Science > Physics > Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics (my theads) Compared
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"OsherD" |
| Date: |
11 Dec 2005 11:47:54 PM |
| Object: |
Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics (my theads) Compared |
From Osher Doctorow
Most of my threads for the last few months on sci.physics have
emphasized (a) cosmology as a branch of physics/astrophysics and
physics-engineering and physics-biology and physics-geology interfaces,
and also (b) deep underlying variables and also dimensions including
energy, mass, length, time, knowledge/semantic information, force
across the microscopic (quantum) and macroscopic (GR especially but
also human) levels.
In contrast to this depth, a glance at sci.physics.research for example
from September 2005 until now shows (a) a lack of emphasis on the
above, and (b) very disorganized topics and presentations within
topics, (c) the usual lack of discovery when people of very different
non-Creative Genius backgrounds including scientists interact in groups
whether on or off the internet.
I'll let readers take a look at sci.physics.research under the topic
"Dark Energy" since September 1, 2005 as an example, and hopefully I'll
return soon.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics (my theads) Compared |
12 Dec 2005 02:27:59 AM |
|
|
"OsherD" <> wrote in message
news:1134366474.819454.41770@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| >From Osher Doctorow
|
| Most of my threads for the last few months on sci.physics have
| emphasized (a) cosmology as a branch of physics/astrophysics and
| physics-engineering and physics-biology and physics-geology
interfaces,
| and also (b) deep underlying variables and also dimensions including
| energy, mass, length, time, knowledge/semantic information, force
| across the microscopic (quantum) and macroscopic (GR especially but
| also human) levels.
|
| In contrast to this depth, a glance at sci.physics.research for
example
| from September 2005 until now shows (a) a lack of emphasis on the
| above, and (b) very disorganized topics and presentations within
| topics, (c) the usual lack of discovery when people of very different
| non-Creative Genius backgrounds including scientists interact in
groups
| whether on or off the internet.
Take a look at the "Not Even Wrong" blog for more fun.
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/
Seems like some of the folks from spr are hangin' out there now.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baez" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics vs better places |
18 Dec 2005 05:40:15 PM |
|
|
In article <404qinF191bddU1@individual.net>,
FrediFizzx <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
Take a look at the "Not Even Wrong" blog for more fun.
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/
Seems like some of the folks from spr are hangin' out there now.
Yup - and other places which it's probably wiser not to list!
We have learned since the early 1990s that Gresham's law applies
to public discussions of physics on the internet. Sad but true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham's_Law
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics vs better places |
19 Dec 2005 08:02:01 AM |
|
|
"John Baez" <baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu> wrote in message
news:do4s0v$32g$1@glue.ucr.edu...
In article <404qinF191bddU1@individual.net>,
FrediFizzx <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
Take a look at the "Not Even Wrong" blog for more fun.
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/
Seems like some of the folks from spr are hangin' out there now.
Yup - and other places which it's probably wiser not to list!
We have learned since the early 1990s that Gresham's law applies
to public discussions of physics on the internet. Sad but true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham's_Law
The poster makes a good point!
"Bad money drives out good money."
and
"Bad people drive out good people."
( From the newsgroups.)
In the old days,
on CompuServe, Delphi, Genie, FidoNet, Prodigy, The Source, AOL, etc.
and in the early days of Usenet,
posters addressed (Non-political) messages in a rational, intelligent,
civilized way, ,
rather than trying to make messengers the issue.
Unfortunately, messenger bashing became commonplace in the newsgroups
and people began posting things like
"Crackpot Indexes",
"Crank Dot Net references",
"Immortal Fumble references",
etc.
and turned the physics newsgroups into
flame newsgroups, where the purpose was
not to inform, educate, discuss and debate,
but was to demean ones' adversary.
I dare say that the physics newsgroups
will not regain their former excellence
until centers of influence
set examples for their followers and admirers,
by focusing on messages,
rather than on demeaning messengers.
Sad but true.
--
Tom Potter
http://no-turtles.com
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics vs better places |
19 Dec 2005 09:14:07 AM |
|
|
Tom Potter <tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135000921.694182.286690@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
"John Baez" <baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu> wrote in
news:do4s0v$32g$1@glue.ucr.edu...
In article <404qinF191bddU1@individual.net>,
FrediFizzx <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
Take a look at the "Not Even Wrong" blog for more fun.
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/
Seems like some of the folks from spr are hangin' out there now.
[Baez]
Yup - and other places which it's probably wiser not to list!
We have learned since the early 1990s that Gresham's law applies
to public discussions of physics on the internet. Sad but true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham's_Law
[Tom]
The poster makes a good point!
"Bad people drive out good people." ( From the newsgroups.)
In the old days, posters addressed (Non-political) messages in
a rational, intelligent, civilized way, rather than trying to make ,
messengers the issue. Unfortunately, messenger bashing became
commonplace in the newsgroups and people began posting things like
"Crackpot Indexes","Crank Dot Net references", "Immortal Fumble refs",
and turned the physics newsgroups into flame newsgroups, where
the purpose was not to inform, educate, discuss and debate,
but was to demean ones' adversary.
Sad but true.
Tom Potter
[hanson]
But Tom, you and Baez and ALL the whiners who believe that
they have something of very special sci. interest to say have
committed their own share of aggravated messenger assault.
What makes me ROTFL is that after these complainers who
brag to post in moderated NGs, or go to blogs and e-mail clubs
ALWAYS, WITHOUT FAIL, DO COME BACK to sci.physics,
the intellectual cesspool they so condemn and abhor... ahahaha..
Is that because they are intellectually dishonest, phony pricks,
or aging control freaks who failed in real life and who are trying
now to redeem themselves in cyber space, before they depart
from this here real, normal 3DT world and go forever into the
warped lands yonder where the unseen manifolds, wormholes
and space time continuums are where time stands still & nothing
moves?.... ahahaha... Maybe, they all have premonitions of what
awaits them, and do express their anxieties by their own "metric".
Thanks for the laughs, dudes.
Merry Xmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa or whatever turns you on, BUT
"Let'em sing!- All of'em!- It's a beautyful choir!" specially the sp one.
ahahaha.... ahahahanson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics vs better places |
19 Dec 2005 12:33:24 PM |
|
|
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:37Apf.6588$7f3.3574@trnddc01...
Tom Potter <tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135000921.694182.286690@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
"John Baez" <baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu> wrote in
news:do4s0v$32g$1@glue.ucr.edu...
In article <404qinF191bddU1@individual.net>,
FrediFizzx <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
Take a look at the "Not Even Wrong" blog for more fun.
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/
Seems like some of the folks from spr are hangin' out there now.
[Baez]
Yup - and other places which it's probably wiser not to list!
We have learned since the early 1990s that Gresham's law applies
to public discussions of physics on the internet. Sad but true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham's_Law
[Tom]
The poster makes a good point!
"Bad people drive out good people." ( From the newsgroups.)
