| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"phoenix" |
| Date: |
06 Mar 2005 06:22:37 PM |
| Object: |
List of Cranks here |
Can we have a complete list of cranks here.
1. Fusioneer
2. Greysky
3. newedena
4. Y.Porat
5. Thomson
6. Ken Seto
7. TomGee
8. Smart Model
9. Retic
10. John Sefton
11. Freddifix (?)
12. (who else)
Ok. Cranks. How many of you have read this book
"Feynman Lectures on Physics 3 Vol set"??
You guys keep committing very basic mistakes that
Heymann kept on correcting. It's very frustrating.
How can you take apart the Standard Model if you
are not veteran in it?? We know the Standard Model
is not complete and something can turn it into a subset.
But to enhance it, we must be adept in the in and
out of Standard Model so as to be able to change
it successfully.
So, I recommened cranks to read up some basic textbooks
such as Feynman's and be familiar with all the concepts
before spewing horse manure as Heymann love to call it.
It's getting frustrating to waste time reading rubbish
every morning.
Phoenix
(Anti-Crank
Pro Enhanced Physics)
.
|
|
| User: "Waldo Graham" |
|
| Title: Re: List of Cranks here |
06 Mar 2005 08:06:46 PM |
|
|
"phoenix" <photon...@go.com> wrote:
<1110154957.425057.212520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
12. (who else)
Crank Phoenix, you forgot yourself in your list like a foolish pig in
Aesop's fable.
Why don't you look at a mirror?
You should find a genuine and ugly crank idiot there.
Why did you omit such cranks as Franz Heymann, zetasum, Nick and Uncle
Al in your list.
Feynman made many mistakes. There're tones of flaws in Big Bang, SR,
GR, and QM. Where? Just look at the google groups. Why we stop pursuing
a genuine physics?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: List of Cranks here |
06 Mar 2005 10:00:12 PM |
|
|
Waldo Graham wrote:
There're tones of flaws in Big Bang, SR,
GR, and QM. Where? Just look at the google groups. Why we stop pursuing
a genuine physics?
There has NEVER been a prediction of QM, SR or GTR that was
contradicted by an observation. NEVER!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Stowe" |
|
| Title: Re: List of Cranks here |
06 Mar 2005 10:39:48 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 04:00:12 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Waldo Graham wrote:
There're tones of flaws in Big Bang, SR,
GR, and QM. Where? Just look at the google groups. Why we stop pursuing
a genuine physics?
There has NEVER been a prediction of QM, SR or GTR that was
contradicted by an observation. NEVER!
What about the spiral galactic rotation profiles...??
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Varney" |
|
| Title: Re: List of Cranks here |
07 Mar 2005 12:58:32 AM |
|
|
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:v2mn215rudkkd7mgo52op8ajprbpa3odn5@4ax.com...
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 04:00:12 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Waldo Graham wrote:
There're tones of flaws in Big Bang, SR,
GR, and QM. Where? Just look at the google groups. Why we stop pursuing
a genuine physics?
There has NEVER been a prediction of QM, SR or GTR that was
contradicted by an observation. NEVER!
What about the spiral galactic rotation profiles...??
What about them?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: List of Cranks here |
06 Mar 2005 10:50:05 PM |
|
|
Dear Paul Stowe:
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:v2mn215rudkkd7mgo52op8ajprbpa3odn5@4ax.com...
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 04:00:12 GMT, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Waldo Graham wrote:
There're tones of flaws in Big Bang, SR,
GR, and QM. Where? Just look at the google groups. Why we
stop pursuing
a genuine physics?
There has NEVER been a prediction of QM, SR or GTR that was
contradicted by an observation. NEVER!
What about the spiral galactic rotation profiles...??
GR didn't predict the anomalous profile.
But good point! There are edges...
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Varney" |
|
| Title: Re: List of Cranks here |
07 Mar 2005 01:00:39 AM |
|
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:F3RWd.156049$Yu.101731@fed1read01...
Dear Paul Stowe:
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:v2mn215rudkkd7mgo52op8ajprbpa3odn5@4ax.com...
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 04:00:12 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Waldo Graham wrote:
There're tones of flaws in Big Bang, SR,
GR, and QM. Where? Just look at the google groups. Why we stop pursuing
a genuine physics?
There has NEVER been a prediction of QM, SR or GTR that was
contradicted by an observation. NEVER!
What about the spiral galactic rotation profiles...??
GR didn't predict the anomalous profile.
But good point! There are edges...
