Absolutely correct! Now tell me who promoted the use of the word
> the subject matter. If there is something that is shown to be false by
> critical examination, continued civilized discussion should be fostered
> as though there were still something worth talking about.
>
‘crackpot’ and why?
> >
> > Rule 8: If anyone does come up with a difficult argument,
> > don't even think about it. You are here to triumph over them,
> > not debate with them. Either ignore it, or call it ignorant and
> > incompetent. That is always an easy and unanswerable
> > assertion where persons of no status are concerned.
>
> > Rule 8: If anyone does come up with a difficult argument,
> > don't even think about it. You are here to triumph over them,
> > not debate with them. Either ignore it, or call it ignorant and
> > incompetent. That is always an easy and unanswerable
> > assertion where persons of no status are concerned.
>
> Complaint 8: Never tell any amateur that someone else already
> entertained this idea a long time ago, and it was swiftly evaluated and
> dismissed. Every amateur who comes up with the same idea should be
> allowed to explore it in the same way and with the same validation as it
> was originally.
>
> >
>
> entertained this idea a long time ago, and it was swiftly evaluated and
> dismissed. Every amateur who comes up with the same idea should be
> allowed to explore it in the same way and with the same validation as it
> was originally.
>
> >
>
> Complaint 9: Do not expect free thinkers to become educated in the
> basics, as they are fastidiously avoiding education, because of the risk
> of brainwashing and being forced to believe in orthodoxy.
>
Discussions on basic ideas and concepts do not require deep study. I
> basics, as they are fastidiously avoiding education, because of the risk
> of brainwashing and being forced to believe in orthodoxy.
>
need not know tensor calculus in order to know invariant interval of
SR. In case you are not able to draw it on space-time diagram, I would
justifiably consider it wrong. Remember that non experts will always
enquire the basic ideas and if these are correct, there should not be
any problem in explaining these in layman’s language.
> >
> > Rule 10: No matter what they may have said in the past,
> > always go back to the beginning, and speak as if they have
> > never yet said anything at all. In this way, always endeavour
> > to bring them back to a starting line, so that they can never
> > appear to make any progress away from it.
> >
>
> > Rule 10: No matter what they may have said in the past,
> > always go back to the beginning, and speak as if they have
> > never yet said anything at all. In this way, always endeavour
> > to bring them back to a starting line, so that they can never
> > appear to make any progress away from it.
> >
>
bja...@iwaynet.net
Sep 3, 2012, 1:30:11 AM9/3/12
to
On 9/2/2012 9:45 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Sep 2012 22:42:21, "bja...@teranews.com"
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Muskie
>>
>> Do I have to teach you guys everything?
>>
> Ben, I am only earthling. Why do you reach for God?
Not getting upset over idiots and their big mouths is "reaching for
God?" I don't think so. Just consider the source.
> Here on Earth, everything is in the toilet.
Well, that is sure right.
> We still have lovely earthling ladies.
> Why not come join the fun?
OK, but don't let "Sam" or any of his pals pick mine out for me!
> On Sat, 1 Sep 2012 22:42:21, "bja...@teranews.com"
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Muskie
>>
>> Do I have to teach you guys everything?
>>
> Ben, I am only earthling. Why do you reach for God?
God?" I don't think so. Just consider the source.
> Here on Earth, everything is in the toilet.
> We still have lovely earthling ladies.
> Why not come join the fun?
Vilas Tamhane
Sep 3, 2012, 3:00:03 AM9/3/12
to
On Aug 31, 6:06 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 31, 3:55 am, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>
> > I don't post this to help those who like to qualify people
> > as crackpots, but to support their targets. It is good for
> > us to keep a heightened awareness of their character and
> > methods, and, consequently, how little credibility ought
> > to be attached to their judgements.
>
> Helping actual crackpots to not be crackpots is laudable.
> On Aug 31, 3:55 am, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>
> > I don't post this to help those who like to qualify people
> > as crackpots, but to support their targets. It is good for
> > us to keep a heightened awareness of their character and
> > methods, and, consequently, how little credibility ought
> > to be attached to their judgements.
>
>
> I'm not sure that what you write will achieve that.
>
> > Such methods are used by the lesser scientists, who
> > are followers only, and not real scientists, in that they
> > are not original thinkers, are not truth seekers, and do
> > not have a will and instinct to recognise truth wherever
> > it may be found, before it is formally established and
> > proven.
>
> What do you consider "truth" and "proven" to mean?
> > Such methods are used by the lesser scientists, who
> > are followers only, and not real scientists, in that they
> > are not original thinkers, are not truth seekers, and do
> > not have a will and instinct to recognise truth wherever
> > it may be found, before it is formally established and
> > proven.
>
>
> In science " truth" means "what Nature shows us regardless of what
> theories we may construct", not "what some authority figure says".
> "Proven" means "compared against Nature and found to be the same", not
> "agreed on by many authority figures".
>
> Also, in science "proven" is always temporary and conditional; new
> evidence can come to light demonstrating some detail a theory gets
> wrong.
>
> This means that "truth" also changes when we learn that we've not
> been looking at Nature correctly.
>
> These last two kinds of events make real scientists very happy.
>
> > Real scientists are persons who are able to do
> > these things. The followers cannot adopt anything new
> > until some major figure has said something in favour of
> > it. When this person is followed by a chorus of approval
> > from others, then all the followers simply nod their heads
> > and fall into line. In the normal situation they regard
> > accepted theory as dogma, overconfirmed by a priesthood
> > acting as an authority. The resulting sense of certainty
> > enables them to concentrate all their attention on the
> > methodology that will be able to discredit and brand
> > anyone a crackpot who shows any dissent of any kind.
>
> The above can apply equally to Brown's Gas advocates, aether
> > Real scientists are persons who are able to do
> > these things. The followers cannot adopt anything new
> > until some major figure has said something in favour of
> > it. When this person is followed by a chorus of approval
> > from others, then all the followers simply nod their heads
> > and fall into line. In the normal situation they regard
> > accepted theory as dogma, overconfirmed by a priesthood
> > acting as an authority. The resulting sense of certainty
> > enables them to concentrate all their attention on the
> > methodology that will be able to discredit and brand
> > anyone a crackpot who shows any dissent of any kind.
>
> enthusiasts, and string theorists (and those who oppose them).
>
> String theorists are different *only* in that their efforts are
> grounded in mathematics demonstrated elsewhere to apply to reality,
> and hold at least some hope of experimental verification (comparison
> against Nature to "prove" them).
>
> Anyone willing to do the work can debunk Brown's Gas on their own.
> Aetherists by and large define their aether so that it's effects are
> indistinguishable from what's accounted for by standard physics.
>
> Actual crackpots do not pursue "non-mainstream ideas", they pursue
> "undemonstrable" or "demonstrably false" ideas.
>
> Consider the Dark Matter/Dark Energy controversy. There is little
> consensus on it, yet there are demonstrable holes in standard physics
> demanding them, or something like them, to fill in the holes.
>
> Are DM/DE proponents crackpots? No, because they, like string
> theorists, recognize the possibility that they are flat-out WRONG.
>
> The first thing real scientists does upon constructing a shiny new
> theory is think up ways to falsify it by comparing it against nature.
> They look for weak points and apply as much force as they can to break
> it.
>
> Mind you if it doesn't break that DOES NOT "prove" a theory; it just
> means it hasn't YET been disproven.
>
> Have you done that with your ideas?
>
> (snip)
>
> (Note for Big Dog: There Is No Number Six)
>
> > If you are a seeker of truth, and have something to say,
> > the task is simply to publish what you have to say. Nothing
> > more is possible. Everything beyond this depends on the
> > reactions of others, which they alone can determine.
>
> In real science, don't forget to publish the details of how you
> > If you are a seeker of truth, and have something to say,
> > the task is simply to publish what you have to say. Nothing
> > more is possible. Everything beyond this depends on the
> > reactions of others, which they alone can determine.
>
> arrive at your conclusions and any results of experiments that support
> them.
>
> Science is NOT a debate. Science consists of understanding Nature by
> examining it and comparing results. If you find something new,
> describe what you found and how you found it so that others can repeat
> your methods and check your results.
> .
>
> > Answering the hostile commentary of orthodox triumphalists,
> > therefore, can have the benefit of giving you an occasion
> > to publish additional explanations of what your argument
> > is. It also serves to keep a thread going longer, and provides
> > an increased opportunity for it to be read by any actual,
> > objective seekers of truth who may be passing by.
>
> Sure, fine, just remember that Nature is the final arbiter.