In the old days, posters addressed (Non-political) messages in
a rational, intelligent, civilized way, rather than trying to make ,
messengers the issue. Unfortunately, messenger bashing became
commonplace in the newsgroups and people began posting things like
"Crackpot Indexes","Crank Dot Net references", "Immortal Fumble refs",
and turned the physics newsgroups into flame newsgroups, where
the purpose was not to inform, educate, discuss and debate,
but was to demean ones' adversary.
Sad but true.
Tom Potter
[hanson]
But Tom, you and Baez and ALL the whiners who believe that
they have something of very special sci. interest to say have
committed their own share of aggravated messenger assault.
What makes me ROTFL is that after these complainers who
brag to post in moderated NGs, or go to blogs and e-mail clubs
ALWAYS, WITHOUT FAIL, DO COME BACK to sci.physics,
the intellectual cesspool they so condemn and abhor... ahahaha..
Is that because they are intellectually dishonest, phony pricks,
or aging control freaks who failed in real life and who are trying
now to redeem themselves in cyber space, before they depart
from this here real, normal 3DT world and go forever into the
warped lands yonder where the unseen manifolds, wormholes
and space time continuums are where time stands still & nothing
moves?.... ahahaha... Maybe, they all have premonitions of what
awaits them, and do express their anxieties by their own "metric".
Thanks for the laughs, dudes.
Merry Xmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa or whatever turns you on, BUT
"Let'em sing!- All of'em!- It's a beautyful choir!" specially the sp one.
ahahaha.... ahahahanson
What is funny is that I said Baez was scared of me and runs away,
he retorts "Don't kid yourself" and runs way!
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baez" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics vs better places |
19 Dec 2005 01:02:18 PM |
|
|
In article <37Apf.6588$7f3.3574@trnddc01>, hanson <hanson@quick.net> wrote:
What makes me ROTFL is that after these complainers who
brag to post in moderated NGs, or go to blogs and e-mail clubs
ALWAYS, WITHOUT FAIL, DO COME BACK to sci.physics,
the intellectual cesspool they so condemn and abhor... ahahaha..
It's easy to understand. Once upon a time, back in the late 80's
and early 90's, sci.physics was a brand new thing. All of a sudden
people from around the world could meet up and discuss physics in
a way that had never been possible before. It was great! Luckily
Google has recorded the conversations from that period, and I urge
anyone who wasn't there to look back and see what it was like.
It was very different from now.
Later, as the internet became fashionable, crackpots invaded and
flame wars started spreading. To make a long story short, a bunch
of us got sick of that and started sci.physics.research.
The work of moderating that newsgroup increased as more and more
people started posting to it, and certain people made the unpaid
job of moderating a living hell, so eventually the turnover rate among
moderators shot up and... well, after spending many years moderating
s.p.r., now I hardly ever read that group.
Or this one.
But - occasionally, out of nostalgia, I take a look. This happens
ever more rarely, because it's so depressing. Maybe sci.physics
is fun for a bunch of people here - I hope so. But it's hard for
me to find it attractive these days.
Luckily, there are other ways to talk about physics!
When I started reading sci.physics (around 1989, according to Google),
I was a lonely assistant professor just starting work at UCR,
far from the northeast cities I knew and loved. The newsgroup was
a great way to get to know people and talk. Ditto for s.p.r..
I still have lots of these friends, but now the conversations are
mainly on email. When I post a "This Week's Finds" I often get
interesting corrections and comments from people I haven't heard from
in a long time - like Dave Rusin, who just made some interesting guesses
about ring galaxies in response to "week224". Garrett Lisi from
s.p.r. is going to visit me here today - never met him before. Miguel
Carrion, Toby Bartels and Derek Wise, who I met via sci.physics.research,
became my grad students. Miguel got his Ph.D.; Toby is supposed to
finish his thesis by January 4th (I'm crossing my fingers), and Derek
is doing great work on the MacDowell-Mansouri approach to gravity and
its relation to topological quantum field theory. I've written two
papers with Urs Schreiber, who I first met on s.p.r. and who later
became a moderator. I've spent some great days visiting Oz (of "Oz
and the Wizard" fame) on his farm near Oxford. And so on, and so
on, and so on.
So, the community is not gone: it's just changed venues. Maybe
the story is simple: sci.physics let people interested in physics
from around the world find each other. Now most of them have.
(But what about the next generations?)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics vs better places |
19 Dec 2005 06:40:32 PM |
|
|
"John Baez" <baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu> wrote in message
news:do703q$jg7$1@glue.ucr.edu...
In article <37Apf.6588$7f3.3574@trnddc01>, hanson <hanson@quick.net>
wrote:
What makes me ROTFL is that after these complainers who
brag to post in moderated NGs, or go to blogs and e-mail clubs
ALWAYS, WITHOUT FAIL, DO COME BACK to sci.physics,
the intellectual cesspool they so condemn and abhor... ahahaha..
It's easy to understand. Once upon a time, back in the late 80's
and early 90's, sci.physics was a brand new thing. All of a sudden
people from around the world could meet up and discuss physics in
a way that had never been possible before. It was great! Luckily
Google has recorded the conversations from that period, and I urge
anyone who wasn't there to look back and see what it was like.
It was very different from now.
Later, as the internet became fashionable, crackpots invaded and
flame wars started spreading. To make a long story short, a bunch
of us got sick of that and started sci.physics.research.
The work of moderating that newsgroup increased as more and more
people started posting to it, and certain people made the unpaid
job of moderating a living hell, so eventually the turnover rate among
moderators shot up and... well, after spending many years moderating
s.p.r., now I hardly ever read that group.
Or this one.
But - occasionally, out of nostalgia, I take a look. This happens
ever more rarely, because it's so depressing. Maybe sci.physics
is fun for a bunch of people here - I hope so. But it's hard for
me to find it attractive these days.
Luckily, there are other ways to talk about physics!
When I started reading sci.physics (around 1989, according to Google),
I was a lonely assistant professor just starting work at UCR,
far from the northeast cities I knew and loved. The newsgroup was
a great way to get to know people and talk. Ditto for s.p.r..
I still have lots of these friends, but now the conversations are
mainly on email. When I post a "This Week's Finds" I often get
interesting corrections and comments from people I haven't heard from
in a long time - like Dave Rusin, who just made some interesting guesses
about ring galaxies in response to "week224". Garrett Lisi from
s.p.r. is going to visit me here today - never met him before. Miguel
Carrion, Toby Bartels and Derek Wise, who I met via sci.physics.research,
became my grad students. Miguel got his Ph.D.; Toby is supposed to
finish his thesis by January 4th (I'm crossing my fingers), and Derek
is doing great work on the MacDowell-Mansouri approach to gravity and
its relation to topological quantum field theory. I've written two
papers with Urs Schreiber, who I first met on s.p.r. and who later
became a moderator. I've spent some great days visiting Oz (of "Oz
and the Wizard" fame) on his farm near Oxford. And so on, and so
on, and so on.
So, the community is not gone: it's just changed venues. Maybe
the story is simple: sci.physics let people interested in physics
from around the world find each other. Now most of them have.
(But what about the next generations?)