If you were blind and could not see the moon, does that mean that GR cannot
predict its gravitational behavior?
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: List of Cranks here |
07 Mar 2005 08:02:00 AM |
|
|
Dear Michael Varney:
"Michael Varney" <varney@collorado.edu> wrote in message
news:d0gu6o$had$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com>
wrote in message news:F3RWd.156049$Yu.101731@fed1read01...
Dear Paul Stowe:
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:v2mn215rudkkd7mgo52op8ajprbpa3odn5@4ax.com...
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 04:00:12 GMT, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Waldo Graham wrote:
There're tones of flaws in Big Bang, SR,
GR, and QM. Where? Just look at the google groups. Why we
stop pursuing
a genuine physics?
There has NEVER been a prediction of QM, SR or GTR that
was
contradicted by an observation. NEVER!
What about the spiral galactic rotation profiles...??
GR didn't predict the anomalous profile.
But good point! There are edges...
If you were blind and could not see the moon, does that mean
that GR cannot predict its gravitational behavior?
Let's have Dark Matter. Let there be Dark Energy. Neither of
which was present at the time of the CMBR (last I heard).
Welcome back.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: List of Cranks here |
11 Mar 2005 09:52:06 PM |
|
|
There has NEVER been a prediction of QM, SR or GTR that was
contradicted by an observation. NEVER!
What about the spiral galactic rotation profiles...??
What about Einstein's prediction for the angle of light bending around a
star being off by a factor of two? Sure, he corrected it later. But his
prediction that the Universe was static and not expanding cost him big when
Hubble observed evidence for an expanding Universe. Even today Einstein's
blunder, the cosmological constant, is still erroneously used in many areas
of astrophysics.
Dave
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: List of Cranks here |
12 Mar 2005 06:51:04 AM |
|
|
David Thomson wrote:
What about Einstein's prediction for the angle of light bending around a
star being off by a factor of two? Sure, he corrected it later. But his
prediction that the Universe was static and not expanding cost him big when
Hubble observed evidence for an expanding Universe. Even today Einstein's
blunder, the cosmological constant, is still erroneously used in many areas
of astrophysics.
Dave
Every statement Thomson makes here is missleading of abjectly wrong!
Crank information
http://www.google.com/search?q=Thomson+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3ADavid+Thomson
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: List of Cranks here |
12 Mar 2005 12:21:41 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:YABYd.61671$Ze3.3166@attbi_s51...
David Thomson wrote:
What about Einstein's prediction for the angle of light bending around a
star being off by a factor of two? Sure, he corrected it later. But his
prediction that the Universe was static and not expanding cost him big
when Hubble observed evidence for an expanding Universe. Even today
Einstein's blunder, the cosmological constant, is still erroneously used
in many areas of astrophysics.
Every statement Thomson makes here is missleading of abjectly wrong!
http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/blund.html
Is Sam
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Stowe" |
|
| Title: Re: List of Cranks here |
12 Mar 2005 01:27:39 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 12:21:41 -0600, "David Thomson" <news5@volantis.org> wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:YABYd.61671$Ze3.3166@attbi_s51...
David Thomson wrote:
What about Einstein's prediction for the angle of light bending around a
star being off by a factor of two? Sure, he corrected it later. But his
prediction that the Universe was static and not expanding cost him big
when Hubble observed evidence for an expanding Universe. Even today
Einstein's blunder, the cosmological constant, is still erroneously used
in many areas of astrophysics.
Every statement Thomson makes here is missleading of abjectly wrong!
http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/blund.html
Hey David, what'd you expect from brain dead Robo-Reference... :)
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Physics Cultists |
13 Mar 2005 08:59:38 AM |
|
|
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:1vf631t7qjcf83fou3ri2km782bhupu1tl@4ax.com...
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 12:21:41 -0600, "David Thomson" <news5@volantis.org>
wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:YABYd.61671$Ze3.3166@attbi_s51...
David Thomson wrote:
What about Einstein's prediction for the angle of light bending around
a
star being off by a factor of two? Sure, he corrected it later. But
his
prediction that the Universe was static and not expanding cost him big
when Hubble observed evidence for an expanding Universe. Even today
Einstein's blunder, the cosmological constant, is still erroneously
used
in many areas of astrophysics.
