| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
23 Oct 2006 08:03:20 PM |
| Object: |
oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes. |
oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes.
They tell you that there are this and that particle, photons,
electrons, and other interesting corner cases.
While they could have told you, there was just this one equation,
derived from the second derivative of Maxwell's equations, that they
regularly do math tricks with. No wonder no one will give a straight
face explanation where that quantum wave function came from. Every
introductory textbook either fudge the argument to unimpenetrable depth
to tell you how you must accept the wave function as a postulate. Of
course no one understands it, because there was no argument, no
insight, just an empty framework for people to do experiments to fill
in the corner cases. Now, that's a good strategy.
.
|
|
| User: "Researcher" |
|
| Title: Re: oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes. |
24 Oct 2006 01:36:38 AM |
|
|
Good show.
Keep it up.
I am with you [But not for any abusive language]
Researcher
<mainargv@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161651800.088343.78310@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes.
They tell you that there are this and that particle, photons,
electrons, and other interesting corner cases.
While they could have told you, there was just this one equation,
derived from the second derivative of Maxwell's equations, that they
regularly do math tricks with. No wonder no one will give a straight
face explanation where that quantum wave function came from. Every
introductory textbook either fudge the argument to unimpenetrable depth
to tell you how you must accept the wave function as a postulate. Of
course no one understands it, because there was no argument, no
insight, just an empty framework for people to do experiments to fill
in the corner cases. Now, that's a good strategy.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes. |
24 Oct 2006 02:45:44 AM |
|
|
"Researcher" <notmy@email.com> wrote in message
news:453da8dc$0$19746$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Good show.
Keep it up.
I am with you [But not for any abusive language]
Researcher
<mainargv@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161651800.088343.78310@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes.
They tell you that there are this and that particle, photons,
electrons, and other interesting corner cases.
While they could have told you, there was just this one equation,
derived from the second derivative of Maxwell's equations, that they
regularly do math tricks with. No wonder no one will give a straight
face explanation where that quantum wave function came from.
You mean the Schrodenger equation? It really is a definition - see Victor
Stengers new book:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/nothing.html
Every
introductory textbook either fudge the argument to unimpenetrable depth
to tell you how you must accept the wave function as a postulate.
Mind actually giving a reference? What is a postulate is that the states
form a Hilbert space (well in physics strictly speaking a Dirac space is
usually used - but that is by the by). Wave functions follow from that.
Of course no one understands it,
Virtually all physicists, including the greats like Feynman, readily admit
no one understands QM. But we know the derivation of its equations from its
principles quite well - what it means is the issue.
because there was no argument, no
insight, just an empty framework for people to do experiments to fill
in the corner cases. Now, that's a good strategy.
Translantion - I find math too hard.
Bill
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes. |
27 Oct 2006 11:09:25 AM |
|
|
Researcher wrote:
Good show.
Keep it up.
I am with you [But not for any abusive language]
If you think physicists are assholes, try "discussing" your
revolutionary ideas about brain surgery with a group of brain
surgeons. What do you think they will say when you tell them
that knowing the difference between the frontal lobes and the
pineal gland is just a "corner case" rooted in outdated ideas
promoted by an othodoxy whose self-interest is stiffling the
progress of brain surgery?
Researcher
<mainargv@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161651800.088343.78310@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes.
They tell you that there are this and that particle, photons,
electrons, and other interesting corner cases.
While they could have told you, there was just this one equation,
derived from the second derivative of Maxwell's equations, that they
regularly do math tricks with. No wonder no one will give a straight
face explanation where that quantum wave function came from. Every
introductory textbook either fudge the argument to unimpenetrable depth
to tell you how you must accept the wave function as a postulate. Of
course no one understands it, because there was no argument, no
insight, just an empty framework for people to do experiments to fill
in the corner cases. Now, that's a good strategy.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Because an ideal laser is a pure wave, it has no observable photons. |
25 Oct 2006 03:53:18 PM |
|
|
Hi MainArgv,
Because an ideal laser is a pure wave, it has no observable photons;
and physics is only about observables, the rest is metaphysics.
You know its momentum ( i.e. its frequency ) perfectly because
it's perfectly coherent.
Ideal lasers are Bose-Einstein systems, i.e. that's its state, because
its temperature is close to absolute zero.
Examples of states of matter are: ice, water, steam.