It's easy to understand. Once upon a time, back in the early 1900's
Einstein's relativity was a brand new thing. Not of a sudden people
from around the world could not meet up and discuss idiocy,
they did it by letter.
It was great! Nobody was there to challenge the morons.
Later, as the internet became fashionable, crackpots invaded and
flame wars started spreading. To make a long story short, a bunch
of idiots got sick of that and started sci.physics.research, but then
used it as a form of censorship to keep out conscientious objectors
to the tripe they discussed.
tau = t*sqrt(1-v²/c²)
tau = t*sqrt(1-u²/c²)
tau = t*sqrt(1-w²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
Right or wrong, idiot?
Why did Einstein say
eta = y,
zeta = z?
Did he not know how to move sideways or up?
Run away, Baez, run away.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics vs better places |
20 Dec 2005 06:46:07 AM |
|
|
In article <do703q$jg7$1@glue.ucr.edu>,
(John Baez) wrote:
'ey, -jb. :-)
<snip>
...Toby is supposed to
finish his thesis by January 4th (I'm crossing my fingers),
Kewl.
... I've spent some great days visiting Oz (of "Oz
and the Wizard" fame) on his farm near Oxford.
Have you ever thought of publishing the "Oz and the Wizard"?
It deserves to be put into hardcopy.
So, the community is not gone: it's just changed venues. Maybe
the story is simple: sci.physics let people interested in physics
from around the world find each other. Now most of them have.
(But what about the next generations?)
There are new ones who are starting to get bored with the
*****. And, more importantly, they're extremely curious.
I don't know if physics lags this trend. I'll try to keep
watch.
One thing you have to remember is that the ones who are
serious about learning ask a question, get their pointers
and then leave here to do their research. The ones who
aren't doing this learning are bored and stay around
generating megatons of bits for wont of anything else
to do. There are also people whose sole intention is
to destroy current efforts and past knowledge. These
ideologues have to stick around. Since the only thing
that needs to be exercised is their clicky finger of
fake, it is very easy to keep advertising their
nonsense.
Another point that you are forgetting are all those people
who lurk and glean the gems from the bit buckets. You will
never ever know how much you have helped them practice
thinking.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Typinski" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics vs better places |
21 Dec 2005 12:51:55 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Dec 05 12:46:07 GMT, wrote:
In article <do703q$jg7$1@glue.ucr.edu>,
baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu (John Baez) wrote:
So, the community is not gone: it's just changed venues. Maybe
the story is simple: sci.physics let people interested in physics
from around the world find each other. Now most of them have.
(But what about the next generations?)
There are new ones who are starting to get bored with the
*****. And, more importantly, they're extremely curious.
I don't know if physics lags this trend. I'll try to keep
watch.
One thing you have to remember is that the ones who are
serious about learning ask a question, get their pointers
and then leave here to do their research.
Yep.
The ones who
aren't doing this learning are bored and stay around
generating megatons of bits for wont of anything else
to do. There are also people whose sole intention is
to destroy current efforts and past knowledge. These
ideologues have to stick around. Since the only thing
that needs to be exercised is their clicky finger of
fake, it is very easy to keep advertising their
nonsense.
<groan>
Puns aside, the willfully ignorant ye shall always have with you.
Trolls, cranks, and crackpots are simply usenet's way of obeying the
laws of thermodynamics.
Another point that you are forgetting are all those people
who lurk and glean the gems from the bit buckets. You will
never ever know how much you have helped them practice
thinking.
I've been lurking here for over a decade. I've asked a few questions
here and there and been rewarded with outstanding help. It's not my
own questions, however, that keep me here, it's the discourse between
the folks who know what they're talking about. For all those nuggets
of information that I've gleaned over the years, I'm telling these
knowledgeable people: Thank You. Your explanations, help, and advice
ARE appreciated. Greatly.
That said, the S/N ratio here continues its downward trend. No one
likes wasting time reading garbage. It's frustrating.
But, so is life.
--
Dave Typinski
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics vs better places |
21 Dec 2005 06:05:40 AM |
|
|
In article <truhq1p2pj070uirtpcsj1jf6sfuhci9cu@4ax.com>,
Dave Typinski <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 05 12:46:07 GMT, wrote:
In article <do703q$jg7$1@glue.ucr.edu>,
baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu (John Baez) wrote:
So, the community is not gone: it's just changed venues. Maybe
the story is simple: sci.physics let people interested in physics
from around the world find each other. Now most of them have.
(But what about the next generations?)
There are new ones who are starting to get bored with the
*****. And, more importantly, they're extremely curious.
I don't know if physics lags this trend. I'll try to keep
watch.
One thing you have to remember is that the ones who are
serious about learning ask a question, get their pointers
and then leave here to do their research.
Yep.
And this has the effect of the S/N ratio we see.
The ones who
aren't doing this learning are bored and stay around
generating megatons of bits for wont of anything else
to do. There are also people whose sole intention is
to destroy current efforts and past knowledge. These
ideologues have to stick around. Since the only thing
that needs to be exercised is their clicky finger of
fake, it is very easy to keep advertising their
nonsense.
<groan>
Why, thank you. It took me a while to think of the word fake.
Puns aside, the willfully ignorant ye shall always have with you.
Trolls, cranks, and crackpots are simply usenet's way of obeying the
laws of thermodynamics.
Perhaps.
Another point that you are forgetting are all those people
who lurk and glean the gems from the bit buckets. You will
never ever know how much you have helped them practice
thinking.
I've been lurking here for over a decade. I've asked a few questions
here and there and been rewarded with outstanding help. It's not my
own questions, however, that keep me here, it's the discourse between
the folks who know what they're talking about.
And one happened just this past week. What is curious to me
is that these don't seem to be counted by the people who
participate. Another aspect of human nature?
For all those nuggets
of information that I've gleaned over the years, I'm telling these
knowledgeable people: Thank You. Your explanations, help, and advice
ARE appreciated. Greatly.
That said, the S/N ratio here continues its downward trend. No one
likes wasting time reading garbage. It's frustrating.
But, so is life.
Two weeks' ago, there was lady who posted asking for a sanity
check on something she told a child. It just occurred to me
that nobody pointed her at Baez' collection of past newsgroup
discussions. Then, after John posted, I started thinking why
this happened.
By not posting here periodically, he isn't a part of the
gossip anymore. I don't see the "here is" FAQ posting
either. Thus, anybody who drops in and is new to this
medium, never reads the useful gossip. Most of my
learning was done by listening and watching while a couple of
people worked. That's how kids learn from their parents.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Typinski" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics vs better places |
22 Dec 2005 07:01:26 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Dec 05 12:05:40 GMT, wrote:
In article <truhq1p2pj070uirtpcsj1jf6sfuhci9cu@4ax.com>,
Dave Typinski <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
Puns aside, the willfully ignorant ye shall always have with you.
Trolls, cranks, and crackpots are simply usenet's way of obeying the
laws of thermodynamics.
Perhaps.
I was thinking about this sort of thing several years ago, but with
respect to economics.