>
> > Answering the hostile commentary of orthodox triumphalists,
> > therefore, can have the benefit of giving you an occasion
> > to publish additional explanations of what your argument
> > is. It also serves to keep a thread going longer, and provides
> > an increased opportunity for it to be read by any actual,
> > objective seekers of truth who may be passing by.
>
>
> Mark L. Fergerson
I would like to describe science as a theory that describes how nature
works. Suppose there is a theory that is illogical but explains
observations, should it be beyond criticism? Why should I find
something new in order to examine what is prevalent?
Vilas Tamhane
Sep 3, 2012, 3:11:15 AM9/3/12
to
On Aug 31, 8:16 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/31/12 9:01 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > Most of your friends here in Usenet/newsgroups think they already know
> > everything there is to know, and none of that thinking is ever allowed
> > to get the least bit contrary to our mainstream published status-quo
> > that has a long standing policy of never rocking a boat or stepping on
> > any comrade toes with any vested interest that could be put at risk by
> > some fresh interpretations of science that wasn't approved by those of
> > your kind.
>
> Physics educated folks are generally well aware of what they don't
> know! And they are also pretty good a spotting the kinds on nonsense
> that you spew, Guth!
Really? In that case there would have been debate among the real
> On 8/31/12 9:01 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > Most of your friends here in Usenet/newsgroups think they already know
> > everything there is to know, and none of that thinking is ever allowed
> > to get the least bit contrary to our mainstream published status-quo
> > that has a long standing policy of never rocking a boat or stepping on
> > any comrade toes with any vested interest that could be put at risk by
> > some fresh interpretations of science that wasn't approved by those of
> > your kind.
>
> Physics educated folks are generally well aware of what they don't
> know! And they are also pretty good a spotting the kinds on nonsense
> that you spew, Guth!
physicists on the things that are controversial in physics. I find
advocacy and not debate among them.
I will give an example. My interest in modern physics was aroused by
an author Rajam who wrote a good book on fundamentals of modern
physics. However after the end of every chapter there were short notes
of criticism. In latest editions all that criticism is deleted. Isn’t
this criminal?
alie...@gmail.com
Sep 3, 2012, 6:55:42 AM9/3/12
to
On Sep 3, 12:00 am, Vilas Tamhane <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I would like to describe science as a theory that describes how nature
> works.
Science is the method, or process, of acquiring and assembling
>
> I would like to describe science as a theory that describes how nature
> works.
information about Nature into patterns (theories). Properly done, the
patterns don't stop at the collected data but extend beyond,
predicting other data not yet collected. The accuracy of such
predictions is the test of a theory, not its philosophical
palatability.
> Suppose there is a theory that is illogical but explains
> observations, should it be beyond criticism?
than one kind of logic. Nature is not obliged to follow our ideas of
logic though...
Non-Euclidean geometry, chaos theory, the relativities, quantum
particle physics, and so on are "illogical", but also describe
*certain parts* of reality accurately.
We know that quantum theories of electromagnetism and the strong and
weak forces are very successful, so we logically try to write a
quantum theory of gravity.
Illogically, quantum gravity theories fail to accurately describe
reality.
The sole valid basis for criticizing a theory is whether it
accurately describes reality. We don't expect a theory to describe
*all* of Nature (not yet, anyway); we expect them to have limits. When
we find the limits of a theory we refine them so we know when to use
it, and when*not* to use it. That's why we have more than one
scientific theory instead of a Grand Unified Theory. So far, that is.
So science is a work-in-progress. You in a hurry?
> Why should I find
> something new in order to examine what is prevalent?
theories that are spectacularly good at certain scales etc., but there
are ugly seams and gaps that we don't know how to fill.
We don't know all the answers. For that matter, I think we don't
know most of the really good questions yet.
Mark L. Fergerson
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Sep 3, 2012, 7:55:20 AM9/3/12
to
"nu...@bid.nes" wrote in message
news:44adb322-69fe-43dc...@ud9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
Non-Euclidean geometry, chaos theory, the relativities, quantum
particle physics, and so on are "illogical", but also describe
*certain parts* of reality accurately.
=====================================================
Nature is not obliged to follow YOUR ideas of accuracy.
What is the accuracy of the crackpot relativities and what "certain
parts" of reality are identical with Newtonian Mechanics?
If a muon travels three times faster than light, what kind of crackpot
theory says it can't and then computes unobserved and illogical
length dilation and time contraction to explain why it is seen to
do so, and THEN when it is seen doing so claims that is proof
of the theory? I call that proof of insanity.
It's ok to make anybody look like a crackpot if they are a crackpot.
news:44adb322-69fe-43dc...@ud9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
Non-Euclidean geometry, chaos theory, the relativities, quantum
particle physics, and so on are "illogical", but also describe
*certain parts* of reality accurately.
Nature is not obliged to follow YOUR ideas of accuracy.
What is the accuracy of the crackpot relativities and what "certain
parts" of reality are identical with Newtonian Mechanics?
If a muon travels three times faster than light, what kind of crackpot
theory says it can't and then computes unobserved and illogical
length dilation and time contraction to explain why it is seen to
do so, and THEN when it is seen doing so claims that is proof
of the theory? I call that proof of insanity.
It's ok to make anybody look like a crackpot if they are a crackpot.
Vilas Tamhane
Sep 3, 2012, 8:02:35 AM9/3/12
to
safeguard established theories. If science is work in progress then we
would have seen funeral of many concepts and theories. If within last
100 years, SR is not dead then credibility of the establishment is in
doubt.
Another point of concern is the ideas which are so fantastic that
these should never have any place in science. Any fantastic idea, such
as negative mass, needs, if not proof, at least logical explanation so
that we know we are not dealing with some fantasy akin to occult
science. Unfortunately physics is full of such ideas, born purely out
of mathematical exercise. This is one of the major reasons for the
discomfort of the outsiders.
Brad Guth
Sep 3, 2012, 8:34:59 AM9/3/12
to
How to Make Anybody Look Like a Crackpot (even someone who isn't)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/70f208734a1a5107#
Of mostly public-funded ZNR(Zionist Nazi Redneck) clowns and FUD-
masters are usually very good at provoking and making others look bad,
and of course they never bother to police their own kind (just like
how the Pope never policed their own kind, and how Semites have never
policed within their own oligarch mafia ranks). When you don’t
believe in hell and never give any teachings of Jesus Christ or any
other considerations of faith in God any credit, is unlikely that
you’d give any other human on Earth a break nor offer assistance or
much less any compensation for their efforts. Most of our peers are
either self-appointed or as though having been appointed by others to
topic/author stalk and otherwise do exactly as they please, but only
as long as that pleasure in tormenting benefits only their own
mainstream status-quo that’s extensively public funded.
To start off, our peers are almost exclusively pretend-Atheists that
do not believe in hell and at the same time have no faith whatsoever
in the existence of any God, ETs or that of most any sort of off-world
complex life, by which this closed mindset alone is what initially
terminates whatever anyone else has to say if there’s any hint of
past, current or future ETs involved within those mew ideas or notions
of whatever science interpretations or revisions are being proposed.
So, we get to deal continually with a systemic gauntlet of naysayers
and FUD-masters all the time, as well as we also get to deal with a
killer swarm of mainstream parrots and plagiarizers that take great
pleasure in using the works of others in order to make themselves seem
more important and always right, and otherwise their 24 hour rule
always applies to anything that ever gets recorded or mainstream
published becomes written in stone so that it can’t ever be revised or
disqualified. These insiders as mainstream FUD-masters that claim
being all-knowing and always right about everything, never seem to
have the time or ability to actually assist even one other soul on
Earth (at least they can’t ever seem to point at anyone they’ve
helped, other than themselves).
Therefore intellectually pretentious assholes like our Harlow and our
AMWAY sales rep (rabbi Saul Levy) are absolutely two FUD-masters of a
kind. Much like our redneck Hagar, they never deductively think
anything through for themselves and they clearly do not want K12s or
anyone else of investigative thinking in any open mindset kind of
constructive way. Of course GW Bush, Dick Cheney and Hitler always
had the exact same policy of making others seem inferior and/or always
in error regardless of the intent of other topics or reply context,
because they’re continually on the hunt for that key word or phrase
that they’ll automatically attack and thereby disparage or disqualify
each and every individual that comes along, and most that are new to
this Usenet/newsgroup medium of publishing are easily intimidated and
simply give up without any hint of a fight when such a community of
intellectual bullies are accommodated and here to stay.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/70f208734a1a5107#
On Aug 31, 3:55 am, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
> I don't post this to help those who like to qualify people
> as crackpots, but to support their targets. It is good for
> us to keep a heightened awareness of their character and
> methods, and, consequently, how little credibility ought
> to be attached to their judgements.
