| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Landle" |
| Date: |
20 Jan 2005 07:23:51 PM |
| Object: |
Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it? |
Should the Standard Model be extended or taken apart? That is the
question that's bugging me. I'll continue at the bottom after
sharing some passages.
In the Scientific American June 2003 article "Dawn of Physics
Beyond the Standard Model". It is stated
"Other reasons for extending the Standard Model arise from
phenomena it cannot explain or cannot even accommodate:
1. All our theories today seem to imply that the universe should
contain a tremendous concentration of energy, even in the
emptiest regions of space. The gravitational effects of this
so-called vacuum energy would have either quickly curled up the
universe long ago or expanded it to much greater size. The
Standard Model cannot help us understand this puzzle, called the
cosmological constant problem.
2. The expansion of the universe was long believed to be slowing
down because of the mutual gravitational attraction of all the
matter in the universe. We now know that the expansion is
accelerating and that whatever causes the acceleration (dubbed
"dark energy") cannot be Standard Model physics.
3. There is very good evidence that in the first fraction of a
second of the big bang the universe went through a stage of
extremely rapid expansion called inflation. The fields
responsible for inflation cannot be Standard Model ones.
4. If the universe began in the big bang as a huge burst of
energy, it should have evolved into equal parts matter and
antimatter (CP symmetry). But instead the stars and nebulae are
made of protons, neutrons and electrons and not their an.
tiparticles (their antimatter equivalents). This matter asymmetry
cannot be explained by the Standard Model.
5. About a quarter of the universe is invisible cold dark matter
that cannot be particles of the Standard Model.
6. In the Standard Model, interactions with the Higgs field
(which is associated with the Higgs boson) cause particles to
have mass. The Standard Model cannot explain the very special
forms that the Higgs interactions must take.
7. Quantum corrections apparently make the calculated Higgs boson
mass huge, which in turn would make all particle masses huge.
That result cannot be avoided in the Standard Model and thus
causes a serious conceptual problem.
8. The Standard Model cannot include gravity, because it does not
have the same structure as the other three forces.
9. The values of the masses of the quarks and leptons (such as
the electron and neutrinos) cannot be explained by the Standard
Model.
10. The Standard Model has three "generations" of particles. The
everyday world is made up entirely of first-generation particles,
and that generation appears to form a consistent theory on its
own. The Standard Model describes all three generations, but it
cannot explain why more than one exists."
(The author continues:) "In expressing these mysteries, when I
say the Standard Model cannot explain a given phenomenon, I do
not mean that the theory has not yet explained it but might do so
one day. The Standard Model is a highly constrained theory, and
it cannot ever explain the phenomena listed above. Possible
explanations do exist. One reason the supersymmetric extension is
attractive to many physicists is that it can address all but the
second and the last three of these mysteries. String theory (in
which particles are represented by tiny, one-dimensional entities
instead of point objects) addresses the last three [see "The
Theory Formerly Known as Strings," by Michael J. Duff; SCIENTIFIC
AMERICAN, February 1998. The phenomena that the Standard Model
cannot explain are clues to how it will be extended. It is not
surprising that there are questions that the Standard Model
cannot answer - every successful theory in science has increased
the number of answered questions but has left some unanswered.
And even though improved understanding has led to new questions
that could not be formulated earlier, the number of unanswered
fundamental questions has continued to decrease. Some of these 10
mysteries demonstrate another reason why particle physics today
is entering a new era. It has become clear that many of the
deepest problems in cosmology have their solutions in particle
physics, so the fields have merged into "particle cosmology."
Only from cosmological studies could we learn that the universe
is matter (and not antimatter) or that the universe is about a
quarter cold dark matter. Any theoretical understanding of these
phenomena must explain how they arise as part of the e volution
of the universe after the big bang. But cosmology alone cannot
tell us what particles make up cold dark matter, or how the
matter asymmetry is actually generated, or how inflation
originates. Understanding of the largest and the smallest
phenomena must come together."
---------------
Back to Landle....
You are assuming String theory and supersymmetric particles can
solve them. But what if the Standard Model is misunderstood. What
if the forces were not really caused by virtual particles but by
something else like interplay of the Aether and matter. Thomson
has a very clever mechanism by which the forces are caused by
Aether dynamics with complete mathematics. But like I said. Let's
consider their work as preliminary with many mistakes that should
be corrected. I pointed out their work again because it
demonstrate that there are other ways to derive at the forces
without virtual particles. Now exploring other mechanisms is
important.. because you know. If the Standard Model could be
modified, but it was not.. and scientists further add more
assumptions to it like inventing a whole generation of
supersymmetic particles, etc. and using arbitrary constants to
make the equations work, you are further messing up the entire
physics framework. I hope some physicists may instead opt to
rework or remodel the the Standard Model rather than extending
it. We need balance. Don't assume the Standard Model is perfect
and putting all the resources to adding more particles and
theoretical construct to it the explain dark matter, etc. Go back
to the time when Schrodinger was wondering what the wave
probability amplitude represent. Max Born assumed it is just
probability and mathematics and it gets stuck to this day. What
if there are hidden variables not yet discovered (so not yet
debunked) that can explain Quantum Mechanics objectively? Then
the same principle can restructure QED, QCD, etc. So rather than
extending Standard Model. Maybe we should take it apart and
rework from scratch.
Landle
.
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it? |
21 Jan 2005 04:48:04 AM |
|
|
Landle wrote:
Should the Standard Model be extended or taken apart?
Probably extended, but people also work on alternatives
to it.
That is the
question that's bugging me. I'll continue at the bottom after
sharing some passages.
In the Scientific American June 2003 article "Dawn of Physics
Beyond the Standard Model". It is stated
"Other reasons for extending the Standard Model arise from
phenomena it cannot explain or cannot even accommodate:
1. All our theories today seem to imply that the universe should
contain a tremendous concentration of energy, even in the
emptiest regions of space. The gravitational effects of this
so-called vacuum energy would have either quickly curled up the
universe long ago or expanded it to much greater size. The
Standard Model cannot help us understand this puzzle, called the
cosmological constant problem.
2. The expansion of the universe was long believed to be slowing
down because of the mutual gravitational attraction of all the
matter in the universe. We now know that the expansion is
accelerating and that whatever causes the acceleration (dubbed
"dark energy") cannot be Standard Model physics.