Every statement Thomson makes here is missleading of abjectly wrong!
http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/blund.html
Hey David, what'd you expect from brain dead Robo-Reference... :)
Not much. There seems to be a cult of physics on these newsgroups. It
amazes me how the physics priests on these newsgroups will say out of one
side of their mouth that physics is not perfect, and then out of the other
side tell us that it is infallible. They're taunting us by saying, "Tell us
the world isn't flat so we can send the inquisitors to straighten you out."
It's a no win situation. Either we're stuck with flawed physics or we're
crucified for trying to fix it.
When I first came to these newsgroups a few years ago to present my ideas, I
was told to quantify them, otherwise they had no meaning in physics. So
over the years I have quantified my ideas and even wrote a full length book
that fixes the whole foundation of physics. Not only do I show the errors
of modern physics, but I also show how to fix them with real math based on
real data. That didn't change a thing. They are disingenuous educated
idiots with severe personality disorders.
Your description of Sam as "brain dead Robo-Reference" is exactly what I
have come to expect from this cult of physics. We should start our own list
of physics cultists. A physics cultist is someone who has demonstrated a
severe lack of critical reasoning skills, worships a human "god", has been
brainwashed into believing concepts that cannot be modeled and declaring
them to be truth, who care more about what their leaders and peers think
than their own common sense, and will defend an illogical concept with
rudeness (pin pricks, sleep deprivation, starvation, grade retention, and
foul language) and more illogical concepts.
I would start the Physics Cultists list with:
Priests:
Uncle Al
Franz Heyman
Michael Varney
Gregory Hansen
***** van de Moortel
Neophytes:
Pheonix
Sam Wormley
Come on an help me out here. I'll start a web site with bios and samples of
these guys' newsgroup behavior and post if for the world to see.
Dave
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics Cultists |
13 Mar 2005 03:28:28 PM |
|
|
"David Thomson" <news5@volantis.org> wrote in message
news:42345603$1_2@127.0.0.1...
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:1vf631t7qjcf83fou3ri2km782bhupu1tl@4ax.com...
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 12:21:41 -0600, "David Thomson"
<news5@volantis.org>
wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:YABYd.61671$Ze3.3166@attbi_s51...
David Thomson wrote:
What about Einstein's prediction for the angle of light bending
around
a
star being off by a factor of two? Sure, he corrected it
later. But
his
prediction that the Universe was static and not expanding cost
him big
when Hubble observed evidence for an expanding Universe. Even
today
Einstein's blunder, the cosmological constant, is still
erroneously
used
in many areas of astrophysics.
Every statement Thomson makes here is missleading of abjectly
wrong!
http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/blund.html
Hey David, what'd you expect from brain dead Robo-Reference... :)
Not much. There seems to be a cult of physics on these newsgroups.
It
amazes me how the physics priests on these newsgroups will say out
of one
side of their mouth that physics is not perfect, and then out of the
other
side tell us that it is infallible. They're taunting us by saying,
"Tell us
the world isn't flat so we can send the inquisitors to straighten
you out."
It's a no win situation. Either we're stuck with flawed physics or
we're
crucified for trying to fix it.
When I first came to these newsgroups a few years ago to present my
ideas,
Ideas? What ideas? Who do you thinkyou're fooling?
I
was told to quantify them, otherwise they had no meaning in physics.
So
over the years I have quantified my ideas and even wrote a full
length book
that fixes the whole foundation of physics. Not only do I show the
errors
of modern physics, but I also show how to fix them with real math
based on
real data. That didn't change a thing. They are disingenuous
educated
idiots with severe personality disorders.
Your description of Sam as "brain dead Robo-Reference" is exactly
what I
have come to expect from this cult of physics. We should start our
own list
of physics cultists. A physics cultist is someone who has
demonstrated a
severe lack of critical reasoning skills, worships a human "god",
has been
brainwashed into believing concepts that cannot be modeled and
declaring
them to be truth, who care more about what their leaders and peers
think
than their own common sense, and will defend an illogical concept
with
rudeness (pin pricks, sleep deprivation, starvation, grade
retention, and
foul language) and more illogical concepts.
I would start the Physics Cultists list with:
Priests:
Uncle Al
Franz Heyman
Michael Varney
Gregory Hansen
***** van de Moortel
I would sugges that you check up on the spelling of the names of your
candidates before starting your list formally
Neophytes:
Pheonix
Sam Wormley
Come on an help me out here. I'll start a web site with bios and
samples of
these guys' newsgroup behavior and post if for the world to see.
--
Franz
"One Galileo in 2000 years is enough."