It appears that no matter what society does, there will always be poor
people. I have no idea what professional economists think about the
idea, but it seems that the distribution of wealth throughout a
population is much like the distribution of energy among gas
particles. No matter how much energy (wealth) you pump into the
system, the left hand end of the Boltzmann distribution remains
anchored at zero.
Trolls, et al., seem to obey the same law. We can pump knowledge into
a system of individuals, but there will always be those who simply
don't get it and/or don't want to get it.
I wonder what Laplace would have thought about this... isn't he the
one who invented (or refined) statistics to take a census of the new,
larger France for Napoleon?
Two weeks' ago, there was lady who posted asking for a sanity
check on something she told a child. It just occurred to me
that nobody pointed her at Baez' collection of past newsgroup
discussions. Then, after John posted, I started thinking why
this happened.
By not posting here periodically, he isn't a part of the
gossip anymore. I don't see the "here is" FAQ posting
either. Thus, anybody who drops in and is new to this
medium, never reads the useful gossip. Most of my
learning was done by listening and watching while a couple of
people worked. That's how kids learn from their parents.
That is how humans learn, to be sure. Luckily for those of us who
weren't born knowing everything, there are those willing to be watched
from whom we can learn.
--
Dave Typinski
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics vs better places |
23 Dec 2005 12:33:31 PM |
|
|
"Dave Typinski" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:58hmq193ssabk6ejikqobujv066gkqvgid@4ax.com...
On Wed, 21 Dec 05 12:05:40 GMT, wrote:
In article <truhq1p2pj070uirtpcsj1jf6sfuhci9cu@4ax.com>,
Dave Typinski <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
Puns aside, the willfully ignorant ye shall always have with you.
Trolls, cranks, and crackpots are simply usenet's way of obeying the
laws of thermodynamics.
Perhaps.
I was thinking about this sort of thing several years ago, but with
respect to economics.
It appears that no matter what society does, there will always be poor
people. I have no idea what professional economists think about the
idea, but it seems that the distribution of wealth throughout a
population is much like the distribution of energy among gas
particles. No matter how much energy (wealth) you pump into the
system, the left hand end of the Boltzmann distribution remains
anchored at zero.
Trolls, et al., seem to obey the same law. We can pump knowledge into
a system of individuals, but there will always be those who simply
don't get it and/or don't want to get it.
I wonder what Laplace would have thought about this... isn't he the
one who invented (or refined) statistics to take a census of the new,
larger France for Napoleon?
Two weeks' ago, there was lady who posted asking for a sanity
check on something she told a child. It just occurred to me
that nobody pointed her at Baez' collection of past newsgroup
discussions. Then, after John posted, I started thinking why
this happened.
By not posting here periodically, he isn't a part of the
gossip anymore. I don't see the "here is" FAQ posting
either. Thus, anybody who drops in and is new to this
medium, never reads the useful gossip. Most of my
learning was done by listening and watching while a couple of
people worked. That's how kids learn from their parents.
That is how humans learn, to be sure. Luckily for those of us who
weren't born knowing everything, there are those willing to be watched
from whom we can learn.
--
Dave Typinski
Derivation of the cuckoo transformations:
Velocity should be used since that has both direction and
magnitude and is a vector. Speed is a scalar.
Ref: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorSpace.html
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
"Hence if x' be taken infinitessimally small:- " <<<
(attempt to differentiate at a discontinuity, dtau/dx', undefined inverted
velocity)
Ref: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Discontinuity.html
½[1/(v-c) + 1/(v+c)] * dtau/dt = dtau/dx' + 1/(c-v) * dtau/dt
dtau/dx' + v/(c²-v²) * dtau/dt = 0
tau = a * ( t - (vx' / (c²-v²)))
Show a= 1
tau = (t-vx/c²) / sqrt(1-v²/c²)
Ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein was incompetent as a mathematician, his disciples
are likewise incompetent. He was extremely good as a huckster.
As a consequence, there exist paradoxes.
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
tau = (t-vy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
tau = (t-vz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are.
Newton would have made breakfast of Einstein on toast.
Trolls, et al., seem to obey the same law. We can pump knowledge into
a system of individuals, but there will always be those who simply
don't get it and/or don't want to get it.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics vs better places |
24 Dec 2005 08:29:55 AM |
|
|
In article <58hmq193ssabk6ejikqobujv066gkqvgid@4ax.com>,
Dave Typinski <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 05 12:05:40 GMT, wrote:
In article <truhq1p2pj070uirtpcsj1jf6sfuhci9cu@4ax.com>,
Dave Typinski <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
Puns aside, the willfully ignorant ye shall always have with you.
Trolls, cranks, and crackpots are simply usenet's way of obeying the
laws of thermodynamics.
Perhaps.
I was thinking about this sort of thing several years ago, but with
respect to economics.
It appears that no matter what society does, there will always be poor
people.
Of course. Note also that this applies to society clusters, too.
It's a cycle.
I have no idea what professional economists think about the
idea, but it seems that the distribution of wealth throughout a
population is much like the distribution of energy among gas
particles. No matter how much energy (wealth) you pump into the
system, the left hand end of the Boltzmann distribution remains
anchored at zero.
Think about this aspect...if everybody got a million dollars,
100% of the population would immediately become poor. If
you "take" a liquid asset from the "rich" and redistribute
among the poor, the net effect is that the number that
demarks poor from all the rest increases.
Trolls, et al., seem to obey the same law. We can pump knowledge into
a system of individuals, but there will always be those who simply
don't get it and/or don't want to get it.
Yes. This is a fact. The whole point of continuing in this
kind medium is to reach those who can get it IF the information
is pointed out to them. This medium is the equivalent of a
coffee break at the watering hole. This activity was very
useful in sorting out the utterly nonsensical ideas from
the plausible ideas. Then we would go back to our real
work and think more about the plausible. Eventually the
plausible becomes something that can be spec'ed, studied,
implemented, tweaked, debugged and distributed. A similar
process happens with science.
In today's educational system, the above disciplines required to
do both science and engineering work is not encountered
until college. IOW, college has been transformed into
babysitters. This job used to be assigned to the kindergarten
level.
I wonder what Laplace would have thought about this... isn't he the
one who invented (or refined) statistics to take a census of the new,
larger France for Napoleon?
I don't know. Our politicians are now reacting to one census
stat announcement. All they are talking about is throwing more
money at the so-called problem rather than reexamining their
assumptions.
Two weeks' ago, there was lady who posted asking for a sanity
check on something she told a child. It just occurred to me
that nobody pointed her at Baez' collection of past newsgroup
discussions. Then, after John posted, I started thinking why
this happened.
By not posting here periodically, he isn't a part of the
gossip anymore. I don't see the "here is" FAQ posting
either. Thus, anybody who drops in and is new to this
medium, never reads the useful gossip. Most of my
learning was done by listening and watching while a couple of
people worked. That's how kids learn from their parents.
That is how humans learn, to be sure. Luckily for those of us who
weren't born knowing everything, there are those willing to be watched
from whom we can learn.
Sure. This forum gives a wider audience exposure to people
who think scientifically. The trade-off is that these
same scientists are exposed to tons of abuse. -jb posted.