In the famous double-slit experiment,
the Uncertainty Principle says that you will _Never_ know the postion
of a photon from an ideal laser when it passes through a slit.
Why ? because it's too cold, too coherent.
This's Quantum Mechanics in a nutshell,
and it's merely a refinement of thermodynamics.
Thermodynamics is cosmic, no doubt, i.e. it's true for all places and times.
Observed or not, the structure of the universe is forever dissipating,
as Gibbs_Free_Energy is constantly being consumed... creating virtual life.
Nothing could ever be truly random... that's just hard, _Hard_ science.
So, like all changes, all choices are purely virtual.
Where are the _Real_ choices anyways ? You'll die faster if you live faster.
Life is a virtual Casino/Prison... the house wins in the end.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Because an ideal laser is a pure wave, it has no observable photons. |
25 Oct 2006 04:08:06 PM |
|
|
Jeff...Relf wrote:
Hi MainArgv,
Because an ideal laser is a pure wave, it has no observable photons;
and physics is only about observables, the rest is metaphysics.
You know its momentum ( i.e. its frequency ) perfectly because
it's perfectly coherent.
Ideal lasers are Bose-Einstein systems, i.e. that's its state, because
its temperature is close to absolute zero.
Examples of states of matter are: ice, water, steam.
In the famous double-slit experiment,
the Uncertainty Principle says that you will _Never_ know the postion
of a photon from an ideal laser when it passes through a slit.
Why ? because it's too cold, too coherent.
This's Quantum Mechanics in a nutshell,
and it's merely a refinement of thermodynamics.
Thermodynamics is cosmic, no doubt, i.e. it's true for all places and times.
Observed or not, the structure of the universe is forever dissipating,
as Gibbs_Free_Energy is constantly being consumed... creating virtual life.
Nothing could ever be truly random... that's just hard, _Hard_ science.
So, like all changes, all choices are purely virtual.
Where are the _Real_ choices anyways ? You'll die faster if you live faster.
Life is a virtual Casino/Prison... the house wins in the end.
Indeed. Nothing is truly random. But your posts come pretty damn
close.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: No man is the final judge of what's ( notionally ) random. |
25 Oct 2006 05:16:39 PM |
|
|
Hi Igorm ( a.k.a. Varney ), You told me:
Nothing is truly random. But your posts come pretty damn close.
No man is the final judge of what's ( notionally ) random.
What I wrote seems random to you, I see;
but, although I often conjecture, some of it was hard, _Hard_ science, I say.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: No man is the final judge of what's ( notionally ) random. |
25 Oct 2006 06:17:28 PM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Oct_25_3_@Cotse.NET...
but, although I often conjecture, some of it was hard, _Hard_ science, I
say.
You can say it, but you are still wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: No man is the final judge of what's ( notionally ) random. |
26 Oct 2006 11:18:48 AM |
|
|
Jeff...Relf wrote:
Hi Igorm ( a.k.a. Varney ), You told me:
Nothing is truly random. But your posts come pretty damn close.
No man is the final judge of what's ( notionally ) random.
What I wrote seems random to you, I see;
but, although I often conjecture, some of it was hard, _Hard_ science, I say.
Okay, I'll spell it out for you. Your post is a very good example of
someone using scientific terminology to the point where is not just
erroneous, but appears to be randomly distributed with absolutely no
meaning. Clear enough for you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: No man is the final judge of what's ( notionally ) random. |
26 Oct 2006 01:17:18 PM |
|
|
"Igor" <thoovler@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1161879527.957967.36520@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Jeff...Relf wrote:
Hi Igorm ( a.k.a. Varney ), You told me:
Nothing is truly random. But your posts come pretty damn close.
No man is the final judge of what's ( notionally ) random.
What I wrote seems random to you, I see;
but, although I often conjecture, some of it was hard, _Hard_ science, I
say.
Okay, I'll spell it out for you. Your post is a very good example of
someone using scientific terminology to the point where is not just
erroneous, but appears to be randomly distributed with absolutely no
meaning. Clear enough for you?
Seems pretty clear and accurate to me :-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Show me the biggest mistake I made, and tell me what I should've said. |
26 Oct 2006 03:16:14 PM |
|
|
Dear Igor, Re:
Show me the biggest mistake I made, and tell me what I should've said.