Pope Pius XII
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics Cultists |
13 Mar 2005 05:04:50 PM |
|
|
Franz Heymann wrote:
"David Thomson" <news5@volantis.org> wrote in message
news:42345603$1_2@127.0.0.1...
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:1vf631t7qjcf83fou3ri2km782bhupu1tl@4ax.com...
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 12:21:41 -0600, "David Thomson"
<news5@volantis.org>
wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:YABYd.61671$Ze3.3166@attbi_s51...
David Thomson wrote:
What about Einstein's prediction for the angle of light
bending
around
a
star being off by a factor of two? Sure, he corrected it
later. But
his
prediction that the Universe was static and not expanding cost
him big
when Hubble observed evidence for an expanding Universe. Even
today
Einstein's blunder, the cosmological constant, is still
erroneously
used
in many areas of astrophysics.
Every statement Thomson makes here is missleading of abjectly
wrong!
http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/blund.html
Hey David, what'd you expect from brain dead Robo-Reference... :)
Not much. There seems to be a cult of physics on these newsgroups.
It
amazes me how the physics priests on these newsgroups will say out
of one
side of their mouth that physics is not perfect, and then out of
the
other
side tell us that it is infallible. They're taunting us by saying,
"Tell us
the world isn't flat so we can send the inquisitors to straighten
you out."
It's a no win situation. Either we're stuck with flawed physics or
we're
crucified for trying to fix it.
When I first came to these newsgroups a few years ago to present my
ideas,
Ideas? What ideas? Who do you thinkyou're fooling?
I
was told to quantify them, otherwise they had no meaning in
physics.
So
over the years I have quantified my ideas and even wrote a full
length book
that fixes the whole foundation of physics. Not only do I show the
errors
of modern physics, but I also show how to fix them with real math
based on
real data. That didn't change a thing. They are disingenuous
educated
idiots with severe personality disorders.
Your description of Sam as "brain dead Robo-Reference" is exactly
what I
have come to expect from this cult of physics. We should start our
own list
of physics cultists. A physics cultist is someone who has
demonstrated a
severe lack of critical reasoning skills, worships a human "god",
has been
brainwashed into believing concepts that cannot be modeled and
declaring
them to be truth, who care more about what their leaders and peers
think
than their own common sense, and will defend an illogical concept
with
rudeness (pin pricks, sleep deprivation, starvation, grade
retention, and
foul language) and more illogical concepts.
I would start the Physics Cultists list with:
Priests:
Uncle Al
Franz Heyman
Michael Varney
Gregory Hansen
***** van de Moortel
I would sugges that you check up on the spelling of the names of your
candidates before starting your list formally
Only those on the list care if there mames are spelled right.
Don
Neophytes:
Pheonix
Sam Wormley
Come on an help me out here. I'll start a web site with bios and
samples of
these guys' newsgroup behavior and post if for the world to see.
--
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics Cultists |
14 Mar 2005 10:32:34 AM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1110755090.189199.239810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Franz Heymann wrote:
"David Thomson" <news5@volantis.org> wrote in message
news:42345603$1_2@127.0.0.1...
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:1vf631t7qjcf83fou3ri2km782bhupu1tl@4ax.com...
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 12:21:41 -0600, "David Thomson"
<news5@volantis.org>
wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:YABYd.61671$Ze3.3166@attbi_s51...
David Thomson wrote:
What about Einstein's prediction for the angle of light
bending
around
a
star being off by a factor of two? Sure, he corrected it
later. But
his
prediction that the Universe was static and not expanding
cost
him big
when Hubble observed evidence for an expanding Universe.
Even
today
Einstein's blunder, the cosmological constant, is still
erroneously
used
in many areas of astrophysics.
Every statement Thomson makes here is missleading of
abjectly
wrong!
http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/blund.html
Hey David, what'd you expect from brain dead Robo-Reference...
:)
Not much. There seems to be a cult of physics on these
newsgroups.
It
amazes me how the physics priests on these newsgroups will say
out
of one
side of their mouth that physics is not perfect, and then out of
the
other
side tell us that it is infallible. They're taunting us by
saying,
"Tell us
the world isn't flat so we can send the inquisitors to
straighten
you out."
It's a no win situation. Either we're stuck with flawed physics
or
we're
crucified for trying to fix it.
When I first came to these newsgroups a few years ago to present
my
ideas,
Ideas? What ideas? Who do you thinkyou're fooling?
I
was told to quantify them, otherwise they had no meaning in
physics.