Take a look at who jumped to try to chase him away. Take
a good look at the techniques used to batter Uncle; two
years of constant picking.
I don't blame any of these people for leaving the newsgroup.
I've been trying to think of a fix for this problem but
have yet to produce one that works more than 1% of the time.
Something to correlate right now is the count of churches
whose members are rabidly insisting on Christianity
getting taught in public schools with the cancellations
of December 25 worship services both morning and night.
Hint: Note that December 25 is a Sunday.
/BAH
/BAH
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics vs better places |
19 Dec 2005 09:02:59 PM |
|
|
John Baez wrote:
In article <37Apf.6588$7f3.3574@trnddc01>, hanson <hanson@quick.net> wrote:
What makes me ROTFL is that after these complainers who
brag to post in moderated NGs, or go to blogs and e-mail clubs
ALWAYS, WITHOUT FAIL, DO COME BACK to sci.physics,
the intellectual cesspool they so condemn and abhor... ahahaha..
It's easy to understand. Once upon a time, back in the late 80's
and early 90's, sci.physics was a brand new thing. All of a sudden
people from around the world could meet up and discuss physics in
a way that had never been possible before. It was great! Luckily
Google has recorded the conversations from that period, and I urge
anyone who wasn't there to look back and see what it was like.
It was very different from now.
The poster makes a good point!
The old physics forums were
"very different from now."
As long time readers of sci.physics know,
the demise of sci.physics into
"A river of *****"
began when the Baez and Sarfatti debates
degenerated into a flame war,
and Baez instituted his famous "Crackpot Index"
as a means to discredit Sarfatti.
After a number of Baez admirers and supporters
(And graduate students.) joined in "
"the ***** hit the river."
Here is a Sarfatti post from 1992
that sheds some light on the situation.
=================================
Oct 22 1992, 1:30 pm
Reply to Baez. I think you mostly post good stuff - with some slips
like
crackpot index. Where's your sense of humor about titles? No need for
that
"sinking feeling". It's called art John - art. I was conditioned at
Cornell in the 50's by Phil Morrison, C.P. Snow, Vladimir Nabokov - I
mix
some satire, literature and poetry with my physics - it called culture.
< Physics content snipped.>
The obsession with the "crack pot index" dominating so many postings in
this conference is a kind of creeping censorship- an intolerance for
deviant ideas - form of Mc Carthyism. Many of you use "crackpot" the
way
Mc Carthy used "Communist" - and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
==========
As can be seen, Sarfatti and many others,
who feared that their "deviant ideas"
would cause them to be demeaned,
were driven from the news groups, or inhibited,
and the descent into the "River of *****' began.
--
Tom Potter
http://no-turtles.com
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics vs better places |
20 Dec 2005 05:02:36 AM |
|
|
<tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135047779.362554.245950@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
John Baez wrote:
In article <37Apf.6588$7f3.3574@trnddc01>, hanson <hanson@quick.net>
wrote:
What makes me ROTFL is that after these complainers who
brag to post in moderated NGs, or go to blogs and e-mail clubs
ALWAYS, WITHOUT FAIL, DO COME BACK to sci.physics,
the intellectual cesspool they so condemn and abhor... ahahaha..
It's easy to understand. Once upon a time, back in the late 80's
and early 90's, sci.physics was a brand new thing. All of a sudden
people from around the world could meet up and discuss physics in
a way that had never been possible before. It was great! Luckily
Google has recorded the conversations from that period, and I urge
anyone who wasn't there to look back and see what it was like.
It was very different from now.
The poster makes a good point!
The old physics forums were
"very different from now."
As long time readers of sci.physics know,
the demise of sci.physics into
"A river of *****"
began when the Baez and Sarfatti debates
degenerated into a flame war,
and Baez instituted his famous "Crackpot Index"
as a means to discredit Sarfatti.
After a number of Baez admirers and supporters
(And graduate students.) joined in "
"the ***** hit the river."
Here is a Sarfatti post from 1992
that sheds some light on the situation.
=================================
Oct 22 1992, 1:30 pm
Reply to Baez. I think you mostly post good stuff - with some slips
like
crackpot index. Where's your sense of humor about titles? No need for
that
"sinking feeling". It's called art John - art. I was conditioned at
Cornell in the 50's by Phil Morrison, C.P. Snow, Vladimir Nabokov - I
mix
some satire, literature and poetry with my physics - it called culture.
< Physics content snipped.>
The obsession with the "crack pot index" dominating so many postings in
this conference is a kind of creeping censorship- an intolerance for
deviant ideas - form of Mc Carthyism. Many of you use "crackpot" the
way
Mc Carthy used "Communist" - and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
==========
As can be seen, Sarfatti and many others,
who feared that their "deviant ideas"
would cause them to be demeaned,
were driven from the news groups, or inhibited,
and the descent into the "River of *****' began.
Well put, Tom.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics vs better places |
20 Dec 2005 10:33:14 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:02:18 +0000 (UTC),
baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu (John Baez) wrote:
In article <37Apf.6588$7f3.3574@trnddc01>, hanson <hanson@quick.net> wrote:
What makes me ROTFL is that after these complainers who
brag to post in moderated NGs, or go to blogs and e-mail clubs
ALWAYS, WITHOUT FAIL, DO COME BACK to sci.physics,
the intellectual cesspool they so condemn and abhor... ahahaha..
It's easy to understand. Once upon a time, back in the late 80's
and early 90's, sci.physics was a brand new thing. All of a sudden
people from around the world could meet up and discuss physics in
a way that had never been possible before. It was great! Luckily
Google has recorded the conversations from that period, and I urge
anyone who wasn't there to look back and see what it was like.
It was very different from now.
It was sterile and it smelled of formaldehyde. Nothing came of it. No
breakthroughs, no revolutionary insights. Physics, as we know it, is
still the same, sickly and even moribund.
Later, as the internet became fashionable, crackpots invaded and
flame wars started spreading. To make a long story short, a bunch
of us got sick of that and started sci.physics.research.
Ah, sci.physics.research, the bastion of lameness, elitism and
crackpottery in high places. ahahaha...
The work of moderating that newsgroup increased as more and more
people started posting to it, and certain people made the unpaid
job of moderating a living hell, so eventually the turnover rate among
moderators shot up and... well, after spending many years moderating
s.p.r., now I hardly ever read that group.
Once you establish yourself as the ***** to kiss, is it any wonder that
all the ***** kissers would converge on that *****. ahahaha...
Or this one.
But - occasionally, out of nostalgia, I take a look. This happens
ever more rarely, because it's so depressing. Maybe sci.physics
is fun for a bunch of people here - I hope so. But it's hard for
me to find it attractive these days.
The reason is that nobody really gives a ***** about your math puzzles
except the ***** kissers, of course. On sci.physics we want to know why
things fall and why they move. We want to know why an electgron has a
field around it. We are fucking tired of puzzles from a bunch of
narcissistic nerds whose only fucking goal in life is to scream "Look
ma! I'm so smart". ahahaha...
Luckily, there are other ways to talk about physics!