Only then will you begin to make any sense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Show me the biggest mistake I made, and tell me what I should've said. |
26 Oct 2006 03:18:22 PM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Oct_26_2_@Cotse.NET...
Dear Igor, Re:
Show me the biggest mistake I made, and tell me what I should've said.
Only then will you begin to make any sense.
Every post and you should have said nothing.
You mistake USENET for your blog. You have no real world life, so you feel
the need to post your every thought onto USENET. Sad really.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Show me the biggest mistake I made, and tell me what I should've said. |
26 Oct 2006 03:23:21 PM |
|
|
Jeff...Relf wrote:
Dear Igor, Re:
Show me the biggest mistake I made, and tell me what I should've said.
Only then will you begin to make any sense.
Sorry, education does not work that way.
If you thought that education works by making a WAG and waiting for
somebody to correct your first error, followed by another try where you
reiterate the corrected statement followed by another WAG and wait for
someone to correct the next error, and so on, then I can understand why
you're in the situation you're in.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Snyder" |
|
| Title: Re: Show me the biggest mistake I made, and tell me what I should've said. |
26 Oct 2006 03:32:57 PM |
|
|
On 26 Oct 2006 20:16:14 GMT, Jeff…Relf <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
Dear Igor, Re:
Show me the biggest mistake I made, and tell me what I should've said.
Only then will you begin to make any sense.
a) Posting to this group, and b) Goodbye.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: No man is the final judge of what's ( notionally ) random. |
25 Oct 2006 08:45:34 PM |
|
|
Jeff...Relf wrote:
Hi Igorm ( a.k.a. Varney ), You told me:
Nothing is truly random. But your posts come pretty damn close.
No man is the final judge of what's ( notionally ) random.
What I wrote seems random to you, I see;
but, although I often conjecture, some of it was hard, _Hard_ science, I say.
You have no idea what hard science is, Relf.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: No man is the final judge of what's ( notionally ) random. |
26 Oct 2006 08:17:42 AM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
Jeff...Relf wrote:
Hi Igorm ( a.k.a. Varney ), You told me:
Nothing is truly random. But your posts come pretty damn close.
No man is the final judge of what's ( notionally ) random.
What I wrote seems random to you, I see;
but, although I often conjecture, some of it was hard, _Hard_ science, I say.
You have no idea what hard science is, Relf.
I used to think of subject as interesting harmless voice, like tj.
Until, that is, I made the mistake of actually trying to reason with
him. The same thing would no doubt happen with tj, but in his case, I
at least know not to bother trying.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: No man is the final judge of what's ( notionally ) random. |
26 Oct 2006 03:33:20 PM |
|
|
Edward Green wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Jeff...Relf wrote:
Hi Igorm ( a.k.a. Varney ), You told me:
Nothing is truly random. But your posts come pretty damn close.
No man is the final judge of what's ( notionally ) random.
What I wrote seems random to you, I see;
but, although I often conjecture, some of it was hard, _Hard_ science, I say.
You have no idea what hard science is, Relf.
I used to think of subject as interesting harmless voice, like tj.
Until, that is, I made the mistake of actually trying to reason with
him. The same thing would no doubt happen with tj, but in his case, I
at least know not to bother trying.
Oh, he is definitely harmless.
I just want him to go away. It is like walking down the hall when your
going to class or sitting in a room working on something, and you hear
a conversation that is just utterly devoid of intelligence.
Every once in awhile, if what I'm hearing is particularally stupid, I
*will* stop and say something.
I could keep walking, but it makes me feel better.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Edward_Green can't engage me... end of story. |
26 Oct 2006 03:44:52 PM |
|
|
Hi Edward_Green, You can't engage me... end of story.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Thing" |
|
| Title: Re: Because an ideal laser is a pure wave, it has no observable photons. |
25 Oct 2006 09:27:47 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:53:18 +0000, Jeff…Relf wrote:
Hi MainArgv,
Because an ideal laser is a pure wave, it has no observable photons;
and physics is only about observables, the rest is metaphysics.
I seem to remember spending two or three years of my life
measuring the intensity autocorrelation of laser light
scattered by random media using photon counting. Photons
in a laser are quite observable.