>
> I don't post this to help those who like to qualify people
> as crackpots, but to support their targets. It is good for
> us to keep a heightened awareness of their character and
> methods, and, consequently, how little credibility ought
> to be attached to their judgements.
>
> Such methods are used by the lesser scientists, who
> are followers only, and not real scientists, in that they
> are not original thinkers, are not truth seekers, and do
> not have a will and instinct to recognise truth wherever
> it may be found, before it is formally established and
> proven. Real scientists are persons who are able to do
> are followers only, and not real scientists, in that they
> are not original thinkers, are not truth seekers, and do
> not have a will and instinct to recognise truth wherever
> it may be found, before it is formally established and
> these things. The followers cannot adopt anything new
> until some major figure has said something in favour of
> it. When this person is followed by a chorus of approval
> from others, then all the followers simply nod their heads
> and fall into line. In the normal situation they regard
> accepted theory as dogma, overconfirmed by a priesthood
> acting as an authority. The resulting sense of certainty
> enables them to concentrate all their attention on the
> methodology that will be able to discredit and brand
> anyone a crackpot who shows any dissent of any kind.
>
> until some major figure has said something in favour of
> it. When this person is followed by a chorus of approval
> from others, then all the followers simply nod their heads
> and fall into line. In the normal situation they regard
> accepted theory as dogma, overconfirmed by a priesthood
> acting as an authority. The resulting sense of certainty
> enables them to concentrate all their attention on the
> methodology that will be able to discredit and brand
> anyone a crackpot who shows any dissent of any kind.
>
> Rule 8: If anyone does come up with a difficult argument,
> don't even think about it. You are here to triumph over them,
> not debate with them. Either ignore it, or call it ignorant and
> incompetent. That is always an easy and unanswerable
> assertion where persons of no status are concerned.
>
> don't even think about it. You are here to triumph over them,
> not debate with them. Either ignore it, or call it ignorant and
> incompetent. That is always an easy and unanswerable
> assertion where persons of no status are concerned.
>
> Rule 9: Always keep recommending that they undertake
> some basic studies of the matter. This will create the
> appearance that they don't understand and haven't studied
> any part of what they discuss. It will thus give them the
> appearances of novices who know nothing, and speak
> before they have made any proper attempt to learn anything.
>
> some basic studies of the matter. This will create the
> appearance that they don't understand and haven't studied
> any part of what they discuss. It will thus give them the
> appearances of novices who know nothing, and speak
> before they have made any proper attempt to learn anything.
>
> Rule 10: No matter what they may have said in the past,
> always go back to the beginning, and speak as if they have
> never yet said anything at all. In this way, always endeavour
> to bring them back to a starting line, so that they can never
> appear to make any progress away from it.
>
> always go back to the beginning, and speak as if they have
> never yet said anything at all. In this way, always endeavour
> to bring them back to a starting line, so that they can never
> appear to make any progress away from it.
>
> A LITTLE ADVICE FOR THE INTENDED TARGETS
>
> The above methodology is a tactic for preventing or
> neutralising dissent by anyone who has not received
> an imprimatur to dissent in an official, sanctioned way.
>
> One clearly cannot reply to such methodology of orthodox
> triumphalists in any expectation of changing their minds.
> The methodology has only the superficial appearance
> of debate, but is anything but a simple exchange of views.
>
> Replies to their 'comments', however, can be worth while,
> in that they can be given an entirely different purpose.
>
>
> The above methodology is a tactic for preventing or
> neutralising dissent by anyone who has not received
> an imprimatur to dissent in an official, sanctioned way.
>
> One clearly cannot reply to such methodology of orthodox
> triumphalists in any expectation of changing their minds.
> The methodology has only the superficial appearance
> of debate, but is anything but a simple exchange of views.
>
> Replies to their 'comments', however, can be worth while,
> in that they can be given an entirely different purpose.
>
> If you are a seeker of truth, and have something to say,
> the task is simply to publish what you have to say. Nothing
> more is possible. Everything beyond this depends on the
> reactions of others, which they alone can determine.
>
> the task is simply to publish what you have to say. Nothing
> more is possible. Everything beyond this depends on the
> reactions of others, which they alone can determine.
>
> Answering the hostile commentary of orthodox triumphalists,
> therefore, can have the benefit of giving you an occasion
> to publish additional explanations of what your argument
> is. It also serves to keep a thread going longer, and provides
> an increased opportunity for it to be read by any actual,
> objective seekers of truth who may be passing by.
>
> Alen
> therefore, can have the benefit of giving you an occasion
> to publish additional explanations of what your argument
> is. It also serves to keep a thread going longer, and provides
> an increased opportunity for it to be read by any actual,
> objective seekers of truth who may be passing by.
>
Of mostly public-funded ZNR(Zionist Nazi Redneck) clowns and FUD-
masters are usually very good at provoking and making others look bad,
and of course they never bother to police their own kind (just like
how the Pope never policed their own kind, and how Semites have never
policed within their own oligarch mafia ranks). When you don’t
believe in hell and never give any teachings of Jesus Christ or any
other considerations of faith in God any credit, is unlikely that
you’d give any other human on Earth a break nor offer assistance or
much less any compensation for their efforts. Most of our peers are
either self-appointed or as though having been appointed by others to
topic/author stalk and otherwise do exactly as they please, but only
as long as that pleasure in tormenting benefits only their own
mainstream status-quo that’s extensively public funded.
To start off, our peers are almost exclusively pretend-Atheists that
do not believe in hell and at the same time have no faith whatsoever
in the existence of any God, ETs or that of most any sort of off-world
complex life, by which this closed mindset alone is what initially
terminates whatever anyone else has to say if there’s any hint of
past, current or future ETs involved within those mew ideas or notions
of whatever science interpretations or revisions are being proposed.
So, we get to deal continually with a systemic gauntlet of naysayers
and FUD-masters all the time, as well as we also get to deal with a
killer swarm of mainstream parrots and plagiarizers that take great
pleasure in using the works of others in order to make themselves seem
more important and always right, and otherwise their 24 hour rule
always applies to anything that ever gets recorded or mainstream
published becomes written in stone so that it can’t ever be revised or
disqualified. These insiders as mainstream FUD-masters that claim
being all-knowing and always right about everything, never seem to
have the time or ability to actually assist even one other soul on
Earth (at least they can’t ever seem to point at anyone they’ve
helped, other than themselves).
Therefore intellectually pretentious assholes like our Harlow and our
AMWAY sales rep (rabbi Saul Levy) are absolutely two FUD-masters of a
kind. Much like our redneck Hagar, they never deductively think
anything through for themselves and they clearly do not want K12s or
anyone else of investigative thinking in any open mindset kind of
constructive way. Of course GW Bush, Dick Cheney and Hitler always
had the exact same policy of making others seem inferior and/or always
in error regardless of the intent of other topics or reply context,
because they’re continually on the hunt for that key word or phrase
that they’ll automatically attack and thereby disparage or disqualify
each and every individual that comes along, and most that are new to
this Usenet/newsgroup medium of publishing are easily intimidated and
simply give up without any hint of a fight when such a community of
intellectual bullies are accommodated and here to stay.
mpc755
Sep 3, 2012, 9:11:25 AM9/3/12
to
double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
the associated aether wave through both.
Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.
What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double
slit experiment; the aether.
Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave.
Both are aether displacement wave.
slit experiment; the aether.
Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave.
Aether displaced by matter is the grand unified theory.
paparios
Sep 3, 2012, 9:18:57 AM9/3/12
to
El viernes, 31 de agosto de 2012 06:55:04 UTC-4, Alen escribió:
>
>
>
> Alen
You and many others in this forum, have the wrong notion that this forum has some sort of relevance in the way science evolves. The second wrong notion is to think that the advance in physics knowledge can be done by ONE individual.
Regarding the first notion, the truth is that this is a forum where some people writes as much nonsense and disparate thinking as they wish, while a few people who have studied and work in the field try to correct them and suggest ways to improve their knowledge (to no avail of course). Amazingly, every one of these characters consider himself as a true scientist, not accepting they can be in error and/or have an incomplete knowledge of the subjects they discuss. Of course the theory from guy A, clearly conflicts with the theory of guy B and so on. These guys egos are enormous.