Yes. You can begin by asking why, not how. You can begin by looking at
the particle from the particle's point of view, and not that of the
observer. Of course, this cannot happen until the old farts shut the
***** up or croak or something. ahahaha...
When I started reading sci.physics (around 1989, according to Google),
I was a lonely assistant professor just starting work at UCR,
far from the northeast cities I knew and loved. The newsgroup was
a great way to get to know people and talk. Ditto for s.p.r..
All of them ***** kissers, of course. ahahaha...
So, the community is not gone: it's just changed venues. Maybe
the story is simple: sci.physics let people interested in physics
from around the world find each other. Now most of them have.
No. That's spr. sci.physics is for those who are interested in pushing
the envelope, those who want to know the why of things. We are bored
to death already of the how of things.
(But what about the next generations?)
If a way is found to keep the the old farts alive, the next
generations are fucked. ahahaha... AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics vs better places |
21 Dec 2005 06:16:39 AM |
|
|
In article <rl8gq1hg55pd1els5fb2agv97iih0aclke@4ax.com>,
Traveler <traveler@nospam.net> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:02:18 +0000 (UTC),
baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu (John Baez) wrote:
In article <37Apf.6588$7f3.3574@trnddc01>, hanson <hanson@quick.net> wrote:
What makes me ROTFL is that after these complainers who
brag to post in moderated NGs, or go to blogs and e-mail clubs
ALWAYS, WITHOUT FAIL, DO COME BACK to sci.physics,
the intellectual cesspool they so condemn and abhor... ahahaha..
It's easy to understand. Once upon a time, back in the late 80's
and early 90's, sci.physics was a brand new thing. All of a sudden
people from around the world could meet up and discuss physics in
a way that had never been possible before. It was great! Luckily
Google has recorded the conversations from that period, and I urge
anyone who wasn't there to look back and see what it was like.
It was very different from now.
It was sterile and it smelled of formaldehyde. Nothing came of it. No
breakthroughs, no revolutionary insights. Physics, as we know it, is
still the same, sickly and even moribund.
Are you posting this through a network with a baud rate of 110
bps? Are you posting this using a computer system that
requires the footprint of a basketball court? How much
did you pay for your gear? A million dollars? How many
people did you have to employ to carry the bits across
rivers, oceans, roads, and hallways? To store the code
and data that was used to propogate your nonsense requires
a square mile footprint of disk drives (guesstimate). Each
drive cost about $20K to purchase and $100K over its lifetime
to maintain. Now do you still think there has been no
progress? You keep insisting that you have to see all the
roads, used by cars, trucks and horses, getting made before
you will use one of them.
Do you realize how stupid this makes you look?
<snip>
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics vs better places |
21 Dec 2005 08:02:27 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Dec 05 12:16:39 GMT, wrote:
In article <rl8gq1hg55pd1els5fb2agv97iih0aclke@4ax.com>,
Traveler <traveler@nospam.net> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:02:18 +0000 (UTC),
baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu (John Baez) wrote:
In article <37Apf.6588$7f3.3574@trnddc01>, hanson <hanson@quick.net> wrote:
What makes me ROTFL is that after these complainers who
brag to post in moderated NGs, or go to blogs and e-mail clubs
ALWAYS, WITHOUT FAIL, DO COME BACK to sci.physics,
the intellectual cesspool they so condemn and abhor... ahahaha..
It's easy to understand. Once upon a time, back in the late 80's
and early 90's, sci.physics was a brand new thing. All of a sudden
people from around the world could meet up and discuss physics in
a way that had never been possible before. It was great! Luckily
Google has recorded the conversations from that period, and I urge
anyone who wasn't there to look back and see what it was like.
It was very different from now.
It was sterile and it smelled of formaldehyde. Nothing came of it. No
breakthroughs, no revolutionary insights. Physics, as we know it, is
still the same, sickly and even moribund.
Are you posting this through a network with a baud rate of 110
bps? Are you posting this using a computer system that
requires the footprint of a basketball court? How much
did you pay for your gear? A million dollars? How many
people did you have to employ to carry the bits across
rivers, oceans, roads, and hallways? To store the code
and data that was used to propogate your nonsense requires
a square mile footprint of disk drives (guesstimate). Each
drive cost about $20K to purchase and $100K over its lifetime
to maintain. Now do you still think there has been no
progress? You keep insisting that you have to see all the
roads, used by cars, trucks and horses, getting made before
you will use one of them.
ahahaha... I feel like shouting, "Jane, you ignorant *****!" ahahaha...
There has been no breakthroughs in fundamental physics since the
internet was created. The principles of physics taught in school are
still the same. The only difference is that a bunch
time-travel-believing relativists have been shown for what they are,
***** kissing crackpots. ahahahaha...
All of the things you mentioned above are engineering advances. Heck,
there has been absolutely no real breakthroughs in gravity research
for centuries. We still don't know what makes things fall, a billion
relativists braying at the moon, notwithstanding.
Do you realize how stupid this makes you look?
ahahaha... In your eyes, I'm stupid. In my eyes, you're the Mariana
trench woman. Physics is so much phucking phun! ahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics vs better places |
22 Dec 2005 07:04:11 AM |
|
|
In article <7lniq15ti2soko1gq07lbf8mtqpe99v8bj@4ax.com>,
Traveler <traveler@nospam.net> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 05 12:16:39 GMT, wrote:
In article <rl8gq1hg55pd1els5fb2agv97iih0aclke@4ax.com>,
Traveler <traveler@nospam.net> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:02:18 +0000 (UTC),
baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu (John Baez) wrote:
In article <37Apf.6588$7f3.3574@trnddc01>, hanson <hanson@quick.net>
wrote:
What makes me ROTFL is that after these complainers who
brag to post in moderated NGs, or go to blogs and e-mail clubs
ALWAYS, WITHOUT FAIL, DO COME BACK to sci.physics,
the intellectual cesspool they so condemn and abhor... ahahaha..
It's easy to understand. Once upon a time, back in the late 80's
and early 90's, sci.physics was a brand new thing. All of a sudden
people from around the world could meet up and discuss physics in
a way that had never been possible before. It was great! Luckily
Google has recorded the conversations from that period, and I urge
anyone who wasn't there to look back and see what it was like.
It was very different from now.
It was sterile and it smelled of formaldehyde. Nothing came of it. No
breakthroughs, no revolutionary insights. Physics, as we know it, is
still the same, sickly and even moribund.
Are you posting this through a network with a baud rate of 110
bps? Are you posting this using a computer system that
requires the footprint of a basketball court? How much
did you pay for your gear? A million dollars? How many
people did you have to employ to carry the bits across
rivers, oceans, roads, and hallways? To store the code
and data that was used to propogate your nonsense requires
a square mile footprint of disk drives (guesstimate). Each
drive cost about $20K to purchase and $100K over its lifetime
to maintain. Now do you still think there has been no
progress? You keep insisting that you have to see all the
roads, used by cars, trucks and horses, getting made before
you will use one of them.
ahahaha... I feel like shouting, "Jane, you ignorant *****!" ahahaha...