So
over the years I have quantified my ideas and even wrote a full
length book
that fixes the whole foundation of physics. Not only do I show
the
errors
of modern physics, but I also show how to fix them with real
math
based on
real data. That didn't change a thing. They are disingenuous
educated
idiots with severe personality disorders.
Your description of Sam as "brain dead Robo-Reference" is
exactly
what I
have come to expect from this cult of physics. We should start
our
own list
of physics cultists. A physics cultist is someone who has
demonstrated a
severe lack of critical reasoning skills, worships a human
"god",
has been
brainwashed into believing concepts that cannot be modeled and
declaring
them to be truth, who care more about what their leaders and
peers
think
than their own common sense, and will defend an illogical
concept
with
rudeness (pin pricks, sleep deprivation, starvation, grade
retention, and
foul language) and more illogical concepts.
I would start the Physics Cultists list with:
Priests:
Uncle Al
Franz Heyman
Michael Varney
Gregory Hansen
***** van de Moortel
I would sugges that you check up on the spelling of the names of
your
candidates before starting your list formally
Only those on the list care if there mames are spelled right.
Ther words you wanted are spelled "their" and "names"
Don
Neophytes:
Pheonix
Sam Wormley
Come on an help me out here. I'll start a web site with bios
and
samples of
these guys' newsgroup behavior and post if for the world to see.
--
Franz
"One Galileo in 2000 years is enough."
Pope Pius XII
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics Cultists |
13 Mar 2005 07:10:43 PM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1110755090.189199.239810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I would sugges that you check up on the spelling of the names of your
candidates before starting your list formally
Only those on the list care if there mames are spelled right.
I noticed that, too. :-)
I'll gladly make any spelling and grammatical errors that may arise from
setting up the site. They spelled my name wrong in the beginning and
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitch Perkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics Cultists |
14 Mar 2005 08:28:42 PM |
|
|
David Thomson wrote:
Come on an help me out here.
I'll help - "and" is spelled with a "d".
I'll start a web site with bios and samples of
these guys' newsgroup behavior and post if for the world to see.
Everyone's "newsgroup behaviour" is already posted for the world to
see, on the newsgroups.
HTH,
Mitch Perkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: List of Cranks here |
08 Mar 2005 12:05:11 AM |
|
|
Paul Stowe wrote:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 04:00:12 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Waldo Graham wrote:
There're tones of flaws in Big Bang, SR,
GR, and QM. Where? Just look at the google groups. Why we stop pursuing
a genuine physics?
There has NEVER been a prediction of QM, SR or GTR that was
contradicted by an observation. NEVER!
What about the spiral galactic rotation profiles...??
Paul Stowe
That was what Dark Matter was *invented*
to explain.
How handy to have something invisible to explain
away your little problem of the whole galaxy
turning as a single unit.
He says computers have modelled a good shape to
accomplish this; some sort of toroid surrounding each
galaxy?
Of course the point is moot since DM can't
be seen (by definition).
But DM is now also being used to explain
*all* the missing mass. Promotion! Good job,
Invisible Boy!
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Double-A" |
|
| Title: Re: List of Cranks here |
08 Mar 2005 02:52:11 AM |
|
|
John Sefton wrote:
Paul Stowe wrote:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 04:00:12 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Waldo Graham wrote:
There're tones of flaws in Big Bang, SR,
GR, and QM. Where? Just look at the google groups. Why we stop
pursuing
a genuine physics?
There has NEVER been a prediction of QM, SR or GTR that was
contradicted by an observation. NEVER!
What about the spiral galactic rotation profiles...??
Paul Stowe
That was what Dark Matter was *invented*
to explain.
How handy to have something invisible to explain
away your little problem of the whole galaxy
turning as a single unit.
[snip]
John
It's always nice to have invisible helpers to make sure your theory
works as billed.
Double-A
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: List of Cranks here |
08 Mar 2005 05:32:09 PM |
|
|
Double-A wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
Paul Stowe wrote:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 04:00:12 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Waldo Graham wrote:
There're tones of flaws in Big Bang, SR,
GR, and QM. Where? Just look at the google groups. Why we stop
pursuing
a genuine physics?
There has NEVER been a prediction of QM, SR or GTR that was
contradicted by an observation. NEVER!
What about the spiral galactic rotation profiles...??
Paul Stowe
That was what Dark Matter was *invented*
to explain.
How handy to have something invisible to explain
away your little problem of the whole galaxy
turning as a single unit.
[snip]
John
It's always nice to have invisible helpers to make sure your theory
works as billed.
Double-A
Well, until 20? years ago we didn't know
that elephants communicate with sound waves too
low for us to hear. I guess we thought those
huge ears were to make them look good.
Interpretation is always based on current
knowledge and if we miss things like that.....
whoa!
John
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: List of Cranks here |
08 Mar 2005 12:20:58 AM |
|
|
John Sefton wrote:
That was what Dark Matter was *invented*
to explain.
How handy to have something invisible to explain
away your little problem of the whole galaxy
turning as a single unit.
He says computers have modelled a good shape to
accomplish this; some sort of toroid surrounding each
galaxy?
Of course the point is moot since DM can't
be seen (by definition).
If dark matter consists of "superpartners" to visible particles and
futher experimentation supports supersymmetry, then dark matter may be
more than an ad hoc hypothesis. Also if dark matter can can predict
other effects which ARE observed then it has more to do than merely to
save gravitational theory.
The correctness of the dark matter hypothesis is still an open question.
If some other means of explaining non-keplerian motion in galaxies can
be found, then dark matter may go the way of aether. It remains to be
sean whether dark matter is more than an ad hoc tire patch.
But DM is now also being used to explain
*all* the missing mass. Promotion! Good job,
Invisible Boy!
No one ever saw an atom, but the atomic hypothesis explains and predicts
just about everything we know about matter.
Most of the basic entities of physics are quite invisible and can only
be detected with instruments or inferred indirectly. Since these
entities lead to quantitative predictions which might be falsified
experimentally, they are kosher scientific constructs.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: List of Cranks here |
08 Mar 2005 06:25:20 AM |
|
|
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:394uigF5uckdlU1@individual.net...
John Sefton wrote:
That was what Dark Matter was *invented*
to explain.
How handy to have something invisible to explain
away your little problem of the whole galaxy
turning as a single unit.
He says computers have modelled a good shape to
accomplish this; some sort of toroid surrounding each
galaxy?
Of course the point is moot since DM can't
be seen (by definition).
If dark matter consists of "superpartners" to visible particles and futher
experimentation supports supersymmetry, then dark matter may be more than
an ad hoc hypothesis. Also if dark matter can can predict other effects
which ARE observed then it has more to do than merely to save
gravitational theory.
The correctness of the dark matter hypothesis is still an open question.
If some other means of explaining non-keplerian motion in galaxies can be
found, then dark matter may go the way of aether. It remains to be sean
whether dark matter is more than an ad hoc tire patch.
But DM is now also being used to explain
*all* the missing mass. Promotion! Good job,
Invisible Boy!
No one ever saw an atom, but the atomic hypothesis explains and predicts
just about everything we know about matter.
Most of the basic entities of physics are quite invisible and can only be
detected with instruments or inferred indirectly. Since these entities
lead to quantitative predictions which might be falsified experimentally,
they are kosher scientific constructs.
Kosher models are race and religion biased.
Models that map the past,
may not be viable, cost-effective,
and useful for present time use,
and may not predict the future well.
When people begin to think that a model
is capable of predicting the future,
the model becomes a dead end religion,
and locks up people's minds.
The best model to use for immediate situations,
is the most viable, cost-effective one,
that can be used for handling the situation at hand.
The best model for probing into the future,
is trail and error with an open mind.
Guys like Edison and Fadary were the masters at this,
as well as they guys who invented the transistor,
the MASER, and most other things.
For example,
General Relativity is a Tower of Babel,
and is not viable and cost-effective,
and can't be used to solve everyday problems
in communications, spring mass systems, electronics,
structures, chemistry, genetics, medicine, etc.
It wastes far too much time, money, and minds
on the pursuit of Black Holes, Warped Space, time travel, etc.
Note that billions of dollars are wasted every year,
not probing for useful things and techniques
like Edison and Farady probed for,
but for confirming Relativity as a religion.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: List of Cranks here |
08 Mar 2005 09:21:46 AM |
|
|
In article <395jtvF5l263sU1@individual.net>,
Tom Potter <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote:
For example,
General Relativity is a Tower of Babel,
and is not viable and cost-effective,
and can't be used to solve everyday problems
in communications, spring mass systems, electronics,
structures, chemistry, genetics, medicine, etc.
It is interesting to note that, despite his dislike of general relativity,
"Tom Potter" recognizes that he has no scientific argument against it.
And so he must shift the argument to cost-effective applications that are
beyond the recognized scope of general relativity. The theory is, indeed,
not a viable and cost-effective model to solve everyday problems in
communications, spring mass systems, electronics, [crystal?] structures,
chemistry, genetics, medicine, etc. One can only wonder why he thinks it
is necessary to mention that, since the theory has never been promoted for
those uses.
It can only be concluded that "Tom Potter" does not consider science
itself a worthy pursuit, unless it is in direct support of immediate
engineering needs.
--
"The preferred method of entering a building is to use a tank main gun
round, direct fire artillery round, or TOW, Dragon, or Hellfire missile to
clear the first room." -- THE RANGER HANDBOOK U.S. Army, 1992
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: List of Cranks here |
09 Mar 2005 10:55:43 PM |
|
|
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:d0kfua$tjf$5@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <395jtvF5l263sU1@individual.net>,
Tom Potter <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote:
For example,
General Relativity is a Tower of Babel,
and is not viable and cost-effective,
and can't be used to solve everyday problems
in communications, spring mass systems, electronics,
structures, chemistry, genetics, medicine, etc.
It is interesting to note that, despite his dislike of general relativity,
"Tom Potter" recognizes that he has no scientific argument against it.
And so he must shift the argument to cost-effective applications that are
beyond the recognized scope of general relativity. The theory is, indeed,
not a viable and cost-effective model to solve everyday problems in
communications, spring mass systems, electronics, [crystal?] structures,
chemistry, genetics, medicine, etc. One can only wonder why he thinks it
is necessary to mention that, since the theory has never been promoted for
those uses.
It can only be concluded that "Tom Potter" does not consider science
itself a worthy pursuit, unless it is in direct support of immediate
engineering needs.
It can only be concluded that "Tom Potter" does not consider
spending the taxpayers money a worthy pursuit,
unless it can be justified,
and the best arbiter and justifier of worth to the taxpayer,
is a free market.
I wholeheartedly endorse GTR worshippers
forming their own schools, and research groups, and manufacturing companies,
at their own expense.
I also wholeheartedly endorse quark (High energy physics welfare mothers.)
worshippers
forming their own schools, and research groups, and manufacturing companies,
at their own expense.
Likewise, I wholeheartedly endorse creationists
forming their own schools,
at their own expense.
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Varney" |
|
| Title: Re: List of Cranks here |
10 Mar 2005 01:39:58 AM |
|
|
"Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:39a7boF6184htU9@individual.net...
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:d0kfua$tjf$5@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <395jtvF5l263sU1@individual.net>,
Tom Potter <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote:
For example,
General Relativity is a Tower of Babel,
and is not viable and cost-effective,
and can't be used to solve everyday problems
in communications, spring mass systems, electronics,
structures, chemistry, genetics, medicine, etc.
It is interesting to note that, despite his dislike of general
relativity,
"Tom Potter" recognizes that he has no scientific argument against it.
And so he must shift the argument to cost-effective applications that are
beyond the recognized scope of general relativity. The theory is,
indeed,
not a viable and cost-effective model to solve everyday problems in
communications, spring mass systems, electronics, [crystal?] structures,
chemistry, genetics, medicine, etc. One can only wonder why he thinks it
is necessary to mention that, since the theory has never been promoted
for
those uses.
It can only be concluded that "Tom Potter" does not consider science
itself a worthy pursuit, unless it is in direct support of immediate
engineering needs.
It can only be concluded that "Tom Potter" does not consider
spending the taxpayers money a worthy pursuit,
unless it can be justified,
and the best arbiter and justifier of worth to the taxpayer,
is a free market.
I wholeheartedly endorse GTR worshippers
forming their own schools, and research groups, and manufacturing
companies,
at their own expense.
I also wholeheartedly endorse quark (High energy physics welfare mothers.)
worshippers
forming their own schools, and research groups, and manufacturing
companies,
at their own expense.
Likewise, I wholeheartedly endorse creationists
forming their own schools,
at their own expense.
Thanks for your monetary contributions to my education fund, crackpotter.
*smirk*
And thank you in advance for your contribution to my future funding and
paycheck.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: List of Cranks here |
08 Mar 2005 10:12:36 AM |
|
|
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message news:d0kfua$tjf$5@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <395jtvF5l263sU1@individual.net>,
Tom Potter <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote:
For example,
General Relativity is a Tower of Babel,
and is not viable and cost-effective,
and can't be used to solve everyday problems
in communications, spring mass systems, electronics,
structures, chemistry, genetics, medicine, etc.
It is interesting to note that, despite his dislike of general relativity,
"Tom Potter" recognizes that he has no scientific argument against it.