Regarding the second notion, the advances on physics are due to a large community of researchers. A new discovery may involve hundreds or even over a thousand of researchers, engineers and technicians. Nothing in modern science can be accomplished by a single individual. This was already the way science was done in Einstein time. Many researchers were working on relativity in 1905. Later, Einstein himself had to search help from other researchers in order to complete his general theory. The key factor is collaboration among many people. This is the reason why Seto, Cavedon and others are wasting their time here. Besides their ignorance in math and physics basics, they are not willing to collaborate with nobody, to enhance the "idea" they may have.
>
>
>
> Alen
You and many others in this forum, have the wrong notion that this forum has some sort of relevance in the way science evolves. The second wrong notion is to think that the advance in physics knowledge can be done by ONE individual.
Regarding the first notion, the truth is that this is a forum where some people writes as much nonsense and disparate thinking as they wish, while a few people who have studied and work in the field try to correct them and suggest ways to improve their knowledge (to no avail of course). Amazingly, every one of these characters consider himself as a true scientist, not accepting they can be in error and/or have an incomplete knowledge of the subjects they discuss. Of course the theory from guy A, clearly conflicts with the theory of guy B and so on. These guys egos are enormous.
Regarding the second notion, the advances on physics are due to a large community of researchers. A new discovery may involve hundreds or even over a thousand of researchers, engineers and technicians. Nothing in modern science can be accomplished by a single individual. This was already the way science was done in Einstein time. Many researchers were working on relativity in 1905. Later, Einstein himself had to search help from other researchers in order to complete his general theory. The key factor is collaboration among many people. This is the reason why Seto, Cavedon and others are wasting their time here. Besides their ignorance in math and physics basics, they are not willing to collaborate with nobody, to enhance the "idea" they may have.
mpc755
Sep 3, 2012, 10:24:20 AM9/3/12
to
paparios wrote:
> El viernes, 31 de agosto de 2012 06:55:04 UTC-4, Alen escribi�:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Alen
"New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however
organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired
researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites
all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the
moment."
Aether is displaced by matter.
> El viernes, 31 de agosto de 2012 06:55:04 UTC-4, Alen escribi�:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Alen
>
>
> Regarding the second notion, the advances on physics are due to
> a large community of researchers. A new discovery may involve hundreds
> or even over a thousand of researchers, engineers and technicians. Nothing
> in modern science can be accomplished by a single individual. This was
> already the way science was done in Einstein time. Many researchers were
> working on relativity in 1905. Later, Einstein himself had to search help
> from other researchers in order to complete his general theory. The key
> factor is collaboration among many people. This is the reason why Seto,
> Cavedon and others are wasting their time here. Besides their ignorance
> in math and physics basics, they are not willing to collaborate with nobody,
> to enhance the "idea" they may have.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck
>
> Regarding the second notion, the advances on physics are due to
> a large community of researchers. A new discovery may involve hundreds
> or even over a thousand of researchers, engineers and technicians. Nothing
> in modern science can be accomplished by a single individual. This was
> already the way science was done in Einstein time. Many researchers were
> working on relativity in 1905. Later, Einstein himself had to search help
> from other researchers in order to complete his general theory. The key
> factor is collaboration among many people. This is the reason why Seto,
> Cavedon and others are wasting their time here. Besides their ignorance
> in math and physics basics, they are not willing to collaborate with nobody,
> to enhance the "idea" they may have.
"New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however
organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired
researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites
all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the
moment."
Aether is displaced by matter.
paparios
Sep 3, 2012, 10:45:17 AM9/3/12
to
El lunes, 3 de septiembre de 2012 10:24:22 UTC-4, mpc755 escribió:
> paparios wrote:
>
> paparios wrote:
>
In 1905 the three epochal papers of the hitherto completely unknown Albert Einstein were published in the journal Annalen der Physik. Planck was among the few who immediately recognized the significance of the special theory of relativity. Thanks to his influence this theory was soon widely accepted in Germany. Planck also contributed considerably to extend the special theory of relativity.
Einstein's hypothesis of light quanta (photons), based on Philipp Lenard's 1902 discovery of the photoelectric effect, was initially rejected by Planck. He was unwilling to discard completely Maxwell's theory of electrodynamics. "The theory of light would be thrown back not by decades, but by centuries, into the age when Christian Huygens dared to fight against the mighty emission theory of Isaac Newton ..."
In 1910 Einstein pointed out the anomalous behavior of specific heat at low temperatures as another example of a phenomenon which defies explanation by classical physics. Planck and Nernst, seeking to clarify the increasing number of contradictions, organized the First Solvay Conference (Brussels 1911). At this meeting Einstein was able to convince Planck.
Meanwhile Planck had been appointed dean of Berlin University, whereby it was possible for him to call Einstein to Berlin and establish a new professorship for him (1914). Soon the two scientists became close friends and met frequently to play music together.
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Sep 3, 2012, 11:22:31 AM9/3/12
to
"paparios" wrote in message
news:4cced943-9e20-4947...@googlegroups.com...
El lunes, 3 de septiembre de 2012 10:24:22 UTC-4, mpc755 escribi�:
> paparios wrote:
>
> > El viernes, 31 de agosto de 2012 06:55:04 UTC-4, Alen escribi�:
======================================
The theory of orbits would be thrown back not by centuries, but by
millennia, into the age when Copernicus dared to fight against the mighty
geocentric theory of epicycles by Claudius Ptolemy ..."
Fucking hyperbole, and a stupid cunt like you swallows it.
Faraday was right, curl E = -dB/dt and Maxwell claimed it as his own.
Maxwell was wrong, there is no aether as Michelson demonstrated.
Newton was right, photons are corpuscles.
Einstein was mad, there is no length dilation or time contraction and
all your hype can't change his ridiculous "equations of transformation"
or his ridiculous "postulate". Newton was right, the speed of light
depends on the speed of the source as Doppler showed.
Planck was a stupid prat too, you hero-worshipping shithead.
news:4cced943-9e20-4947...@googlegroups.com...
El lunes, 3 de septiembre de 2012 10:24:22 UTC-4, mpc755 escribi�:
> paparios wrote:
>
> > El viernes, 31 de agosto de 2012 06:55:04 UTC-4, Alen escribi�:
The theory of orbits would be thrown back not by centuries, but by
millennia, into the age when Copernicus dared to fight against the mighty
geocentric theory of epicycles by Claudius Ptolemy ..."
Fucking hyperbole, and a stupid cunt like you swallows it.
Faraday was right, curl E = -dB/dt and Maxwell claimed it as his own.
Maxwell was wrong, there is no aether as Michelson demonstrated.
Newton was right, photons are corpuscles.
Einstein was mad, there is no length dilation or time contraction and
all your hype can't change his ridiculous "equations of transformation"
or his ridiculous "postulate". Newton was right, the speed of light
depends on the speed of the source as Doppler showed.
Planck was a stupid prat too, you hero-worshipping shithead.
mpc755
Sep 3, 2012, 12:02:17 PM9/3/12
to
paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 3 de septiembre de 2012 10:24:22 UTC-4, mpc755 escribi�:
>> paparios wrote:
>>
>>> El viernes, 31 de agosto de 2012 06:55:04 UTC-4, Alen escribi�:
"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of
relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when
his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium
existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in
theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to
relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations,
it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about
the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence
or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such
matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such
matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies
of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had
spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and
fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led
us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than
ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally
transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to
knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed
every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it
this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in
understand aether is displaced by matter?
How can there be collaboration when you insist on remaining ignorant of
understanding the following?
Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether
is physically displaced by matter.
Aether displaced by matter unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics.
> El lunes, 3 de septiembre de 2012 10:24:22 UTC-4, mpc755 escribi�:
>> paparios wrote:
>>
>>> El viernes, 31 de agosto de 2012 06:55:04 UTC-4, Alen escribi�:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Alen
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Regarding the second notion, the advances on physics are due to
>>
>>> a large community of researchers. A new discovery may involve hundreds
>>
>>> or even over a thousand of researchers, engineers and technicians. Nothing
>>
>>> in modern science can be accomplished by a single individual. This was
>>
>>> already the way science was done in Einstein time. Many researchers were
>>
>>> working on relativity in 1905. Later, Einstein himself had to search help
>>
>>> from other researchers in order to complete his general theory. The key
>>
>>> factor is collaboration among many people. This is the reason why Seto,
>>
>>> Cavedon and others are wasting their time here. Besides their ignorance
>>
>>> in math and physics basics, they are not willing to collaborate with nobody,
>>
>>> to enhance the "idea" they may have.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck
>>
>>
>>
>> "New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however
>>
>> organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired
>>
>> researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites
>>
>> all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the
>>
>> moment."