There has been no breakthroughs in fundamental physics since the
internet was created. The principles of physics taught in school are
still the same.
I would certainly hope that they are the same. If the basics
of physics changed as often as you have to change your diapers,
all manufacturing, agriculture, and living habits would
have to retool each time.
The only difference is that a bunch
time-travel-believing relativists have been shown for what they are,
***** kissing crackpots. ahahahaha...
I assume you don't travel in anything that uses GPS nor watch TV
(this means that you are using a hard-copy TTY) nor use
the comm systems in space. This means that you don't ever
use money, don't buy food and goods that have been shipped
in boats, nor use anything made with plastic.
All of the things you mentioned above are engineering advances.
Yes, and what kind of work do you think was done before
engineering was able to use the knowledge as a tool?
Heck,
there has been absolutely no real breakthroughs in gravity research
for centuries. We still don't know what makes things fall, a billion
relativists braying at the moon, notwithstanding.
So what? What is this insanity that insists that only new
things and new ideas are the only things that are useful?
You can't build anything that is based on a new idea.
What you think of as new is merely a repackaged combination
of old ideas that have been shown to work well.
Do you realize how stupid this makes you look?
ahahaha... In your eyes, I'm stupid.
Not in my eyes. It's in your demonstration of insisting that
the only goods things in science are those that throw out
the knowledge that is known to work.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics vs better places |
22 Dec 2005 10:30:31 AM |
|
|
TV and plastic materials are due to QM theory??
you seems to be a real idiot ( and may be worse - a crook!!)
Y.Porat
-------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics vs better places |
22 Dec 2005 11:05:04 AM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1135269031.619530.3840@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
TV and plastic materials are due to QM theory??
you seems to be a real idiot ( and may be worse - a crook!!)
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Yo, Yehiel,
ahahaha...AHAHAHA... there are a lot of people in this NG
who believe that their pet theory does make TV & plastic etc.
and produces/constructs/guides all kinds of processes & events.
But blessed be the idiots... for god loves'em... which is why he
made so many of'em.... ahahaha... Happy Hanukkah to you.
ahahaha... ahahahanson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics vs better places |
21 Dec 2005 12:08:46 PM |
|
|
Well said Louis
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics vs better places |
21 Dec 2005 01:34:14 AM |
|
|
Louis the "Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
----------------- The Short and curt -----------
If a way is found to keep the old farts alive, the next
generations are fucked. ahahaha... AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
[hanson]
Louis, Louis! ... 'tis the season to be jolly.....
You make their eggnog curdle when you say that.
ahahaha... ahahanson
------------- The Long and funny one ------------
"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:rl8gq1hg55pd1els5fb2agv97iih0aclke@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:02:18 +0000 (UTC),
baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu (John Baez) wrote:
hanson <hanson@quick.net> wrote in <37Apf.6588$7f3.3574@trnddc01>, :
What makes me ROTFL is that after these complainers who
brag to post in moderated NGs, or go to blogs and e-mail clubs
ALWAYS, WITHOUT FAIL, DO COME BACK to sci.physics,
the intellectual cesspool they so condemn and abhor... ahahaha..
[John]
It's easy to understand. Once upon a time, back in the late 80's
and early 90's, sci.physics was a brand new thing. All of a sudden
people from around the world could meet up and discuss physics in
a way that had never been possible before. It was great! Luckily
Google has recorded the conversations from that period, and I urge
anyone who wasn't there to look back and see what it was like.
It was very different from now.
[Louis]
It was sterile and it smelled of formaldehyde. Nothing came of it. No
breakthroughs, no revolutionary insights. Physics, as we know it, is
still the same, sickly and even moribund.
[John]
Later, as the internet became fashionable, crackpots invaded and
flame wars started spreading. To make a long story short, a bunch
of us got sick of that and started sci.physics.research.
[Louis]
Ah, sci.physics.research, the bastion of lameness, elitism and
crackpottery in high places. ahahaha...
[John]
The work of moderating that newsgroup increased as more and more
people started posting to it, and certain people made the unpaid
job of moderating a living hell, so eventually the turnover rate among
moderators shot up and... well, after spending many years moderating
s.p.r., now I hardly ever read that group.
[Louis]
Once you establish yourself as the ***** to kiss, is it any wonder that
all the ***** kissers would converge on that *****. ahahaha...
[John]
Or this one.
But - occasionally, out of nostalgia, I take a look. This happens
ever more rarely, because it's so depressing. Maybe sci.physics
is fun for a bunch of people here - I hope so. But it's hard for
me to find it attractive these days.
[Louis]
The reason is that nobody really gives a ***** about your math puzzles
except the ***** kissers, of course. On sci.physics we want to know why
things fall and why they move. We want to know why an electgron has a
field around it. We are fucking tired of puzzles from a bunch of
narcissistic nerds whose only fucking goal in life is to scream "Look
ma! I'm so smart". ahahaha...
[John]
Luckily, there are other ways to talk about physics!
[Louis]
Yes. You can begin by asking why, not how. You can begin by looking at
the particle from the particle's point of view, and not that of the
observer. Of course, this cannot happen until the old farts shut the
***** up or croak or something. ahahaha...
[John]
When I started reading sci.physics (around 1989, according to Google),
I was a lonely assistant professor just starting work at UCR,
far from the northeast cities I knew and loved. The newsgroup was
a great way to get to know people and talk. Ditto for s.p.r..
[Louis]
All of them ***** kissers, of course. ahahaha...
[John]
So, the community is not gone: it's just changed venues. Maybe
the story is simple: sci.physics let people interested in physics
from around the world find each other. Now most of them have.
[Louis]
No. That's spr. sci.physics is for those who are interested in pushing
the envelope, those who want to know the why of things. We are bored
to death already of the how of things.
[John]
(But what about the next generations?)
[Louis]
If a way is found to keep the the old farts alive, the next
generations are fucked. ahahaha... AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
Physics is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics vs better places |
21 Dec 2005 03:00:12 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 07:34:14 GMT, "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote:
Louis the "Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
----------------- The Short and curt -----------
If a way is found to keep the old farts alive, the next
generations are fucked. ahahaha... AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
[hanson]
Louis, Louis! ... 'tis the season to be jolly.....
You make their eggnog curdle when you say that.
ahahaha... ahahanson
Santa is pissed because they've been very naughty. No toys for *****
kissers. ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics vs better places |
20 Dec 2005 09:09:55 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:14:07 GMT, "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote:
But Tom, you and Baez and ALL the whiners who believe that
they have something of very special sci. interest to say have
committed their own share of aggravated messenger assault.
What makes me ROTFL is that after these complainers who
brag to post in moderated NGs, or go to blogs and e-mail clubs
ALWAYS, WITHOUT FAIL, DO COME BACK to sci.physics,
the intellectual cesspool they so condemn and abhor... ahahaha..
ahahaha... Even Uncle Al will come back, river of ***** and all.
ahahaha...