And so he must shift the argument to cost-effective applications that are
beyond the recognized scope of general relativity. The theory is, indeed,
not a viable and cost-effective model to solve everyday problems in
communications, spring mass systems, electronics, [crystal?] structures,
chemistry, genetics, medicine, etc. One can only wonder why he thinks it
is necessary to mention that, since the theory has never been promoted for
those uses.
It can only be concluded that "Tom Potter" does not consider science
itself a worthy pursuit, unless it is in direct support of immediate
engineering needs.
.... and as long as his plane does not have to make a landing
in zero visibility circumstances, in which case Potter always
asks for a viably and cost-effectively designed parachute.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: List of Cranks here |
09 Mar 2005 10:57:15 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:U9kXd.1250$652.861@news.cpqcorp.net...
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:d0kfua$tjf$5@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <395jtvF5l263sU1@individual.net>,
Tom Potter <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote:
For example,
General Relativity is a Tower of Babel,
and is not viable and cost-effective,
and can't be used to solve everyday problems
in communications, spring mass systems, electronics,
structures, chemistry, genetics, medicine, etc.
It is interesting to note that, despite his dislike of general
relativity,
"Tom Potter" recognizes that he has no scientific argument against it.
And so he must shift the argument to cost-effective applications that are
beyond the recognized scope of general relativity. The theory is,
indeed,
not a viable and cost-effective model to solve everyday problems in
communications, spring mass systems, electronics, [crystal?] structures,
chemistry, genetics, medicine, etc. One can only wonder why he thinks it
is necessary to mention that, since the theory has never been promoted
for
those uses.
It can only be concluded that "Tom Potter" does not consider science
itself a worthy pursuit, unless it is in direct support of immediate
engineering needs.
... and as long as his plane does not have to make a landing
in zero visibility circumstances, in which case Potter always
asks for a viably and cost-effectively designed parachute.
"Dirk Van de moortel" makes a good point!
If billions of dollars are wasted on trying to justify
quarks and GTR, fewer dollars will be available
to develop viable, cost-effect solutions to man's needs.
As can be seen,
the best arbiter of worth is a free and open market,
and those who THINK they are privy to
powerful, esoteric knowledge should have the
freedom to prove the worth of their knowledge
in a free and open market.
And of course, charlatans, welfare scientists,
and people using science to promote race and religion,
should not have access to the taxpayers money,
nor should they have tax credits or deductions
for their wild goose chases, free rides,
and race/religion promotions.
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: List of Cranks here |
10 Mar 2005 04:47:30 PM |
|
|
"Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:39a7c1F6184htU13@individual.net...
[snip]
If billions of dollars are wasted on trying to justify
quarks and GTR, fewer dollars will be available
to develop viable, cost-effect solutions to man's needs.
Thou shalt not live by bread alone.
--
Franz
"A first-rate laboratory is one in which mediocre scientists can
produce outstanding work"
P.M.S. Blackett
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: List of Cranks here |
12 Mar 2005 09:51:05 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:d0qiq2$k55$11@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:39a7c1F6184htU13@individual.net...
[snip]
If billions of dollars are wasted on trying to justify
quarks and GTR, fewer dollars will be available
to develop viable, cost-effect solutions to man's needs.
Thou shalt not live by bread alone.
Bread first.
GTR welfare charlatans last.
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: List of Cranks here |
09 Mar 2005 04:21:34 AM |
|
|
In article <d0kfua$tjf$5@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>,
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
In article <395jtvF5l263sU1@individual.net>,
Tom Potter <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote:
For example,
General Relativity is a Tower of Babel,
and is not viable and cost-effective,
and can't be used to solve everyday problems
in communications, spring mass systems, electronics,
structures, chemistry, genetics, medicine, etc.
It is interesting to note that, despite his dislike of general relativity,
"Tom Potter" recognizes that he has no scientific argument against it.
And so he must shift the argument to cost-effective applications that are
beyond the recognized scope of general relativity. The theory is, indeed,
not a viable and cost-effective model to solve everyday problems in
communications, spring mass systems, electronics, [crystal?] structures,
chemistry, genetics, medicine, etc. One can only wonder why he thinks it
is necessary to mention that, since the theory has never been promoted for
those uses.
It can only be concluded that "Tom Potter" does not consider science
itself a worthy pursuit, unless it is in direct support of immediate
engineering needs.
Not even that; you do remember that he sold pigs in a poke.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