I don't see the difference between point 1 and 2. Seem to
be two sides of the same thing.
3. There is very good evidence that in the first fraction of a
second of the big bang the universe went through a stage of
extremely rapid expansion called inflation. The fields
responsible for inflation cannot be Standard Model ones.
If the cyclic model by Steinhardt is right, this is also
just another side of points 1 and 2. ;-)
4. If the universe began in the big bang as a huge burst of
energy,
Strangely worded.
it should have evolved into equal parts matter and
antimatter (CP symmetry). But instead the stars and nebulae are
made of protons, neutrons and electrons and not their an.
tiparticles (their antimatter equivalents). This matter asymmetry
cannot be explained by the Standard Model.
Huh? AFAIK, it can be explained by the CP violation of the
weak interaction.
5. About a quarter of the universe is invisible cold dark matter
that cannot be particles of the Standard Model.
6. In the Standard Model, interactions with the Higgs field
(which is associated with the Higgs boson) cause particles to
have mass. The Standard Model cannot explain the very special
forms that the Higgs interactions must take.
7. Quantum corrections apparently make the calculated Higgs boson
mass huge, which in turn would make all particle masses huge.
That result cannot be avoided in the Standard Model and thus
causes a serious conceptual problem.
8. The Standard Model cannot include gravity, because it does not
have the same structure as the other three forces.
Strangely worded again.
9. The values of the masses of the quarks and leptons (such as
the electron and neutrinos) cannot be explained by the Standard
Model.
10. The Standard Model has three "generations" of particles. The
everyday world is made up entirely of first-generation particles,
and that generation appears to form a consistent theory on its
own. The Standard Model describes all three generations, but it
cannot explain why more than one exists."
In general, I agree with these 10 points.
[snip]
---------------
Back to Landle....
You are assuming String theory and supersymmetric particles can
solve them.
Not "assuming". This has been *shown*.
But what if the Standard Model is misunderstood.
What if the forces were not really caused by virtual particles but by
something else like interplay of the Aether and matter.
That would not be a misunderstanding of the SM - that would
be a contradiction of it. The math of the SM says unequivocally
that forces are caused by virtual particles. Abandoning this
concept means abandoning the SM.
You could as well say "maybe that the force of gravitation
falls off following an inverse square law is a misunderstanding
of Newton's law?"
Thomson
has a very clever mechanism by which the forces are caused by
Aether dynamics with complete mathematics.
Thomson is a nutcase. His math has nothing to do with reality.
But like I said. Let's
consider their work as preliminary with many mistakes that should
be corrected.
The correction is quite easy: put it into the wastebucket.
I pointed out their work again because it
demonstrate that there are other ways to derive at the forces
without virtual particles.
Err, no. Thomson did not demonstrate in any way that he
can derive the forces.
Now exploring other mechanisms is
important.. because you know.
Try looking into the literature. This is indeed done. Not
by many people, but it is done.
If the Standard Model could be
modified, but it was not.. and scientists further add more
assumptions to it like inventing a whole generation of
supersymmetic particles,
Err, the supersymmetric particles are not invented out of
thin air. They arise naturally by assuming a certain symmetry
for nature.
etc. and using arbitrary constants to
make the equations work,
The constants are in no way arbitrary. They are *measured*.
you are further messing up the entire
physics framework. I hope some physicists may instead opt to
rework or remodel the the Standard Model rather than extending
it.
And what makes you think that this has not been attempted so
far?
We need balance.
We also need a better education.
Don't assume the Standard Model is perfect
I don't know any physicist who assumes that.
and putting all the resources to adding more particles and
theoretical construct to it the explain dark matter, etc. Go back
to the time when Schrodinger was wondering what the wave
probability amplitude represent. Max Born assumed it is just
probability and mathematics and it gets stuck to this day.
Wrong, as I already explained in another thread.
Could you please stop attacking these straw men?
What
if there are hidden variables not yet discovered (so not yet
debunked)
Err, Bell's theorem is a quite general argument against
hidden variables. It is irrelevant if these have been
"yet discovered" or not for the theorem to work.
that can explain Quantum Mechanics objectively?
Define "objectively".
Then
the same principle can restructure QED, QCD, etc. So rather than
extending Standard Model. Maybe we should take it apart and
rework from scratch.
Again: what makes you think that this has not been attempted so
far?
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it? |
20 Jan 2005 07:56:07 PM |
|
|
Landle wrote:
Should the Standard Model be extended or taken apart? That is the
question that's bugging me. I'll continue at the bottom after
sharing some passages.
If you have nothing to say, don't.
In the Scientific American June 2003 article "Dawn of Physics
Beyond the Standard Model". It is stated
[snip]
Hey stooopid, Sci. Am. isn't technical literature. "Physical Review"
is technical literature.
The phenomena that the Standard Model
cannot explain are clues to how it will be extended.
[snip]
Clueless to 14 signficant figures.
Landle
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John C. Polasek" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it? |
20 Jan 2005 08:42:10 PM |
|
|
On 20 Jan 2005 17:23:51 -0800, "Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote:
Should the Standard Model be extended or taken apart? That is the
question that's bugging me. I'll continue at the bottom after
sharing some passages.
In the Scientific American June 2003 article "Dawn of Physics
Beyond the Standard Model". It is stated
"Other reasons for extending the Standard Model arise from
phenomena it cannot explain or cannot even accommodate:
1. All our theories today seem to imply that the universe should
contain a tremendous concentration of energy, even in the
emptiest regions of space. The gravitational effects of this
so-called vacuum energy would have either quickly curled up the
universe long ago or expanded it to much greater size. The
Standard Model cannot help us understand this puzzle, called the
cosmological constant problem.
2. The expansion of the universe was long believed to be slowing
down because of the mutual gravitational attraction of all the
matter in the universe. We now know that the expansion is
accelerating and that whatever causes the acceleration (dubbed
"dark energy") cannot be Standard Model physics.
3. There is very good evidence that in the first fraction of a
second of the big bang the universe went through a stage of
extremely rapid expansion called inflation. The fields
responsible for inflation cannot be Standard Model ones.
4. If the universe began in the big bang as a huge burst of
energy, it should have evolved into equal parts matter and
antimatter (CP symmetry). But instead the stars and nebulae are
made of protons, neutrons and electrons and not their an.
tiparticles (their antimatter equivalents). This matter asymmetry
cannot be explained by the Standard Model.
No, but it can in Dual Space theory. Here we begin with a universe of
e-p+ pairs, of which some electrons are taken out and accelerated to
the speed of light (our standard condition). This forms the particle
world-ours. The positrons left behind automatically form a mirror
image (that should be clear) in the form of an equal number of
antiparticles.
Our physical laws can only operate in the solid (Espace) where the
positrons exists, not in the dismal vacuum! Removing the electron half
of the pairs during the creationn weakens Espace, allowing the Navier
Stokes equation to take hold as shown in Eq. 1 of my paper at
http://www.dualspace.net.
I left out all the preliminary stuff to get right to the gravity part
in the paper, to tempt the neophyte who knew a bit about relativity
but was ready to quit, but I am beginning to see that even this
rudimentary approach is too much for most.
JP
5. About a quarter of the universe is invisible cold dark matter
that cannot be particles of the Standard Model.
6. In the Standard Model, interactions with the Higgs field
(which is associated with the Higgs boson) cause particles to
have mass. The Standard Model cannot explain the very special
forms that the Higgs interactions must take.
7. Quantum corrections apparently make the calculated Higgs boson
mass huge, which in turn would make all particle masses huge.
That result cannot be avoided in the Standard Model and thus
causes a serious conceptual problem.
8. The Standard Model cannot include gravity, because it does not
have the same structure as the other three forces.
9. The values of the masses of the quarks and leptons (such as
the electron and neutrinos) cannot be explained by the Standard
Model.
10. The Standard Model has three "generations" of particles. The
everyday world is made up entirely of first-generation particles,
and that generation appears to form a consistent theory on its
own. The Standard Model describes all three generations, but it
cannot explain why more than one exists."
(The author continues:) "In expressing these mysteries, when I
say the Standard Model cannot explain a given phenomenon, I do
not mean that the theory has not yet explained it but might do so
one day. The Standard Model is a highly constrained theory, and
it cannot ever explain the phenomena listed above. Possible
explanations do exist. One reason the supersymmetric extension is
attractive to many physicists is that it can address all but the
second and the last three of these mysteries. String theory (in
which particles are represented by tiny, one-dimensional entities
instead of point objects) addresses the last three [see "The
Theory Formerly Known as Strings," by Michael J. Duff; SCIENTIFIC
AMERICAN, February 1998. The phenomena that the Standard Model
cannot explain are clues to how it will be extended. It is not
surprising that there are questions that the Standard Model
cannot answer - every successful theory in science has increased
the number of answered questions but has left some unanswered.
And even though improved understanding has led to new questions
that could not be formulated earlier, the number of unanswered
fundamental questions has continued to decrease. Some of these 10
mysteries demonstrate another reason why particle physics today
is entering a new era. It has become clear that many of the
deepest problems in cosmology have their solutions in particle
physics, so the fields have merged into "particle cosmology."
Only from cosmological studies could we learn that the universe
is matter (and not antimatter) or that the universe is about a
quarter cold dark matter. Any theoretical understanding of these
phenomena must explain how they arise as part of the e volution
of the universe after the big bang. But cosmology alone cannot
tell us what particles make up cold dark matter, or how the
matter asymmetry is actually generated, or how inflation
originates. Understanding of the largest and the smallest
phenomena must come together."
---------------
Back to Landle....
You are assuming String theory and supersymmetric particles can
solve them. But what if the Standard Model is misunderstood. What
if the forces were not really caused by virtual particles but by
something else like interplay of the Aether and matter. Thomson
has a very clever mechanism by which the forces are caused by
Aether dynamics with complete mathematics. But like I said. Let's
consider their work as preliminary with many mistakes that should
be corrected. I pointed out their work again because it
demonstrate that there are other ways to derive at the forces
without virtual particles. Now exploring other mechanisms is
important.. because you know. If the Standard Model could be
modified, but it was not.. and scientists further add more
assumptions to it like inventing a whole generation of
supersymmetic particles, etc. and using arbitrary constants to
make the equations work, you are further messing up the entire
physics framework. I hope some physicists may instead opt to
rework or remodel the the Standard Model rather than extending
it. We need balance. Don't assume the Standard Model is perfect
and putting all the resources to adding more particles and
theoretical construct to it the explain dark matter, etc. Go back
to the time when Schrodinger was wondering what the wave
probability amplitude represent. Max Born assumed it is just
probability and mathematics and it gets stuck to this day. What
if there are hidden variables not yet discovered (so not yet
debunked) that can explain Quantum Mechanics objectively? Then
the same principle can restructure QED, QCD, etc. So rather than
extending Standard Model. Maybe we should take it apart and
rework from scratch.
Landle
John Polasek
If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it? |
21 Jan 2005 01:53:43 AM |
|
|
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2dq0v0hifmjbq16fhpcf4dd8ol11um74m0@4ax.com...
| On 20 Jan 2005 17:23:51 -0800, "Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
| >
| >
| >Should the Standard Model be extended or taken apart? That is the
| >question that's bugging me. I'll continue at the bottom after
| >sharing some passages.
| >
| >In the Scientific American June 2003 article "Dawn of Physics
| >Beyond the Standard Model". It is stated
| >
| >"Other reasons for extending the Standard Model arise from
| >phenomena it cannot explain or cannot even accommodate:
| >
| >1. All our theories today seem to imply that the universe should
| >contain a tremendous concentration of energy, even in the
| >emptiest regions of space. The gravitational effects of this
| >so-called vacuum energy would have either quickly curled up the
| >universe long ago or expanded it to much greater size. The
| >Standard Model cannot help us understand this puzzle, called the
| >cosmological constant problem.
| >
| >2. The expansion of the universe was long believed to be slowing
| >down because of the mutual gravitational attraction of all the
| >matter in the universe. We now know that the expansion is
| >accelerating and that whatever causes the acceleration (dubbed
| >"dark energy") cannot be Standard Model physics.
| >
| >3. There is very good evidence that in the first fraction of a
| >second of the big bang the universe went through a stage of
| >extremely rapid expansion called inflation. The fields
| >responsible for inflation cannot be Standard Model ones.
| >
| >4. If the universe began in the big bang as a huge burst of
| >energy, it should have evolved into equal parts matter and
| >antimatter (CP symmetry). But instead the stars and nebulae are
| >made of protons, neutrons and electrons and not their an.
| >tiparticles (their antimatter equivalents). This matter asymmetry
| >cannot be explained by the Standard Model.
|
| No, but it can in Dual Space theory. Here we begin with a universe of
| e-p+ pairs, of which some electrons are taken out and accelerated to
| the speed of light (our standard condition). This forms the particle
| world-ours. The positrons left behind automatically form a mirror
| image (that should be clear) in the form of an equal number of
| antiparticles.
Yeah, but you are not explaining why just "electrons are taken out". This
is the same problem of no explanation of why more matter than anti-matter.
But I do think the answer might lie in the concept of dual space.
Somewhere.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
.
|
|
|
| User: "John C. Polasek" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it? |
21 Jan 2005 09:30:16 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:53:43 -0800, "FrediFizzx"
<fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2dq0v0hifmjbq16fhpcf4dd8ol11um74m0@4ax.com...
| On 20 Jan 2005 17:23:51 -0800, "Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
| >
| >
| >Should the Standard Model be extended or taken apart? That is the
| >question that's bugging me. I'll continue at the bottom after
| >sharing some passages.
| >
| >In the Scientific American June 2003 article "Dawn of Physics
| >Beyond the Standard Model". It is stated
| >
| >"Other reasons for extending the Standard Model arise from
| >phenomena it cannot explain or cannot even accommodate:
snip
| >4. If the universe began in the big bang as a huge burst of
| >energy, it should have evolved into equal parts matter and
| >antimatter (CP symmetry). But instead the stars and nebulae are
| >made of protons, neutrons and electrons and not their an.
| >tiparticles (their antimatter equivalents). This matter asymmetry
| >cannot be explained by the Standard Model.
|
| No, but it can in Dual Space theory. Here we begin with a universe of
| e-p+ pairs, of which some electrons are taken out and accelerated to
| the speed of light (our standard condition). This forms the particle
| world-ours. The positrons left behind automatically form a mirror
| image (that should be clear) in the form of an equal number of
| antiparticles.
Yeah, but you are not explaining why just "electrons are taken out". This
is the same problem of no explanation of why more matter than anti-matter.
But I do think the answer might lie in the concept of dual space.
Somewhere.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
Fredi, this "just taking electrons away from their positron mates" in
the (alright, alright) quantum vacuum, at that moment creates both the
electron and the positron. They come into actual being, (not just
temporarily produced and 'annihilated', as in Anderson's positron
discovery). Clearly, there would be an equality of N new electrons in
our 3space, matched by N new positrons extant in the 4space of quantum
vacuum. That is the duality of Dual Space.
Prior to creation, the function of the pair in vacuum is to stretch
linearly in response to electric fields, inside their cell of lambda =
3.541x10^-14 m or 2*alpha*CWLength thus being the engines of
permittivity..
The important consequence of this duality is that now we can write
laws of gravity and EM in the solid 4space of the quantum vacuum. Real
physics occurs not in our vacuum space, but in "Espace" (QV). Nothing
can happen in a vacuum. Espace stands behind the vacuum to give it
permittivity.
The removal of electrons to make our 3space depletes the region of
electrons, leading to unbalance and pressure gradients in Espace. This
also reduces the transmission velocity, which is c, in Espace. Thus
enters the Navier Stokes equation to make our modified Newton's law of
gravity cdc/dr = -g. The gravity consequences can be seen at
http://www.dualspace.net.
All this takes quite a bit of slogging in the book (of which you have
a copy) accompanied by the unlikely conviction on your part that any
of this stuff could possibly be true. But just think, otherwise you
would have to believe in the Big Bang, whilst otherwise rejecting
the idea of a tooth fairy on grounds of objectivity.
John Polasek
If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it? |
20 Jan 2005 08:21:25 PM |
|
|
are you David Thomson in disguise? is that why he has not showed in the
last couple of days and suddenly you are here? you actually bought his
book? Dave, if this is another ploy of yours to crank up the sales of
your book, then it is pretty dumb.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Landle" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it? |
20 Jan 2005 10:26:30 PM |
|
|
wrote:
are you David Thomson in disguise? is that why he has not showed in
the
last couple of days and suddenly you are here? you actually bought
his
book? Dave, if this is another ploy of yours to crank up the sales of
your book, then it is pretty dumb.
No. I'm not David Thomson. How about you. Are you not Seto
who wants to debunk Thomson to get credit for being master
of the Aether??
Well. I live in the East. I'm a martial artist. Some martial
art masters can directly manipulate the Aether. They can
damage a block of cement at a distant by directly
manipulating the aether such that momentum can be bestowed
directly to the object without physical contact. And I'm here
to learn the physics of it. Thomson stuff is creative although
not yet completely right. What he is saying is that light is
trapped matter. He shows the complete mathematics of how
light is trapped matter down to the planck resolution. Now if
that is so. Can you manipulate electromagnetic field and aether
such that you can temporarily cause matter to form. Yes. That's
what some hidden masters in the east can do. I'm happy though
that no westerners would believe this. Once we easterners
master the physics of it. We can rule the west and the planet.
Hahah...
Landle
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it? |
21 Jan 2005 10:15:20 AM |
|
|
"Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106281590.635763.29330@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
bryant_...@yahoo.com wrote:
are you David Thomson in disguise? is that why he has not showed in
the
last couple of days and suddenly you are here? you actually bought
his
book? Dave, if this is another ploy of yours to crank up the sales of
your book, then it is pretty dumb.
No. I'm not David Thomson. How about you. Are you not Seto
who wants to debunk Thomson to get credit for being master
of the Aether??
Hey I have not read Thomson's work and I don't want to debunk his work. If
he has the correct ether theory more power to him.
Ken Seto
Well. I live in the East. I'm a martial artist. Some martial
art masters can directly manipulate the Aether. They can
damage a block of cement at a distant by directly
manipulating the aether such that momentum can be bestowed
directly to the object without physical contact. And I'm here
to learn the physics of it. Thomson stuff is creative although
not yet completely right. What he is saying is that light is
trapped matter. He shows the complete mathematics of how
light is trapped matter down to the planck resolution. Now if
that is so. Can you manipulate electromagnetic field and aether
such that you can temporarily cause matter to form. Yes. That's
what some hidden masters in the east can do. I'm happy though
that no westerners would believe this. Once we easterners
master the physics of it. We can rule the west and the planet.
Hahah...
Landle
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it? |
21 Jan 2005 10:21:24 AM |
|
|
In article <1106281590.635763.29330@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Landle <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote:
bryant_...@yahoo.com wrote:
are you David Thomson in disguise? is that why he has not showed in
the
last couple of days and suddenly you are here? you actually bought
his
book? Dave, if this is another ploy of yours to crank up the sales of
your book, then it is pretty dumb.
No. I'm not David Thomson. How about you. Are you not Seto
who wants to debunk Thomson to get credit for being master
of the Aether??
Well. I live in the East. I'm a martial artist. Some martial
art masters can directly manipulate the Aether. They can
damage a block of cement at a distant by directly
manipulating the aether such that momentum can be bestowed
directly to the object without physical contact. And I'm here
to learn the physics of it. Thomson stuff is creative although
My brother's instructor has been taught by Inosanto, has schools in
Minneapolis and Japan, he trains FBI and Mounties, and he's travelled the
world in search of knowledge. He'd catch a flight to the Phillipines to
learn some new technique that someone offered to teach him, for instance.
For his entire life he's heard amazing stories of chi powers, and he's
been trying to find solid evidence. He's talked to people that claim chi
powers and asked them to demonstrate. And so far it looks like chi can't
help you do a pullup, and can't put anything into a punch that body
mechanics won't. He's still looking. Have you actually seen martial
artists break cement blocks without touching them?
--
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is
poetry, imagination." -- Max Planck
.
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it? |
21 Jan 2005 10:41:53 AM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
mechanics won't. He's still looking. Have you actually seen martial
artists break cement blocks without touching them?
Yes. I can do it. Kick the sawhorse or platform holding up the blocks
out from under them and they shatter on impack with the ground.
You see Grasshopper? There is always a way.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it? |
21 Jan 2005 12:06:52 PM |
|
|
In article <35cpmjF4jdd4sU1@individual.net>,
robert j. kolker <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
mechanics won't. He's still looking. Have you actually seen martial
artists break cement blocks without touching them?
Yes. I can do it. Kick the sawhorse or platform holding up the blocks
out from under them and they shatter on impack with the ground.
You see Grasshopper? There is always a way.
Bob Kolker
I have much to learn.
--
"Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler."
-- Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Black" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it? |
21 Jan 2005 12:01:03 AM |
|
|
Landle wrote:
Well. I live in the East. I'm a martial artist. Some martial
art masters can directly manipulate the Aether. They can
damage a block of cement at a distant by directly
manipulating the aether such that momentum can be bestowed
directly to the object without physical contact. And I'm here
to learn the physics of it. Thomson stuff is creative although
not yet completely right. What he is saying is that light is
trapped matter. He shows the complete mathematics of how
light is trapped matter down to the planck resolution. Now if
that is so. Can you manipulate electromagnetic field and aether
such that you can temporarily cause matter to form. Yes. That's
what some hidden masters in the east can do. I'm happy though
that no westerners would believe this. Once we easterners
master the physics of it. We can rule the west and the planet.
Hahah...
Landle
Maybe you could discuss their theories with them over on
alt.sci.physics.new-theories where it won't bother those of us who
aren't interested?
Fusa.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it? |
21 Jan 2005 12:20:41 AM |
|
|
Landle wrote:
bryant_...@yahoo.com wrote:
Well. I live in the East. I'm a martial artist. Some martial
art masters can directly manipulate the Aether. They can
damage a block of cement at a distant by directly
manipulating the aether such that momentum can be bestowed
directly to the object without physical contact. And I'm here
to learn the physics of it. Thomson stuff is creative although
not yet completely right. What he is saying is that light is
trapped matter. He shows the complete mathematics of how
light is trapped matter down to the planck resolution. Now if
that is so. Can you manipulate electromagnetic field and aether
such that you can temporarily cause matter to form. Yes. That's
what some hidden masters in the east can do. I'm happy though
that no westerners would believe this. Once we easterners
master the physics of it. We can rule the west and the planet.
Hahah...
how can he do all the mathematics when he is clueless about
calculus? looking at your reply you are probably a Thomson
doppelganger.
Landle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Landle" |
|
| Title: Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it? |
21 Jan 2005 12:41:06 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Landle wrote:
wrote:
Well. I live in the East. I'm a martial artist. Some martial
art masters can directly manipulate the Aether. They can
damage a block of cement at a distant by directly
manipulating the aether such that momentum can be bestowed
directly to the object without physical contact. And I'm here
to learn the physics of it. Thomson stuff is creative although
not yet completely right. What he is saying is that light is
trapped matter. He shows the complete mathematics of how
light is trapped matter down to the planck resolution. Now if
that is so. Can you manipulate electromagnetic field and aether
such that you can temporarily cause matter to form. Yes. That's
what some hidden masters in the east can do. I'm happy though
that no westerners would believe this. Once we easterners
master the physics of it. We can rule the west and the planet.
Hahah...
how can he do all the mathematics when he is clueless about
calculus? looking at your reply you are probably a Thomson
doppelganger.
Landle
No. I'm unbiased. If there is no Aether. I'd drop it asap.
If there is. Then will study it. About Thomson poor
mathematics. China physicists can complete his work if
there is Aether and gain the upper hand someday to
become world dominant power.
I think there is Aether as it can explain many things.
But if there is none. Then will look for other mechanisms.
I'm equally happy whether there is aether or not. I'm
just interested in the truth. I don't have time for
fiction because I deal with reality.
Landle
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Landle=Thomson associate? Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it? |
21 Jan 2005 05:50:32 AM |
|
|
Landle wrote:
No. I'm unbiased. If there is no Aether. I'd drop it asap.
If there is. Then will study it. About Thomson poor
mathematics. China physicists can complete his work if
there is Aether and gain the upper hand someday to
become world dominant power.
you know your looney talk bears a striking similarity to that of
another Thomson associate, Caltechdude. Caltechdude has been unmasked
so he has disappeared from here. so, i suspect that you are Thomson
himself, or an associate of his. why would anyone over all the way in
China have an obsession with some crank theory that is barely known in
the us, where it originated? the sentence "About Thomson poor
mathematics. China physicists can complete his work if there is Aether
and gain the upper hand someday to become world dominant power." ...
what a laugh! LOL. this is a really stupid ploy Dave. and what an
insult to the many intelligent people here. Landle, why don't you also
do a disappearing act like Caltechdude?
I think there is Aether as it can explain many things.
But if there is none. Then will look for other mechanisms.
I'm equally happy whether there is aether or not. I'm
just interested in the truth. I don't have time for
fiction because I deal with reality.
your talk sounds exactly like the Caltechdude's, before he started to
openly tout Thomson's nutty ideas. i hardly think this is coincidental.
soon i can imagine you will be doing the same, once people still
stubbornly refuses Thomson's crappy notion.
this Thomson guy really takes the kook cake huh? indeed, he seems to
be ubercrank... i don't any other usenet crank have been this desperate
or have gone to this measure.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Landle" |
|
| Title: Re: Landle=Thomson associate? Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it? |
21 Jan 2005 07:46:05 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Landle wrote:
No. I'm unbiased. If there is no Aether. I'd drop it asap.
If there is. Then will study it. About Thomson poor
mathematics. China physicists can complete his work if
there is Aether and gain the upper hand someday to
become world dominant power.
you know your looney talk bears a striking similarity to that of
another Thomson associate, Caltechdude. Caltechdude has been unmasked
so he has disappeared from here. so, i suspect that you are Thomson
himself, or an associate of his. why would anyone over all the way in
China have an obsession with some crank theory that is barely known
in
the us, where it originated? the sentence "About Thomson poor
mathematics. China physicists can complete his work if there is
Aether
and gain the upper hand someday to become world dominant power." ...
what a laugh! LOL. this is a really stupid ploy Dave. and what an
insult to the many intelligent people here. Landle, why don't you
also
do a disappearing act like Caltechdude?
I think there is Aether as it can explain many things.
But if there is none. Then will look for other mechanisms.
I'm equally happy whether there is aether or not. I'm
just interested in the truth. I don't have time for
fiction because I deal with reality.
your talk sounds exactly like the Caltechdude's, before he started to
openly tout Thomson's nutty ideas. i hardly think this is
coincidental.
soon i can imagine you will be doing the same, once people still
stubbornly refuses Thomson's crappy notion.
this Thomson guy really takes the kook cake huh? indeed, he seems to
be ubercrank... i don't any other usenet crank have been this
desperate
or have gone to this measure.
You are very funny. I'm laughing as I read your message.
Are you sure you are not Ken Seto? Ken, are you trying
to discredit Thomson? Come on, try to work with him as
he has the mathematics, you have the substance. I can't
fully agree with Thomson because he doesn't believe the
quarks even exist. But QCD seems to show that the quarks
exist.
If you are not Ken Seto, bryan. Wonder who you are. Why
are you so obsessed with Thomson. Maybe unconsciously what
he said trigger something deep inside you. It did to me.
For years. I want to become better martial artist. I
wonder how those kung fu masters were able to do Jedi
trick such as hitting a block of cement without touching it.
When I read Thomson site. I realized that his model
has the mechanism to do it. It occured to me that
those martial artists can concentrate aether units
in their blood and by controlling them. They can
control the expression of matter. Prior to that I saw this
movie "Kung Fu Hustle" (last week). Then it sank in.
Actually I encountered Ken Seto stuff first, but he lacks
any details, he lacks mathematics. Then reviewing Thomson
stuff deeper, I realize he made more sense than Seto
because of his excellent mathematics. The only thing I
don't agree with Thomson is he doesn't believe in quarks,
saying they are merely debris. But I think quarks really
exist as QCD show.. unless someone can prove that QCD is
an illusion. I don't know Thomas full arguments about it
as I haven't gotten his book yet. I don't know whether
to get Seto or Thomson book. But Thomson has many details
already at the site that one can gain a bird eye view of
all his hypotheses unlike seto where he mentions a bit
only (the good thing about Seto though is a professor
was said to order 150 of his books to teach classes...
that says a lot about the impact he is making...).
Landle
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Landle=Thomson associate? Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it? |
21 Jan 2005 10:22:14 AM |
|
|
"Landle" <landlematt@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106315165.487176.228760@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
bryant_j_j@yahoo.com wrote:
Landle wrote:
No. I'm unbiased. If there is no Aether. I'd drop it asap.
If there is. Then will study it. About Thomson poor
mathematics. China physicists can complete his work if
there is Aether and gain the upper hand someday to
become world dominant power.
you know your looney talk bears a striking similarity to that of
another Thomson associate, Caltechdude. Caltechdude has been unmasked
so he has disappeared from here. so, i suspect that you are Thomson
himself, or an associate of his. why would anyone over all the way in
China have an obsession with some crank theory that is barely known
in
the us, where it originated? the sentence "About Thomson poor
mathematics. China physicists can complete his work if there is
Aether
and gain the upper hand someday to become world dominant power." ...
what a laugh! LOL. this is a really stupid ploy Dave. and what an
insult to the many intelligent people here. Landle, why don't you
also
do a disappearing act like Caltechdude?
I think there is Aether as it can explain many things.
But if there is none. Then will look for other mechanisms.
I'm equally happy whether there is aether or not. I'm
just interested in the truth. I don't have time for
fiction because I deal with reality.
your talk sounds exactly like the Caltechdude's, before he started to
openly tout Thomson's nutty ideas. i hardly think this is
coincidental.
soon i can imagine you will be doing the same, once people still
stubbornly refuses Thomson's crappy notion.
this Thomson guy really takes the kook cake huh? indeed, he seems to
be ubercrank... i don't any other usenet crank have been this
desperate
or have gone to this measure.
You are very funny. I'm laughing as I read your message.
Are you sure you are not Ken Seto? Ken, are you trying
to discredit Thomson?
Hey I am not trying to discredit anybody and bryantj is not me.I am trying
to promote ether theories of all forms ....including my theory of course.
Come on, try to work with him as
he has the mathematics, you have the substance. I can't
fully agree with Thomson because he doesn't believe the
quarks even exist. But QCD seems to show that the quarks
exist.
I will work with anybody including Thomson.
Ken Seto
If you are not Ken Seto, bryan. Wonder who you are. Why
are you so obsessed with Thomson. Maybe unconsciously what
he said trigger something deep inside you. It did to me.
For years. I want to become better martial artist. I
wonder how those kung fu masters were able to do Jedi
trick such as hitting a block of cement without touching it.
When I read Thomson site. I realized that his model
has the mechanism to do it. It occured to me that
those martial artists can concentrate aether units
in their blood and by controlling them. They can
control the expression of matter. Prior to that I saw this
movie "Kung Fu Hustle" (last week). Then it sank in.
Actually I encountered Ken Seto stuff first, but he lacks
any details, he lacks mathematics. Then reviewing Thomson
stuff deeper, I realize he made more sense than Seto
because of his excellent mathematics. The only thing I
don't agree with Thomson is he doesn't believe in quarks,
saying they are merely debris. But I think quarks really
exist as QCD show.. unless someone can prove that QCD is
an illusion. I don't know Thomas full arguments about it
as I haven't gotten his book yet. I don't know whether
to get Seto or Thomson book. But Thomson has many details
already at the site that one can gain a bird eye view of
all his hypotheses unlike seto where he mentions a bit
only (the good thing about Seto though is a professor
was said to order 150 of his books to teach classes...
that says a lot about the impact he is making...).
Landle
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Landle=Thomson associate? Re: Taking Apart Standard Model orextending it? |
21 Jan 2005 08:03:03 AM |
|
|
Landle wrote:
Ken, are you trying
to discredit Thomson? Come on, try to work with him as
he has the mathematics, you have the substance.
Neither Ken Seto nor David Thomson understand physics
and maths.
I can't
fully agree with Thomson because he doesn't believe the
quarks even exist. But QCD seems to show that the quarks
exist.
Err, a theory never can show something. The *experiments*
show that the quarks exist.
[snip rant about ESP tricks]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Black" |
|
| Title: Re: Landle=Thomson associate? Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it? |
21 Jan 2005 03:26:07 PM |
|
|
Landle wrote:
You are very funny. I'm laughing as I read your message.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 61.9.0.100
From the last message by "caltechdude,"
<1104447128.577571.192700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 61.9.0.100
APNIC tells us that this IP address belongs to:
inetnum: 61.9.0.0 - 61.9.127.255
netname: MOZCOM-PH
descr: Mosaic Communications, Inc.
country: PH
Are we to believe there are two people in the Philippines, using the
exact same ISP, who just so happen to be posting the exact same stuff
to sci.physics, with one starting just as the other leaves?
Who is laughing now?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Landle" |
|
| Title: Re: Landle=Thomson associate? Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it? |
21 Jan 2005 04:30:10 PM |
|
|
Jim Black wrote:
Landle wrote:
You are very funny. I'm laughing as I read your message.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 61.9.0.100
From the last message by "caltechdude,"
<1104447128.577571.192700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 61.9.0.100
APNIC tells us that this IP address belongs to:
inetnum: 61.9.0.0 - 61.9.127.255
netname: MOZCOM-PH
descr: Mosaic Communications, Inc.
country: PH
Are we to believe there are two people in the Philippines, using the
exact same ISP, who just so happen to be posting the exact same stuff
to sci.physics, with one starting just as the other leaves?
Who is laughing now?
Funny. Do you think china folks can't travel. We have business
in the Philippines. It's so easy to go to Phils. You just pay
the immigration officials $200 covertly and you are issued a
visa. I go back and forth between Phils and China. About
caltechdude using mozcom. Mozcom is the number 1 prepaid
card in the phils and almost all use it. We once have U.S.
base here so it is common for US folks to visit the country
especially during christmas season. Caltechdude posted
during the holiday. Maybe he came for the vacation and went
back to Caltech and was kind pissed of in his last message
that's why he doesn't post again. Notice it is when I read
past messages by him that I learned about Thomson. And
I'm impressed by Caltech so he is kind of like an internet
idol to me. I think he is also chinese that's why he can
afford the Philippines from US. I don't know. It is chinese
number one dreams to study in the US. My other idols are Uncle
Al, Bjoern, Seto, etc. These guys are hot and can deliver.
I love their arguments.
BTW... I was laughing last time about the message because
bryan thought I was Thomson. I never met him nor hear his
voice. Just saw his pic at the web site. Jim, can you id who
really is It seems he came here just
to ***** of Thomson. About alt.sci.physics.new.theories,
a spammer lives there. This is why normal posters like
S.Enterprize and other seemingly cranks all transfer to
sci.physics. Tell that spammer in the other group to
leave and many would return there. And you would rarely hear
about the Aether again. If the spammer won't live. Try
to request for a list called sci.physics.aether or
alt.sci.physics.aether
Landle
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Landle=Thomson associate? Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it? |
21 Jan 2005 05:27:37 PM |
|
|
Landle wrote:
Funny. Do you think china folks can't travel. We have business
in the Philippines. It's so easy to go to Phils. You just pay
the immigration officials $200 covertly and you are issued a
visa. I go back and forth between Phils and China. About
caltechdude using mozcom.
Mozcom is the number 1 prepaid
card in the phils and almost all use it. We once have U.S.
base here so it is common for US folks to visit the country
especially during christmas season. Caltechdude posted
during the holiday. Maybe he came for the vacation and went
back to Caltech and was kind pissed of in his last message
that's why he doesn't post again. Notice it is when I read
past messages by him that I learned about Thomson. And
I'm impressed by Caltech so he is kind of like an internet
idol to me. I think he is also chinese that's why he can
afford the Philippines from US. I don't know. It is chinese
number one dreams to study in the US. My other idols are Uncle
Al, Bjoern, Seto, etc. These guys are hot and can deliver.
I love their arguments.
do you really expect anyone to believe the non-sense
you write after all this Landle/Caltechdude? LOL.
so, all of a sudden everyone is your hero?
i hardly think you can put Seto in the same league as
Al and Bjoern.
This is why normal posters like
S.Enterprize and other seemingly cranks all transfer to
sci.physics. Tell that spammer in the other group to
leave and many would return there. And you would rarely hear
about the Aether again. If the spammer won't live. Try
to request for a list called sci.physics.aether or
alt.sci.physics.aether
please request for it yourself and take a hike. or if someone else
here can do that then it will be better for everyone, and take the rest
of the baggage with you. good riddance. bye.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Landle=Thomson associate? Re: Taking Apart Standard Model orextending it? |
22 Jan 2005 07:11:06 AM |
|
|
Landle wrote:
[snip]
My other idols are Uncle
Al, Bjoern, Seto, etc. These guys are hot and can deliver.
I love their arguments.
I strongly object to be put on the same level as Ken Seto.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Landle=Thomson associate? Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it? |
23 Jan 2005 08:08:58 AM |
|
|
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:cstjda$qs9$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Landle wrote:
[snip]
My other idols are Uncle
Al, Bjoern, Seto, etc. These guys are hot and can deliver.
I love their arguments.
I strongly object to be put on the same level as Ken Seto.
Hey idiot runt....he is saying that he enjoys your arguement from the
Standard Model point of view and that he enjoys my arguement from the aether
point of view. Your superiority attitude is another characteristic of a runt
of the learned Srians.
Definition of a runt of the learned Srians:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the learned SRians around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody
who disagrees with SR.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: Landle=Thomson associate? Re: Taking Apart Standard Model orextending it? |
22 Jan 2005 09:18:15 PM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Landle wrote:
[snip]
My other idols are Uncle
Al, Bjoern, Seto, etc. These guys are hot and can deliver.
I love their arguments.
I strongly object to be put on the same level as Ken Seto.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjo
levelsdepend
ern
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Landle=Thomson associate? Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it? |
22 Jan 2005 01:00:09 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Bjoern Feuerbacher
<feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de>
wrote
on Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:11:06 +0100
<cstjda$qs9$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>:
Landle wrote:
[snip]
My other idols are Uncle
Al, Bjoern, Seto, etc. These guys are hot and can deliver.
I love their arguments.
I strongly object to be put on the same level as Ken Seto.
I'd like to know what it means to be "hot", here. I can
certainly see Uncle Al delivering diamonds (or various
derivations thereof); he's smarter than I am (and a
*hell* of a lot crustier). However, Seto has some very
weird notions (as do Jim G, Henri W, and a few others)
which they cling to despite the gale-force of criticism
and the publication of highly reputable data from vetted
scientific experiments (and the occasional reference
to same from Sam Wormley).
(Me, I might be a few kelvin above background noise... :-) )
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Landle=Thomson associate? Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it? |
23 Jan 2005 08:12:20 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:52jac2-jpm.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
In sci.physics, Bjoern Feuerbacher
<feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de>
wrote
on Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:11:06 +0100
<cstjda$qs9$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>:
Landle wrote:
[snip]
My other idols are Uncle
Al, Bjoern, Seto, etc. These guys are hot and can deliver.
I love their arguments.
I strongly object to be put on the same level as Ken Seto.
I'd like to know what it means to be "hot", here. I can
certainly see Uncle Al delivering diamonds (or various
derivations thereof); he's smarter than I am (and a
*hell* of a lot crustier). However, Seto has some very
weird notions (as do Jim G, Henri W, and a few others)
which they cling to despite the gale-force of criticism
and the publication of highly reputable data from vetted
scientific experiments (and the occasional reference
to same from Sam Wormley).
No reputable data or vetted scientific experiments disagree with my theory.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Landle=Thomson associate? Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it? |
21 Jan 2005 04:08:01 PM |
|
|
Jim Black wrote:
Landle wrote:
You are very funny. I'm laughing as I read your message.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 61.9.0.100
From the last message by "caltechdude,"
<1104447128.577571.192700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 61.9.0.100
APNIC tells us that this IP address belongs to:
inetnum: 61.9.0.0 - 61.9.127.255
netname: MOZCOM-PH
descr: Mosaic Communications, Inc.
country: PH
Are we to believe there are two people in the Philippines, using the
exact same ISP, who just so happen to be posting the exact same stuff
to sci.physics, with one starting just as the other leaves?
Who is laughing now?
thanks for that Jim! so, my hunch was right. i was suspicious from
the beginning because of the way the thread was started, and
similarities between the pattern of thoughts. this guy really must
really think that most people on this newsgroup are dense, but he
doesn't realize he is the dense one. nobel prize, eh? yeah, right.
that's it then, it's official. David Thomson is ubercrank.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Landle=Thomson associate? Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it? |
21 Jan 2005 04:15:36 PM |
|
|
Landle wrote:
bryant_j_j@yahoo.com wrote:
Landle wrote:
[snip a whole lot of crap]
well Landle, you have been unmasked by Jim Black. LOL. stupid idiot.
so which other identity will you assume next on this newsgroup? you are
not too bright are you?
for the record, can you tell us whether you are Dave Thomson or Jim
Bourassa?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Landle=Thomson associate? Re: Taking Apart Standard Model orextending it? |
22 Jan 2005 07:12:22 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Landle wrote:
wrote:
Landle wrote:
[snip a whole lot of crap]
well Landle, you have been unmasked by Jim Black. LOL. stupid idiot.
so which other identity will you assume next on this newsgroup? you are
not too bright are you?
for the record, can you tell us whether you are Dave Thomson or Jim
Bourassa?
Err, notice that nothing that Jim Black wrote shows even
remotely that Landle has anything to do with David Thomson.
Jim only showed that there are remarkable similarities between
Landle and caltechdude.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: Landle=Thomson associate? Re: Taking Apart Standard Model orextending it? |
22 Jan 2005 09:20:25 PM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
bryant_j_j@yahoo.com wrote:
Landle wrote:
bryant_j_j@yahoo.com wrote:
Landle wrote:
[snip a whole lot of crap]
well Landle, you have been unmasked by Jim Black. LOL. stupid idiot.
so which other identity will you assume next on this newsgroup? you are
not too bright are you?
for the record, can you tell us whether you are Dave Thomson or Jim
Bourassa?
Err, notice that nothing that Jim Black wrote shows even
remotely that Landle has anything to do with David Thomson.
Jim only showed that there are remarkable similarities between
Landle and caltechdude.
Bye,
Bjoern
and the plot sickens
but it's ok
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