Is that because they are intellectually dishonest, phony pricks,
or aging control freaks who failed in real life and who are trying
now to redeem themselves in cyber space, before they depart
from this here real, normal 3DT world and go forever into the
warped lands yonder where the unseen manifolds, wormholes
and space time continuums are where time stands still & nothing
moves?.... ahahaha... Maybe, they all have premonitions of what
awaits them, and do express their anxieties by their own "metric".
Thanks for the laughs, dudes.
Merry Xmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa or whatever turns you on, BUT
"Let'em sing!- All of'em!- It's a beautyful choir!" specially the sp one.
ahahaha.... ahahahanson
Hilarious. ahahaha... I think you hit the nail squarely on the heads
with your aging control freak charaterization. ahahaha... sci.physics
is the best possible physics forum there is. Why? precisely because it
is not controlled. It's a cesspool of disrespectful barbarians,
rebels, renegades, loonies, crackpots, avant-guarde thinkers, etc...
And that's the way I like it. Yeah. Let them all sing. John 'math
puzzles" Baez should not be excluded since he adds his own spice to
the choir. ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics vs better places |
21 Dec 2005 01:23:51 AM |
|
|
Very nice yet ...........
there is a big difference between the commerce world
and the 'science world'
the commerce money is used and tested by billions of people
and by every day life trial!!!!
the science that *you nominated YOURSELF to be its priest
is governed by a small 'elite' that nominated itself to be Elite'
while i find that the most prominent characteristic feature
of those people is
being dominant characters assertive pushers
and extensively more politicians than real scientists!!
a second prominent feature of them is
selective integrity! or a double fold integrity.
IE being permissive to the paradigm faults
and very intolerant to what seems to them
the faults of the non paradigm
IE fighting against anything that
'was not invented here' !!
the "NIH' syndrome
in much simpler words:
no much difference between the existing situation
and what was 500 years ago with the clergy regime!
(the same private and personal economical interests-
personal status money etc etc.
keep well Baez &company.
(at the end of your carrier and in future-
history will be your real inevitable judge!!)
crackpot
Y.Porat
----------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics (my theads) Compared |
12 Dec 2005 12:01:01 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
What happens with a moderated group/category of Ingenious Imitators is
arguably illustrated by the September 11-October 19, 2005 "Dark Energy"
thread on sci.physics.research which mostly pitted Phillip Helbig
against Michael C. Price.
Both people spent roughly half of the typing space referring to
different things and failing to even communicate on the same topics.
They kept referring to each other's idiosyncratic language and ways of
expression more than comparing the different interpretations and
properties of Dark Energy, with intermittently thrown in references to
third or fourth parties' quotes which would make lawyers wince
concerning "inadmissable hearsay" in a manner of speaking.
What especially interests me about this is that USA and arguably world
education in colleges/universities is mostly conducted this way. It
is a "group seminar" of Ingenious Imitators or worse (Mediocre people)
which reduces the actual creative problem solving to close to zero,
although perhaps not exactly zero since even dunces would occasionally
complain with zero creative problem solving.
This is not merely characteristic of universities/colleges but
governments and big corporations, all of which are well summarized by
the word Bureaucracies. I recommend that readers read Parkinson's Law
and also the Peter Principle if these ideas are entirely new to them,
although Weber's work on Bureaucracy in sociology might also be sought
out in summary form at least.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics (my theads) Compared |
12 Dec 2005 12:21:25 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
There is an extreme contrast between what I've described (which in fact
characterizes most important interdisciplinary and cosmology ideas on
sci.physics.research) and the papers that have been appearing on arXiv
and Front For the Mathematics ArXiv/arXiv from Italy, Japan, Israel,
Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Spain, Germany, India, Mexico, and Brazil
mostly. The papers from these nations have been works of Creative
Genius on topics especially related to cosmology and to
interdisciplinary physics-engineering, physics-biology,
physics-geology, and related fields.
Since arXiv and Front For the Mathematics arXiv/ArXiv are the main
"tests of quality" that we have available on the internet other than
Individual contributions to various forums, one is tempted to ask why
researchers from the nations mentioned are passing the test while most
of Academia is failing.
The most noticeable thing about papers in arXiv and Front For the
Mathematics arXiv/ArXiv is that they are not group discussions (with
very few exceptions) but rather either Individual (one Individual)
contributions or contributions with mostly two but occasionally more
coauthors who are likely to be in prior agreement before they posted
the papers.
In other words, it is better to actually do Research than to talk about
Research, even at the risk of not answering people who disagree with
you. The worst cases of Mediocrity and Ingenious Imitation (as opposed
to Creative Genius) arguably occur on the internet forums like
sci.physics.research and even sci.physics from people who spent their
time talking about Research but not actually producing Research of
their own. There is, in fact, a "professional student" or
"professional critic" type who mostly appears on sci.physics (such
people are eliminated automatically on sci.physics.research by the
Moderator, but that also eliminates our knowledge of what's going on)
and spends his/her time criticizing other people's new Research in
short but supposedly either witty or profane sentences or partial
sentences without adding any Research of his/her own.
But this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics (my theads) Compared |
12 Dec 2005 12:47:50 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
I should add the U.K. to the list of Creative Genius papers on arXiv
and Front For the Mathematics arXiv/ArXiv, although it's more
surprising to me when papers come from the other nations than from the
U.K. (which latter I suspect should be even more frequent).
Why have Researchers from these nations produced better papers as
indicated? The most obvious reason after a bit of thinking is that
the most conspicuously absent or underrepresented nations in Creative
arXiv or Front For the Mathematics ArXiv/arXiv Research, namely the USA
and France and most of the nations of Africa and the Middle East except
Israel, are either "too comfortable" or "too uneducated". Readers can
figure out which nations I am referring to as "too uneducated", and
I'll mostly discuss the USA and France here.
The USA has been claiming since the days of Ronald Reagan (including
Clinton and both Bushes) that "we won the Cold War", but in fact there
seems little evidence that the USA won anything except "comfortable
Materialism" which manifests itself in the production of mostly useless
and irrelevant repetitive Material goods and objects from soda cans to
TV sets and VCEs and so on (with cars a conspicious intermediate level
competing with houses and "entertainment").
But Repetitive Materialist goods don't require Creative Genius. They
really do best with drones and Ingenious Imitators like Charlie
Chaplin's comical character of a production line worker in the old time
movie Modern Times. Oddly enough, that picture holds just as much
inside USA Education from at least Middle School through
college/university. The physical sciences become oriented toward "how
to produce more of what we have faster and without too blatant a rise
in expense." This puts computers on top, of course, but not internet
computer people except for games - it puts computer automation of
production and services and purchasing on top.
The Big Guys on the block in this process are the USA and France, with
the U.K. on the borderline, sometimes in, sometimes out. The other
nations are on the outside looking in, usually with some jealousy. And
guess what? They haven't yet lost the urge to Create which the Big
Boys have buried. So maybe what looks "inside" is really "outside"?
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Zenner" |
|
| Title: Re: Sci.physics.research vs sci.physics (my theads) Compared |
12 Dec 2005 06:48:10 AM |
|
|
"OsherD" <mdoctorow@comcast.net> wrote in
news:1134370070.676516.209370@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
snip <useless word jumbles>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