>>
>>
>
> Speaking of Planck and Einstein. They did collaborate as follows:
>
How can there be collaboration when you are in denial of the following?
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Alen
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Regarding the second notion, the advances on physics are due to
>>
>>> a large community of researchers. A new discovery may involve hundreds
>>
>>> or even over a thousand of researchers, engineers and technicians. Nothing
>>
>>> in modern science can be accomplished by a single individual. This was
>>
>>> already the way science was done in Einstein time. Many researchers were
>>
>>> working on relativity in 1905. Later, Einstein himself had to search help
>>
>>> from other researchers in order to complete his general theory. The key
>>
>>> factor is collaboration among many people. This is the reason why Seto,
>>
>>> Cavedon and others are wasting their time here. Besides their ignorance
>>
>>> in math and physics basics, they are not willing to collaborate with nobody,
>>
>>> to enhance the "idea" they may have.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck
>>
>>
>>
>> "New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however
>>
>> organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired
>>
>> researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites
>>
>> all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the
>>
>> moment."
>>
>>
>
> Speaking of Planck and Einstein. They did collaborate as follows:
>
"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of
relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when
his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium
existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in
theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to
relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations,
it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about
the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence
or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such
matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such
matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies
of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had
spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and
fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led
us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than
ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally
transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to
knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed
every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it
Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
How can there be collaboration when you insist on remaining ignorant of
understand aether is displaced by matter?
How can there be collaboration when you insist on remaining ignorant of
understanding the following?
Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether
is physically displaced by matter.
Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement. In a double
slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit while the
associated aether wave passes through both.
associated aether wave passes through both.
What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit
experiment; the aether.
Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave.
Both are aether displacement waves.
experiment; the aether.
Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave.
Aether displaced by matter unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics.
paparios
Sep 3, 2012, 1:10:42 PM9/3/12
to
El lunes, 3 de septiembre de 2012 12:02:19 UTC-4, mpc755 escribió:
> paparios wrote:
>
> paparios wrote:
>
> > El lunes, 3 de septiembre de 2012 10:24:22 UTC-4, mpc755 escribió:
>
> >
>
> > Speaking of Planck and Einstein. They did collaborate as follows:
>
> >
>
>
>
> How can there be collaboration when you are in denial of the following?
>
>
That is precisely your problem Cavendon. You are not able to listen to people. Whatever the opinion you receive about what you call "understanding of nature", you just reject them and accuse the guy of being in denial. You are showing no interest at all in what science, through the work of thousands of researchers have discovered.
>
> >
>
> > Speaking of Planck and Einstein. They did collaborate as follows:
>
> >
>
>
>
> How can there be collaboration when you are in denial of the following?
>
>
>
>
> How can there be collaboration when you insist on remaining ignorant of
>
> understand aether is displaced by matter?
>
>
>
> How can there be collaboration when you insist on remaining ignorant of
>
> understanding the following?
>
>
>
> Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether
>
> is physically displaced by matter.
>
>
>
> Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.
>
>
>
> A moving particle has an associated aether displacement. In a double
>
> slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit while the
>
> associated aether wave passes through both.
>
>
>
> What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit
>
> experiment; the aether.
>
>
>
> Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave.
>
>
>
> Both are aether displacement waves.
>
>
>
> Aether displaced by matter unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics.
mpc755
Sep 3, 2012, 1:32:04 PM9/3/12
to
paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 3 de septiembre de 2012 12:02:19 UTC-4, mpc755 escribi�:
>> paparios wrote:
>>
>>> El lunes, 3 de septiembre de 2012 10:24:22 UTC-4, mpc755 escribi�:
What opinion? All you do is exist in a state of denial.
So, what happens in your brain when you read the following? Do you just
deny its existence?
"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of
relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when
his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium
existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in
theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to
relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations,
it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about
the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence
or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such
matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such
matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies
of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had
spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and
fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led
us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than
ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally
transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to
knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed
every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it
this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in
Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
You do realize 'stuff' physically occupies three dimensional space, correct?
You do realize 'stuff' as a supersolid medium is displaced by the
objects which exist in it, correct?
You do realize you have no interest in any type of collaboration, correct?
You do realize it is more important for you to remain ignorant then it
is to understand aether has mass, correct?
> El lunes, 3 de septiembre de 2012 12:02:19 UTC-4, mpc755 escribi�:
>> paparios wrote:
>>
>>> El lunes, 3 de septiembre de 2012 10:24:22 UTC-4, mpc755 escribi�:
>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Speaking of Planck and Einstein. They did collaborate as follows:
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> How can there be collaboration when you are in denial of the following?
>>
>>
>
> That is precisely your problem Cavendon. You are not able to listen to people. Whatever the opinion you receive ...
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Speaking of Planck and Einstein. They did collaborate as follows:
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> How can there be collaboration when you are in denial of the following?
>>
>>
>
What opinion? All you do is exist in a state of denial.
So, what happens in your brain when you read the following? Do you just
deny its existence?
"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of
relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when
his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium
existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in
theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to
relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations,
it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about
the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence
or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such
matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such
matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies
of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had
spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and
fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led
us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than
ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally
transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to
knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed
every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it
this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in
Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
You do realize 'stuff' as a supersolid medium is displaced by the
objects which exist in it, correct?
You do realize you have no interest in any type of collaboration, correct?
You do realize it is more important for you to remain ignorant then it
is to understand aether has mass, correct?
hanson
Sep 3, 2012, 1:44:28 PM9/3/12
to
... AHAHAHAHAHA... ROTFLMAO ... AHAHAHA...
>
"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sam Wormley, listen,
>
Brad Guth wrote:
Apparently, Sam, they don't know all that much, at
least not objectively. Some of those you speak highly
of do not even support many of your interpretations.
But then you get paid to obfuscate/exclude anything
that displeases your closed mindset.
> ___________
>
hanson wrote:
Brad, leaving aside for now your own anarchistic
Commie-Comrade beliefs, you could make your own
case much clearer & cleaner, if you pointed out that
they are all UNPAID, but brainwashed, mental subs,
who without question do march to the beat of their
drummer, kike Albert Einstein, whose Weltbild and
sphincter they worship, because he said:
>
||| AE:: "People like us, who _BELIEVE_ in physics,
||| AE:: know that the distinction between the
||| AE:: past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
||| AE:: persistent illusion."
|||AE:: "Space & time are NOT conditions in which we
||AE:: live; they are simply modes in which we think."
>
.. which is clearly a statement that shows Einstein to have
severe mental aberrations AFA reality is concerned.
But then, considering your own stubborn beliefs, Brad,
you are only a tiny shade of color different then they are...
and that makes you equally loony, with the notable
exception that __ you, Brad, are your own drummer___.
>
So, Brad, have pity on them. Your are free. They are not.
They are Followers, Parrots & Dingleberries.
You Brad, OTOH, are a sovereign since your preaching
is just like what this splendid & illustrious genius does in
here with/in his "Song of Pain":
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZYicuneGoc>
>
Brad listen, it is...
"Different strokes for/from/with & by different folks".
Carry on, Brad & guys, and thanks for the laughs...
ahahaha.... ahahahanson
>
"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sam Wormley, listen,
Most of your friends here in Usenet/newsgroups
think they already know everything there is to know,
and none of that thinking is ever allowed to get the least
bit contrary to our mainstream published status-quo
that has a long standing policy of never rocking a boat
or stepping on any comrade toes with any vested interest
that could be put at risk by some fresh interpretations of
science that wasn't approved by those of your kind.
> _________
think they already know everything there is to know,
and none of that thinking is ever allowed to get the least
bit contrary to our mainstream published status-quo
that has a long standing policy of never rocking a boat
or stepping on any comrade toes with any vested interest
that could be put at risk by some fresh interpretations of
science that wasn't approved by those of your kind.
>
Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Physics educated folks are generally well aware of what
they don't know! And they are also pretty good a spotting
the kinds on nonsense that you spew, Guth!
> __________
Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Physics educated folks are generally well aware of what
they don't know! And they are also pretty good a spotting
the kinds on nonsense that you spew, Guth!
>
Brad Guth wrote:
Apparently, Sam, they don't know all that much, at
least not objectively. Some of those you speak highly
of do not even support many of your interpretations.
But then you get paid to obfuscate/exclude anything
that displeases your closed mindset.