Regards
The
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Because an ideal laser is a pure wave, it has no observable photons. |
25 Oct 2006 10:07:50 PM |
|
|
Hi Mr. Thing,
You measured photons ejected from electrons hit by a semi-coherent laser.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Snyder" |
|
| Title: Re: Because an ideal laser is a pure wave, it has no observable photons. |
25 Oct 2006 10:32:14 PM |
|
|
On 26 Oct 2006 03:07:50 GMT, Jeff…Relf <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote:
Hi Mr. Thing,
You measured photons ejected from electrons hit by a semi-coherent laser.
As opposed to blather ejected from a keyboard hit by an incoherent
poster.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes. |
23 Oct 2006 09:33:09 PM |
|
|
In article <1161651800.088343.78310@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, writes:
oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes.
They tell you that there are this and that particle, photons,
electrons, and other interesting corner cases.
While they could have told you, there was just this one equation,
derived from the second derivative of Maxwell's equations, that they
regularly do math tricks with. No wonder no one will give a straight
face explanation where that quantum wave function came from. Every
introductory textbook either fudge the argument to unimpenetrable depth
to tell you how you must accept the wave function as a postulate. Of
course no one understands it, because there was no argument, no
insight, just an empty framework for people to do experiments to fill
in the corner cases. Now, that's a good strategy.
You know, some days ago when you started posting it appeared, briefly,
that you may be worth some investment of time. This impression is
rapidly fading, though. Nothing wrong with ignorance per se (we're
all ignorant of many things), it is curablebut only if you realize
that you've a lot to learn before trying to make pronouncements. The
way you're progressing now you're on path to become another Savain.
And, no, QM is not derived from the second derivative of Maxwell's
equations.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes. |
24 Oct 2006 12:20:07 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <1161651800.088343.78310@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, writes:
depth
to tell you how you must accept the wave function as a postulate. Of
course no one understands it, because there was no argument, no
insight, just an empty framework for people to do experiments to fill
in the corner cases. Now, that's a good strategy.
You know, some days ago when you started posting it appeared, briefly,
that you may be worth some investment of time. This impression is
rapidly fading, though. Nothing wrong with ignorance per se (we're
all ignorant of many things), it is curablebut only if you realize
that you've a lot to learn before trying to make pronouncements. The
way you're progressing now you're on path to become another Savain.
And, no, QM is not derived from the second derivative of Maxwell's
equations.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
-------------------------
The OP is absolulely right about his skeptocism!!
actuaally he in general nailed the problem .
he main problem of modern physics is that al those scinetists are too
much
mathematics minded and educated
**and too little physics minded and educated*8
had they been more physics educated
they would understand that
**no single formula or even a set of formulas can solve and describe
the entire physical world **!!!
it is some imature wish to find a simple 'magic dorn* in order of
finding
the comprehansive solution of physics
but nature is too complicated and diversative to be sommed up
by just a single fucken set of formulas
i realized it in my research about the nuclear structre!!
there ar emany formula' to describe the nuclear structure'
yet my founding was that
no single or even a set of formulas will ever describe the whole
problem !!
NOT TO MENSION WRONG PARADIGM
(if you methaphorically assume that the sun is orbiting the earth
you will get partial good results but bever the 'to scratch story!!
ie - in some point your advance will be stoped !!!)
of which physics is full of
no formula can compensate for a wrong paradigm
because a formula or eqaution is just a ' processing machine' to IMPUT
DATA
and if the imput is wrong and the 'machine' is too short
you will vever get the right outupt unless you are 'eremanipolating the
output
to fir it here and there (an ad hock nonstop update process) to
the experimental data
so
the bad story about it
that there is a lot of CHEATING around it
and enormous economic and private interests around it
in a way (hard to believe )
NO MUCH BIG DIFFERENCE TO THE SITUATION OF CLERGY REGIME
500 YEARS AGO !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes. |
24 Oct 2006 12:55:25 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1161651800.088343.78310@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, writes:
depth
to tell you how you must accept the wave function as a postulate. Of
course no one understands it, because there was no argument, no
insight, just an empty framework for people to do experiments to fill
in the corner cases. Now, that's a good strategy.
You know, some days ago when you started posting it appeared, briefly,
that you may be worth some investment of time. This impression is
rapidly fading, though. Nothing wrong with ignorance per se (we're
all ignorant of many things), it is curablebut only if you realize
that you've a lot to learn before trying to make pronouncements. The
way you're progressing now you're on path to become another Savain.
And, no, QM is not derived from the second derivative of Maxwell's
equations.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
-------------------------
The OP is absolulely right about his skeptocism!!
actuaally he in general nailed the problem .
Idiots have a hard time understanding complex subjects? That isn't a
problem restricted to physics.
he main problem of modern physics is that al those scinetists are too
much
mathematics minded and educated
**and too little physics minded and educated*8
had they been more physics educated
they would understand that
A fascinating observation considering that you aren't physics educated
in the least.
Why do you believe you are qualified to comment on a subject you do not
actually understand? You think you were an engineer - go bother the
engineering newsgroups. If you were actually an engineer you have
something to contribute.
You were never a physicist. Stop pretending your engineering
experiences prepared you adequately for physics.
[...]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes. |
24 Oct 2006 02:17:30 AM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1161651800.088343.78310@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, writes:
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
-------------------------
The OP is absolulely right about his skeptocism!!
actuaally he in general nailed the problem .
Idiots have a hard time understanding complex subjects? That isn't a
problem restricted to physics.
he main problem of modern physics is that al those scinetists are too
much
mathematics minded and educated
**and too little physics minded and educated*8
had they been more physics educated
they would understand that
A fascinating observation considering that you aren't physics educated
in the least.
Why do you believe you are qualified to comment on a subject you do not
actually understand? You think you were an engineer - go bother the
engineering newsgroups. If you were actually an engineer you have
something to contribute.
You were never a physicist. Stop pretending your engineering
experiences prepared you adequately for physics.
-----------------------------
little fucker 22 years student
i intensionally was not treffering to anyone specifically
certainly not to a disturbed 22 yeaars student
i am 46 years older than you
and much more experiencwed than you in general and much
**wider** in physics
so if you dont get of my back i will get on your fucken disturbed back
it seesm that your fucken teachers didnt (ever) teach you modesty in
general
and specifically in physics
so if they ddint do it
i will do it in the hard way !!
Y.Porat
------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes. |
24 Oct 2006 02:42:52 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1161651800.088343.78310@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, writes:
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
-------------------------
The OP is absolulely right about his skeptocism!!
actuaally he in general nailed the problem .
Idiots have a hard time understanding complex subjects? That isn't a
problem restricted to physics.
he main problem of modern physics is that al those scinetists are too
much
mathematics minded and educated
**and too little physics minded and educated*8
had they been more physics educated
they would understand that
A fascinating observation considering that you aren't physics educated
in the least.
Why do you believe you are qualified to comment on a subject you do not
actually understand? You think you were an engineer - go bother the
engineering newsgroups. If you were actually an engineer you have
something to contribute.
You were never a physicist. Stop pretending your engineering
experiences prepared you adequately for physics.
-----------------------------
little fucker 22 years student
i intensionally was not treffering to anyone specifically
Whatever treffering means...
certainly not to a disturbed 22 yeaars student
i am 46 years older than you
Congratulations on being old. I'm sure you worked hard to achieve that
goal.
and much more experiencwed than you in general and much
**wider** in physics
In general? Probably.
In physics? Certaintly not.
By your own admission you are an engineer - not a physicist. You are
incapable of discussing what modern physics actually says or even
discussing the theories without screwing up. Unlike yourself, I
actually am studying physics in a university setting. Would you like
the list of books I am currently learning from?
so if you dont get of my back i will get on your fucken disturbed back
Oh noes.
OH NOES.
I worry more about the ice that forms between my dorm and the places I
walk to more than I worry about you.
Actually, I worry more about those icicles I put in a signpost. I
wonder if they have melted yet, or if they are still there. I'll check
tomorrow.
it seesm that your fucken teachers didnt (ever) teach you modesty in
general
and specifically in physics
No, and they don't need to because I actually respect my professors. I
don't respect you because you are a loudmouth idiot with no functional
understanding of any experimental or theoretical physics done after the
turn of the last century.
so if they ddint do it
i will do it in the hard way !!
How do you intend to do that, crank? Do you want to "teach me a lesson"
by following me around the newsgroup whining about how I am insensitive
towards your crippling learning disability?
Y.Porat
------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes. |
24 Oct 2006 03:41:16 AM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1161651800.088343.78310@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, writes:
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
-------------------------
The OP is absolulely right about his skeptocism!!
actuaally he in general nailed the problem .