> ___________
>
hanson wrote:
Brad, leaving aside for now your own anarchistic
Commie-Comrade beliefs, you could make your own
case much clearer & cleaner, if you pointed out that
they are all UNPAID, but brainwashed, mental subs,
who without question do march to the beat of their
drummer, kike Albert Einstein, whose Weltbild and
sphincter they worship, because he said:
>
||| AE:: "People like us, who _BELIEVE_ in physics,
||| AE:: know that the distinction between the
||| AE:: past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
||| AE:: persistent illusion."
|||AE:: "Space & time are NOT conditions in which we
||AE:: live; they are simply modes in which we think."
>
.. which is clearly a statement that shows Einstein to have
severe mental aberrations AFA reality is concerned.
But then, considering your own stubborn beliefs, Brad,
you are only a tiny shade of color different then they are...
and that makes you equally loony, with the notable
exception that __ you, Brad, are your own drummer___.
>
So, Brad, have pity on them. Your are free. They are not.
They are Followers, Parrots & Dingleberries.
You Brad, OTOH, are a sovereign since your preaching
is just like what this splendid & illustrious genius does in
here with/in his "Song of Pain":
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZYicuneGoc>
>
Brad listen, it is...
"Different strokes for/from/with & by different folks".
Carry on, Brad & guys, and thanks for the laughs...
ahahaha.... ahahahanson
alie...@gmail.com
Sep 3, 2012, 6:37:45 PM9/3/12
to
> But it is clear from the posts that there is a conscious attempt to
> safeguard established theories. If science is work in progress then we
> would have seen funeral of many concepts and theories. If within last
> 100 years, SR is not dead then credibility of the establishment is in
> doubt.
I really don't care what your issues with SR are; it works within
> safeguard established theories. If science is work in progress then we
> would have seen funeral of many concepts and theories. If within last
> 100 years, SR is not dead then credibility of the establishment is in
> doubt.
its domain of applicability.
Many theories and concepts are dead and buried. For examples, look
up phlogiston, magnetic monopoles, or polywater some time you need a
laugh.
> Another point of concern is the ideas which are so fantastic that
> these should never have any place in science. Any fantastic idea, such
> as negative mass, needs, if not proof, at least logical explanation so
> that we know we are not dealing with some fantasy akin to occult
> science. Unfortunately physics is full of such ideas, born purely out
> of mathematical exercise. This is one of the major reasons for the
> discomfort of the outsiders.
Remember that intuition is strongly prejudiced by the limitations of
our sensory hardware and our cognitive wetware.
Negative mass is indeed a mathematical "fiction" so far as
observable free particles are concerned but the concept is used to
great advantage in the field of semiconductor physics.
Such "fictions" are consequences of the logics we use to assemble
patterns from the data we acquire (taking the square root of a squared
mass gives both positive and negative mass). That's how we learn that
some logics are applicable in some areas but not others.
As I said, I think we need to re-examine how we ask questions of
Nature in order to clear up the answers we get.
Mark L. Fergerson
Message has been deleted
mpc755
Sep 3, 2012, 9:00:21 PM9/3/12
to
matter?"
The answer is, aether with mass.
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Sep 3, 2012, 9:11:38 PM9/3/12
to
"Mike Cavedon" wrote in message
news:0a6c95fb-e407-48aa...@v22g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...
One question is, "what is an idiot babbling about things he knows
nothing about?"
The answer is, Mike Cavedon.
news:0a6c95fb-e407-48aa...@v22g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...
One question is, "what is non-baryonic dark matter not anchored to
matter?"
The answer is, aether with mass.
==================================
matter?"
The answer is, aether with mass.
One question is, "what is an idiot babbling about things he knows
nothing about?"
The answer is, Mike Cavedon.
mpc755
Sep 3, 2012, 9:15:40 PM9/3/12
to
On Sep 3, 9:12 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
“Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an
unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave
theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that
takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through
both slits.”
What I have figured out is what waves. The aether waves. The aether
‘Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory –
Louis de BROGLIE’
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
“If a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its nature
would seem desirable. It certainly is of quite complex character. It
could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be
contrary to relativity theory.”
de Broglie is referring to a relativistic aether. The same aether as
Einstein.
‘Ether and the Theory of Relativity – Albert Einstein’
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
“As to the mechanical nature of the Lorentzian ether, it may be said
of it, in a somewhat playful spirit, that immobility is the only
mechanical property of which it has not been deprived by H. A.
Lorentz. It may be added that the whole change in the conception of
the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about,
consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality,
namely, its immobility.”
An immobile aether is a universal reference medium. Both de Broglie
and Einstein are stating the aether is not an immobile universal
reference medium.
“It is ironic that Einstein’s most creative work, the general theory
Louis de BROGLIE’
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
“If a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its nature
would seem desirable. It certainly is of quite complex character. It
could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be
contrary to relativity theory.”
de Broglie is referring to a relativistic aether. The same aether as
Einstein.
‘Ether and the Theory of Relativity – Albert Einstein’
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
“As to the mechanical nature of the Lorentzian ether, it may be said
of it, in a somewhat playful spirit, that immobility is the only
mechanical property of which it has not been deprived by H. A.
Lorentz. It may be added that the whole change in the conception of
the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about,
consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality,
namely, its immobility.”
An immobile aether is a universal reference medium. Both de Broglie
and Einstein are stating the aether is not an immobile universal
reference medium.
of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium
when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such
medium existed [..] The word ‘ether’ has extremely negative
connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association
with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped
of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most
physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually
says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading
the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic
symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time
relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began
showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure
similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent
studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand
that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian
emptiness. It is filled with ‘stuff’ that is normally transparent but
can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a
part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day
by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this
because it is taboo.” – Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics,
when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such
medium existed [..] The word ‘ether’ has extremely negative
connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association
with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped
of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most
physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually
says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading
the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic
symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time
relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began
showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure
similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent
studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand
that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian
emptiness. It is filled with ‘stuff’ that is normally transparent but
can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a
part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day
by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this
endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
The following article describes wave-particle duality as a physical
particle and a physical wave where the particle travels through a
single slit and the associated wave passes through both.
‘New ‘Double Slit’ Experiment Skirts Uncertainty Principle’
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-experiment-skirts-uncertainty-principle
particle and a physical wave where the particle travels through a
single slit and the associated wave passes through both.
‘New ‘Double Slit’ Experiment Skirts Uncertainty Principle’
“Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an
unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave
theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that
takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through
both slits.”
Will Janoschka
Sep 3, 2012, 9:16:02 PM9/3/12
to
"not a question" but a claim, is siginificant to Mark's post?
mpc755
Sep 3, 2012, 9:23:50 PM9/3/12
to
On Sep 3, 9:16 pm, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will Janoschka) wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 01:00:21, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 3, 6:37ÿpm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 01:00:21, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sep 3, 5:02ÿam, Vilas Tamhane <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 3, 3:55ÿam, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 3, 12:00ÿam, Vilas Tamhane <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I would like to describe science as a theory that describes how nature
> > > > > > works.
>
> > > > > ÿ Science is the method, or process, of acquiring and assembling
> > > > > On Sep 3, 12:00ÿam, Vilas Tamhane <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I would like to describe science as a theory that describes how nature
> > > > > > works.
>
> > > > > information about Nature into patterns (theories). Properly done, the
> > > > > patterns don't stop at the collected data but extend beyond,
> > > > > predicting other data not yet collected. The accuracy of such
> > > > > predictions is the test of a theory, not its philosophical
> > > > > palatability.
>
> > > > > > Suppose there is a theory that is illogical but explains
> > > > > > observations, should it be beyond criticism?
>
> > > > > ÿ ÿLogic is merely one kind of pattern, and we've constructed more
> > > > > patterns don't stop at the collected data but extend beyond,
> > > > > predicting other data not yet collected. The accuracy of such
> > > > > predictions is the test of a theory, not its philosophical
> > > > > palatability.
>
> > > > > > Suppose there is a theory that is illogical but explains
> > > > > > observations, should it be beyond criticism?
>
> > > > > than one kind of logic. Nature is not obliged to follow our ideas of
> > > > > logic though...
>
> > > > > ÿ Non-Euclidean geometry, chaos theory, the relativities, quantum
> > > > > logic though...
>
> > > > > particle physics, and so on are "illogical", but also describe
> > > > > *certain parts* of reality accurately.
>
> > > > > ÿ We know that quantum theories of electromagnetism and the strong and
> > > > > *certain parts* of reality accurately.
>
> > > > > weak forces are very successful, so we logically try to write a
> > > > > quantum theory of gravity.
>
> > > > > ÿ Illogically, quantum gravity theories fail to accurately describe
> > > > > quantum theory of gravity.
>
> > > > > reality.
>
> > > > > ÿ The sole valid basis for criticizing a theory is whether it
> > > > > accurately describes reality. We don't expect a theory to describe
> > > > > *all* of Nature (not yet, anyway); we expect them to have limits. When
> > > > > we find the limits of a theory we refine them so we know when to use
> > > > > it, and when*not* to use it. That's why we have more than one
> > > > > scientific theory instead of a Grand Unified Theory. So far, that is.
>
> > > > > ÿ So science is a work-in-progress. You in a hurry?
> > > > > *all* of Nature (not yet, anyway); we expect them to have limits. When
> > > > > we find the limits of a theory we refine them so we know when to use
> > > > > it, and when*not* to use it. That's why we have more than one
> > > > > scientific theory instead of a Grand Unified Theory. So far, that is.
>
>
> > > > > > Why should I find
> > > > > > something new in order to examine what is prevalent?
>
> > > > > ÿ Because what is "prevalent" is inadequate. We have a patchwork of
> > > > > > Why should I find
> > > > > > something new in order to examine what is prevalent?
>
> > > > > theories that are spectacularly good at certain scales etc., but there
> > > > > are ugly seams and gaps that we don't know how to fill.
>
> > > > > ÿ We don't know all the answers. For that matter, I think we don't
> > > > > are ugly seams and gaps that we don't know how to fill.
>
> > > > > know most of the really good questions yet.
>
> > > > But it is clear from the posts that there is a conscious attempt to
> > > > safeguard established theories. If science is work in progress then we
> > > > would have seen funeral of many concepts and theories. If within last
> > > > 100 years, SR is not dead then credibility of the establishment is in
> > > > doubt.
>
> > > ÿ I really don't care what your issues with SR are; it works within
>
> > > > But it is clear from the posts that there is a conscious attempt to
> > > > safeguard established theories. If science is work in progress then we
> > > > would have seen funeral of many concepts and theories. If within last
> > > > 100 years, SR is not dead then credibility of the establishment is in
> > > > doubt.
>
> > > its domain of applicability.
>
> > > ÿ Many theories and concepts are dead and buried. For examples, look
> > > up phlogiston, magnetic monopoles, or polywater some time you need a
> > > laugh.
>
> > > > Another point of concern is the ideas which are so fantastic that
> > > > these should never have any place in science. Any fantastic idea, such
> > > > as negative mass, needs, if not proof, at least logical explanation so
> > > > that we know we are not dealing with some fantasy akin to occult
> > > > science. Unfortunately physics is full of such ideas, born purely out
> > > > of mathematical exercise. This is one of the major reasons for the
> > > > discomfort of the outsiders.
>
> > > ÿ "Fantastic" in context means "goes against human intuition", yes?
> > > laugh.
>
> > > > Another point of concern is the ideas which are so fantastic that
> > > > these should never have any place in science. Any fantastic idea, such
> > > > as negative mass, needs, if not proof, at least logical explanation so
> > > > that we know we are not dealing with some fantasy akin to occult
> > > > science. Unfortunately physics is full of such ideas, born purely out
> > > > of mathematical exercise. This is one of the major reasons for the
> > > > discomfort of the outsiders.
>
> > > Remember that intuition is strongly prejudiced by the limitations of
> > > our sensory hardware and our cognitive wetware.
>
> > > ÿ Negative mass is indeed a mathematical "fiction" so far as
> > > our sensory hardware and our cognitive wetware.
>
> > > observable free particles are concerned but the concept is used to
> > > great advantage in the field of semiconductor physics.
>
> > > ÿ Such "fictions" are consequences of the logics we use to assemble
> > > great advantage in the field of semiconductor physics.
>
> > > patterns from the data we acquire (taking the square root of a squared
> > > mass gives both positive and negative mass). That's how we learn that
> > > some logics are applicable in some areas but not others.
>
> > > ÿ As I said, I think we need to re-examine how we ask questions of
> > > mass gives both positive and negative mass). That's how we learn that
> > > some logics are applicable in some areas but not others.
>
> > > Nature in order to clear up the answers we get.
>
> > > ÿ Mark L. Fergerson
>
>
> > One question is, "what is non-baryonic dark matter not anchored to
> > matter?"
>
> > The answer is, aether with mass.
>
> Pray tell why your question, plus your answer which only yeilds
> "not a question" but a claim, is siginificant to Mark's post?
Mark said, "I think we need to re-examine how we ask questions of
> > One question is, "what is non-baryonic dark matter not anchored to
> > matter?"
>
> > The answer is, aether with mass.
>
> Pray tell why your question, plus your answer which only yeilds
> "not a question" but a claim, is siginificant to Mark's post?
Nature in order to clear up the answers we get."
The questions are:
What is the missing mass?
What is non-baryonic dark matter now that it has been shown not to be
anchored to matter?
What is the Milky Way's halo?
What unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics?
The answer to many of the questions facing physics today are correctly
answered by understand aether has mass and aether is displaced by
matter.
Matter moves through and displaces the aether.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
the associated aether wave through both.
Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.
What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double
slit experiment; the aether.
Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave.
Both are aether displacement waves.
Aether displaced by matter unifies quantum mechanics with general
slit experiment; the aether.
Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave.
Both are aether displacement waves.
relativity.
Another question which should be asked is why is mainstream physics in
denial of understanding aether has mass?
Vilas Tamhane
Sep 3, 2012, 10:29:06 PM9/3/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why shouldn’t you care about SR? Is it some hot potato you cannot
handle? Consider its basic assumption that clock in frame A runs slow
and fast at the same time. One measurement is the proper one and the
other is made from the frame B. Same logic applies to frame B. Clearly
this statement is not falsifiable. In fact there is no need to conduct
any experiment because embedded in this insane statement is the
impossibility. To prove SR correct, it is necessary to prove this
reciprocity experimentally.
I am not using the term logic the way you have used it. For example
mathematics relies purely on logical steps and still it alone cannot
distinguish truth from fallacy. Based on known facts and properties,
we should be able to explain ‘fantastic’ ideas. How you define fantasy
is not important. Take another example; that of curved space. From the
knowledge of whatever we knew about space, we know that space cannot
get curved. It is necessary to assign material properties to space and
then calculate its elasticity. Such a space will face the same fate
that ether faced.
I don’t see here anybody opposing Androcles. He says, light is
ballistic as MMX proves it. He says Muon has a speed greater than c
and this explains the large quantity we received at sea level.
Sam Wormley
Sep 3, 2012, 10:39:55 PM9/3/12
to
On 9/3/12 9:29 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> I don’t see here anybody opposing Androcles. He says, light is
> ballistic as MMX proves it. He says Muon has a speed greater than c
> and this explains the large quantity we received at sea level.
Science (scientific theory, confirmed by observation and experiment)
> I don’t see here anybody opposing Androcles. He says, light is
> ballistic as MMX proves it. He says Muon has a speed greater than c
> and this explains the large quantity we received at sea level.
shows Androcles to be wrong.
Distance contraction and time dilation are predictions of Einstein's
1905 paper on the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Like all the
predictions in that paper, there has never been an observation that
contradicts any of them.
An excellent example is the distance contraction a cosmic muon
experiences on it's journey to the surface of the earth.
Muon-Earth Surface Distance' = Muon-Earth Surface Distance / γ
Let ∆t_muon be an interval of proper time in the inertial frame
of reference of the muon, say 2.2 µs. Let ∆t_muon' be the muon's
time interval as measured by an observer.
Then it follow that from the Earth Surface Perspective:
∆t_muon' = γ ∆t_muon
Muon-Earth Surface Distance' = Muon-Earth Surface Distance
And from the Muon Perspective:
∆t_muon' = ∆t_muon
Muon-Earth Surface Distance' = Muon-Earth Surface Distance / γ
Where v is the relative velocity between muon and Earth Surface and
γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2)
Cosmic muons making it to the ground is just one more observation
supporting the predictions of special relativity.
Vilas Tamhane
Sep 3, 2012, 11:23:40 PM9/3/12
to
length contraction is apparent. In Muon’s frame did the clock run
slow? If not, time dilation is apparent and not real. So the only
conclusion is that, Muon traveled at much greater speed than that of
light.