Idiots have a hard time understanding complex subjects? That isn't a
problem restricted to physics.
he main problem of modern physics is that al those scinetists are too
much
mathematics minded and educated
**and too little physics minded and educated*8
had they been more physics educated
they would understand that
A fascinating observation considering that you aren't physics educated
in the least.
----------------------
at the good case in which you bring physics arguments
which is very very rare
you speak about th e physics of your book
i have in my 68 years have read as well some books
but the main point is
that you never in your short life took in acount that
nature has many many books that **were still not been written**
it is hard to explain it to a 22 years arrogant student in Alaska .
now get of my back leech
and find youself someone else to satisfy your dsitured frustrated
troubled soul
or else you will have it .
Y.P
------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes. |
24 Oct 2006 03:56:02 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1161651800.088343.78310@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, writes:
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
-------------------------
The OP is absolulely right about his skeptocism!!
actuaally he in general nailed the problem .
Idiots have a hard time understanding complex subjects? That isn't a
problem restricted to physics.
he main problem of modern physics is that al those scinetists are too
much
mathematics minded and educated
**and too little physics minded and educated*8
had they been more physics educated
they would understand that
A fascinating observation considering that you aren't physics educated
in the least.
----------------------
at the good case in which you bring physics arguments
which is very very rare
Actually, I bring physics arguments to the table more often than you
think.
You don't recognize them because I don't dumb them down to the level of
an engineer who has no education in physics.
you speak about th e physics of your book
i have in my 68 years have read as well some books
Only "some" ?
but the main point is
that you never in your short life took in acount that
nature has many many books that **were still not been written**
I work from what is known to be true.
Sure, there are advances in physics coming down the line. But since
nobody knows what they are or even how they will manifest, it is hard
to use knowledge that nobody has.
Rather than whine that physics is probably wrong anyway, find some
experimental evidence that *shows* physics is wrong. You know, like an
actual experimental observation that photons are massive. Or perhaps
use the theory you have spent soooo much time on to actually predict
something new, then perform an experiment that shows your theory to be
accurate while deviating from current theory.
Or you can sit on your ***** and whineeeee like you have been doing for
the past 10 years. A few minutes of google searching revealed that you
have been posting the same idiotic ideas in the same broken English
with the same ignorance of physics for almost 10 years now.
it is hard to explain it to a 22 years arrogant student in Alaska .
now get of my back leech
and find youself someone else to satisfy your dsitured frustrated
troubled soul
or else you will have it .
I think there is an E-bay category for those.
Y.P
------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes. |
24 Oct 2006 04:10:29 AM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Idiots have a hard time understanding complex subjects? That isn't a
Y.P
------------------------
so now
go do your homework to get a Bsc
your parents are cross with you wasting their money
sitting all day nest to the net
or find youself an Eskimo Girl or boy freind if you preffere it thaat
way
and some leace will come into your disturned mind
Y.P
--------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes. |
24 Oct 2006 02:48:08 PM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Idiots have a hard time understanding complex subjects? That isn't a
Y.P
------------------------
so now
go do your homework to get a Bsc
your parents are cross with you wasting their money
sitting all day nest to the net
or find youself an Eskimo Girl or boy freind if you preffere it thaat
way
and some leace will come into your disturned mind
Y.P
--------------------
Whats the matter Porat? Did you finally realize you have been posting
on this newsgroup for ten years without making a whit of progress?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: oh, my god, physicist are really A-holes. |
25 Oct 2006 04:06:24 AM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Idiots have a hard time understanding complex subjects? That isn't a
Y.P
------------------------
so now
go do your homework to get a Bsc
your parents are cross with you wasting their money
sitting all day nest to the net
or find youself an Eskimo Girl or boy freind if you preffere it thaat
way
and some leace will come into your disturned mind
Y.P
--------------------
Whats the matter Porat? Did you finally realize you have been posting
on this newsgroup for ten years without making a whit of progress?
------------------
just wait a hile and we will see
btw
you are not invited to the thread that Hanson innitiated
it is definitely not for you
2
in any case
i made much mo e progress than YOU !!!
so some respect for an old Goate !!
dont underestrimate the value of experience
unless you are a disturbed youngster
old catto said:
Nature has still a lot of unwritted books
Y.Porat
------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