Now let us examine the theory, results of which I failed to
understand. If you understood it, please explain meaning of the
reciprocal results of length and time predicted by SR.
hanson
Sep 3, 2012, 11:29:49 PM9/3/12
to
Fergerson "nu...@bid.nes" <alie...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip horrible ED crap that proselytizes for SR>
> ___________
>
Vilas Tamhane <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote:
SR's negative mass, needs ponderable proof, so
discomfort of the outsiders.
> ___________
>
hanson wrote:
Vilas and Mark is right. But you 2 guys, as well as a host
of other enlightened posters, who are nitpicking on SR
& or GR's uselessness, do so in vain.
>
No Einstein Dingleberry will believe you in their religious
fervor of worshipping Albert's sphincter for which they do
proselytize with a passion. These SR/GR fanatics do not
even believe Einstein himself when he announced that his
SR/GR was a useless crock o'shit.
>
Einstein himself threw SR & GR out of the window onto
the dust heap of history more then 50 years ago when he
disavowed and recanted it. Yet Einstein Dingleberries do
still carry on with their worship, unabashed, despite the fact
that
_______ Einstein was a relativity DENIER _______
>
Here, for your benefit, is Einstein's intellectual evolution,
which started with his 1905 paper, wherein ||AE|| wrote:
>
|||AE||| "the velocity of light 'c' in our theory (SR) plays
|||AE||| the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
>
From 1905 on, & during the next 3 decades when
Einstein was riding high on his Zionist financed wake
that put & kept him in the lime light, it became clearer
that
>
== Einstein & his contributions to physics is/are what
== Picasso's contributions are to the world of fine art,
== namely mental aberrations, Gedanken farts and
== his lunacies like:
<http://tinyurl.com/2-Jewish-Fartists> ... yet Einstein
never had the guts to prove his SR/GR, by him simply
jumping out of a 5th story window & manipulating the
curvature of space & handling space-time, to avoid him
being splattered on the side walk, and thereby proving
his insistence that Gravity is not a force like Newton said.
>
But towards the end of his life, Einstein came clean &
__ Einstein himself became a relativity DENIER ____
& he changed his mind by 1954 when he declared that
>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] NO nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta?' aka photons.
>
And furthermore Einstein saw the handwriting on the wall,
when in 1954, a year before he died, he wrote to his
Jewish friend Besso:
>
|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
>
|||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
>
|AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, my gravitation theory included."
|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
|||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]
<http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein> & so, ergo:
>
. ____ SR is short for STUPID RANT _____ and
. ____ GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL _____.
>
or as expressed rather civilized by poster Tom Roberts
[TR], who, when he had a flash of lucidity, wrote:
>
[TR:] ___ "SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories"__, iow:
. ____ Relativity is a theory about a theory.____, iow:
. ______ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.
>
Up-shot:
Why then is SR/GR still so popular?
People hang on to & fanatically believe in all kind of shit,
which they do OBSERVE & MEASURE, like in"UFO's",
"Crop circles", the "Bible", the "Koran", "SR&GR" & etc,
etc., etc.... The list is long and like Einstein said:
>
|||AE:: "they are NOT conditions in which we live;
|||AE:: they are simply modes in which we think."
>
Once indoctrinated by any of these esoteric gags,
which are escapes from harsh reality, people do
build that into their Weltbild, proselytize for it and
defend it with their lives!!!.....
___ It is far easier to believe then to think! _____
>
Take care, guys, & carry on... ahahaha... ahahanson
<snip horrible ED crap that proselytizes for SR>
> ___________
>
Vilas Tamhane <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote:
SR's negative mass, needs ponderable proof, so
that we know we are not dealing with some fantasy
akin to occult science. SR/GR Gedanken physics
is full of such ideas, born purely out of mathematical
exercises. This is one of the major reasons for the
discomfort of the outsiders.
> ___________
>
Mark L. Fergerson wrote:
I think we need to re-examine how we ask questions of
Nature in order to clear up the answers we get.
> ___________
Mark L. Fergerson wrote:
I think we need to re-examine how we ask questions of
Nature in order to clear up the answers we get.
>
hanson wrote:
Vilas and Mark is right. But you 2 guys, as well as a host
of other enlightened posters, who are nitpicking on SR
& or GR's uselessness, do so in vain.
>
No Einstein Dingleberry will believe you in their religious
fervor of worshipping Albert's sphincter for which they do
proselytize with a passion. These SR/GR fanatics do not
even believe Einstein himself when he announced that his
SR/GR was a useless crock o'shit.
>
Einstein himself threw SR & GR out of the window onto
the dust heap of history more then 50 years ago when he
disavowed and recanted it. Yet Einstein Dingleberries do
still carry on with their worship, unabashed, despite the fact
that
_______ Einstein was a relativity DENIER _______
>
Here, for your benefit, is Einstein's intellectual evolution,
which started with his 1905 paper, wherein ||AE|| wrote:
>
|||AE||| "the velocity of light 'c' in our theory (SR) plays
|||AE||| the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
>
From 1905 on, & during the next 3 decades when
Einstein was riding high on his Zionist financed wake
that put & kept him in the lime light, it became clearer
that
>
== Einstein & his contributions to physics is/are what
== Picasso's contributions are to the world of fine art,
== namely mental aberrations, Gedanken farts and
== his lunacies like:
>
||| AE:: "People like us, who _BELIEVE_ in physics,
||| AE:: know that the distinction between the
||| AE:: past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
||| AE:: persistent illusion."
||| AE:: "Space & time are NOT conditions in which we
||| AE:: live; they are simply modes in which we think."
>
That then was the Weltbild of these 2 Fartist kikes.
||| AE:: "People like us, who _BELIEVE_ in physics,
||| AE:: know that the distinction between the
||| AE:: past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
||| AE:: persistent illusion."
||| AE:: "Space & time are NOT conditions in which we
||| AE:: live; they are simply modes in which we think."
>
<http://tinyurl.com/2-Jewish-Fartists> ... yet Einstein
never had the guts to prove his SR/GR, by him simply
jumping out of a 5th story window & manipulating the
curvature of space & handling space-time, to avoid him
being splattered on the side walk, and thereby proving
his insistence that Gravity is not a force like Newton said.
>
But towards the end of his life, Einstein came clean &
__ Einstein himself became a relativity DENIER ____
& he changed his mind by 1954 when he declared that
>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] NO nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta?' aka photons.
>
And furthermore Einstein saw the handwriting on the wall,
when in 1954, a year before he died, he wrote to his
Jewish friend Besso:
>
|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
>
|||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
>
|AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, my gravitation theory included."
|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
|||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]
<http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein> & so, ergo:
>
. ____ SR is short for STUPID RANT _____ and
. ____ GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL _____.
>
or as expressed rather civilized by poster Tom Roberts
[TR], who, when he had a flash of lucidity, wrote:
>
[TR:] ___ "SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories"__, iow:
. ____ Relativity is a theory about a theory.____, iow:
. ______ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.
>
Up-shot:
Why then is SR/GR still so popular?
People hang on to & fanatically believe in all kind of shit,
which they do OBSERVE & MEASURE, like in"UFO's",
"Crop circles", the "Bible", the "Koran", "SR&GR" & etc,
etc., etc.... The list is long and like Einstein said:
>
|||AE:: "they are NOT conditions in which we live;
|||AE:: they are simply modes in which we think."
>
Once indoctrinated by any of these esoteric gags,
which are escapes from harsh reality, people do
build that into their Weltbild, proselytize for it and
defend it with their lives!!!.....
___ It is far easier to believe then to think! _____
>
Take care, guys, & carry on... ahahaha... ahahanson
Sam Wormley
Sep 3, 2012, 11:33:24 PM9/3/12
to
On 9/3/12 10:23 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> In earth’s frame, did the distance contract? If not measurement of
> length contraction is apparent.
No.
> In earth’s frame, did the distance contract? If not measurement of
> length contraction is apparent.
However, in the earth frame the muon experiences time dilation as
predicted by special relativity.
In Muon’s frame did the clock run
> slow?
However, in the muon frame the muon experience distance to the
ground contraction as predicted by special relativity.
_________________________
Sam Wormley
Sep 3, 2012, 11:58:14 PM9/3/12
to
On 8/31/12 11:54 AM, JT wrote:
> ...do you think the inertia of a rotating object is dependent
> upon the gravitational force acting upon it...
I inertia of a body is determined by its inertial mass. This
can be measured by m = F/a (Newton's second law).
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia#Mass_and_inertia
> ...do you think the inertia of a rotating object is dependent
> upon the gravitational force acting upon it...
I inertia of a body is determined by its inertial mass. This
can be measured by m = F/a (Newton's second law).
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia#Mass_and_inertia
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages