"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44npiiF32r77U1@individual.net...

Combine QM and SR one get QFT.
It's predictions correspond with experiment to (IIRC) 14 decimal places.
Sounds pretty good for a faulty theory.

What experiments have been measured to "14 decimal places"?

ANY theory can be hacked to predict ONE property to 14 decimal places".
(If you can measure something that accurately.)
All you have to do is insert the necessary constant.

How well do you think QFT predicts electro-negativity,
or the masses of the stable particles,
and the decay times of the long lived particles?

"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44npiiF32r77U1@individual.net...

"Stig Holmquist" <stigfjorden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:djdcu1dsoo2fm5tgsn798o6qj4bp2okrkn@4ax.com...

"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> rioted delightfully as usual
about something... ahahahaha... and got encouragement from

[Stig Holmquist]

Pentcho Valev seems to be an iconoclast and thus might enjoy
the book "Relativity, time and reality:" by H.Nordenson, [1] who was
on the Nobel Commitee awarding the physics prize [2] way back
when Einstein was considered. He presents a detailed mathematical
analysis of the theory of relativity, too advanced for me to grasp.
He deemed it to be meta-physics.
Bertil

[hanson]
ahahaha... to stir the coals a bit more, google for [1] and you'll find
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/marcus.htm wherein Marcus Coleman
says amongst many other hilarious things, quoting Nordenson (1969):
"With regard to the investigation I have here presented I maintain
that whosoever from now upholds the relativistic ideas or applies the
fundamental relativistic formulae as representing relations between
physical quantities, without regarding and refuting my above criticism
of the Theory, makes himself liable to the accusation of grave
intellectual laxity." .... ahahaha....

This notion has found broad resonance since, across a wide
spectum for (non)applicability and use(ful/less)ness of relativity
in that these days it is not for no reasons that academia and
industry is using REL (SR/GR) ONLY in the following way and
fashion, saying that anybody who works in
== mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL *****"
== *.edu & for R-grants......................"does need REL, - No *****"
== Promo, Sales & Movies............... "loves REL by the shitload"
== Jews protect it as their cultural heritage whether "REL is ***** or
not".

Furthermore, it is of no wonder that the Bavarians have made
GR/SR courses NOT mandatory any longer in their Univs physics
curriculum since/in 1996 and on about Sept 2005 I glanced at a
post from a US student who wondered what book to study about
GR since it was no longer offered at his University in the US... !!!!.
At the end 2005 even the conservative Royal Society has now voted
Einstein out and favors Newton... and yet in these NG's there are
these loud fanatical disciples infected with Einsteinitis & some even
claim that doubts about or, God forbid, nonsupport for Einsteinism
are motivated by "anti-semitism" and jealously... AHAHAHA....

The facts are clear: Such hung-up and stuck up disciples are jealous
that the world has moved on since 1905/1916 and that the evolution
of physics, and science in general, has continued... ... They just wanna
a keep their favorite corps laying in state.... ahahaha...AHAHAHA....

[Dirk]

Combine QM and SR one get QFT.
It's predictions correspond with experiment to (IIRC) 14 decimal places.
Sounds pretty good for a faulty theory.
Any of you cranks out there do better?
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

[hanson]
.... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... So, it was close to midnight, Sunday
night your time, when you decided to stir the coals from the other
side, in/by a politician's usual, savvy way to say one thing with two
meanings (like SR's gamma, being a sqrt, giving you a (+) or a (-)
choice) where said politician here admits that neither SR nor QM
are any good but that a combination of these two bad things do
"pre-dict" something accurately to 14 decimals which he sadly
cannot even "post-dict" but swears that it sounds pretty good to
him, and then WISELY he calls on cranks for help... because he
knows, inately and unsaid, that only = one single crank has to be
right one single time = to kill all what was status quo, whereas ==
all defending fanatics have to be right all the time = to keep the
status quo alive and in voge... ..... AHAHA... ahahahahaha...
... So, Dirk, actually, and perhaps quite unintentionally, you have
described the current misère that exists in contemporary physics
pretty well... ahaha... AHAHA.. and you are in august company [3]

Seriously, for a moment, Dirk, this habit for/of "taking-sides"
will go on forever. It is harmless -- (mental masturbation for the
defenders of the status quo and a gamble against all odds by
searchers for "new lands") -- barring the unhealthy stress hormone
increase if one takes these issues too serious, instead of enjoying
the excitement of the game as an interested spectator... ahahaha..
and ROTFLOAO over the virulent and vicious fanaticism of the
game attendants over the real players' output.... ahahaha...
.... I liked your comments... Thanks for the laughs, dude!
AHAHAHA... ahahaha.... ahahanson

PS:
[2]... not yourself nor anybody else did catch the real elegant
con [2] in Holmquist's post above. All you "crank-dependants"
were so overwhelmed by your own fanaticism that you couldn't
set the record straight that Einstein did NOT get his Nobel for
neither SR nor GR... ahahaha... He got that lump of dough for
his admirable work he had done on the photoelectric effect, the
whole sum which he had to fork over to his 1st wife Mileva Maric
as "hush money" to keep her quiet that it was **her** not Einstein
who was the intellectual property owner and her who originated
the (in)famous 1905 paper... ahahahaha....
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c317bb71e593ff8b
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3519d92d18984b8c

[3]... == Nobel laureate David Gross, said in 2005 at the prestigious
Solvay Conference: "We are in a period of utter confusion", summing
up the current state on the quantum structure of space and time theories.
== Professor Carver A. Mead of Caltech, expressed his sentiments
with "It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth
century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of physics."
...and in some minds the problem is even more wide spread:
== "In the future, Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition ,
essentially associated with the names of Marx, Freud and Einstein!
F.A Hayek, Nobel Price for Economy.

"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44npiiF32r77U1@individual.net...

"Stig Holmquist" <stigfjorden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:djdcu1dsoo2fm5tgsn798o6qj4bp2okrkn@4ax.com...

"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> rioted delightfully as usual
about something... ahahahaha... and got encouragement from

[Stig Holmquist]

Pentcho Valev seems to be an iconoclast and thus might enjoy
the book "Relativity, time and reality:" by H.Nordenson, [1] who was
on the Nobel Commitee awarding the physics prize [2] way back
when Einstein was considered. He presents a detailed mathematical
analysis of the theory of relativity, too advanced for me to grasp.
He deemed it to be meta-physics.
Bertil

[hanson]
ahahaha... to stir the coals a bit more, google for [1] and you'll find
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/marcus.htm wherein Marcus Coleman
says amongst many other hilarious things, quoting Nordenson (1969):
"With regard to the investigation I have here presented I maintain
that whosoever from now upholds the relativistic ideas or applies the
fundamental relativistic formulae as representing relations between
physical quantities, without regarding and refuting my above criticism
of the Theory, makes himself liable to the accusation of grave
intellectual laxity." .... ahahaha....

This notion has found broad resonance since, across a wide
spectum for (non)applicability and use(ful/less)ness of relativity
in that these days it is not for no reasons that academia and
industry is using REL (SR/GR) ONLY in the following way and
fashion, saying that anybody who works in
== mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL *****"
== *.edu & for R-grants......................"does need REL, - No *****"
== Promo, Sales & Movies............... "loves REL by the shitload"
== Jews protect it as their cultural heritage whether "REL is ***** or not".

Furthermore, it is of no wonder that the Bavarians have made
GR/SR courses NOT mandatory any longer in their Univs physics
curriculum since/in 1996 and on about Sept 2005 I glanced at a
post from a US student who wondered what book to study about
GR since it was no longer offered at his University in the US... !!!!.
At the end 2005 even the conservative Royal Society has now voted
Einstein out and favors Newton... and yet in these NG's there are
these loud fanatical disciples infected with Einsteinitis & some even
claim that doubts about or, God forbid, nonsupport for Einsteinism
are motivated by "anti-semitism" and jealously... AHAHAHA....

The facts are clear: Such hung-up and stuck up disciples are jealous
that the world has moved on since 1905/1916 and that the evolution
of physics, and science in general, has continued... ... They just wanna
a keep their favorite corps laying in state.... ahahaha...AHAHAHA....

[Dirk]

Combine QM and SR one get QFT.
It's predictions correspond with experiment to (IIRC) 14 decimal places.
Sounds pretty good for a faulty theory.
Any of you cranks out there do better?
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

[hanson]
.... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... So, it was close to midnight, Sunday
night your time, when you decided to stir the coals from the other
side, in/by a politician's usual, savvy way to say one thing with two
meanings (like SR's gamma, being a sqrt, giving you a (+) or a (-)
choice) where said politician here admits that neither SR nor QM
are any good but that a combination of these two bad things do
"pre-dict" something accurately to 14 decimals which he sadly
cannot even "post-dict" but swears that it sounds pretty good to
him, and then WISELY he calls on cranks for help... because he
knows, inately and unsaid, that only = one single crank has to be
right one single time = to kill all what was status quo, whereas ==
all defending fanatics have to be right all the time = to keep the
status quo alive and in voge... ..... AHAHA... ahahahahaha...
... So, Dirk, actually, and perhaps quite unintentionally, you have
described the current misère that exists in contemporary physics
pretty well... ahaha... AHAHA.. and you are in august company [3]

Seriously, for a moment, Dirk, this habit for/of "taking-sides"
will go on forever. It is harmless -- (mental masturbation for the
defenders of the status quo and a gamble against all odds by
searchers for "new lands") -- barring the unhealthy stress hormone
increase if one takes these issues too serious, instead of enjoying
the excitement of the game as an interested spectator... ahahaha..
and ROTFLOAO over the virulent and vicious fanaticism of the
game attendants over the real players' output.... ahahaha...
.... I liked your comments... Thanks for the laughs, dude!
AHAHAHA... ahahaha.... ahahanson

PS:
[2]... not yourself nor anybody else did catch the real elegant
con [2] in Holmquist's post above. All you "crank-dependants"
were so overwhelmed by your own fanaticism that you couldn't
set the record straight that Einstein did NOT get his Nobel for
neither SR nor GR... ahahaha... He got that lump of dough for
his admirable work he had done on the photoelectric effect, the
whole sum which he had to fork over to his 1st wife Mileva Maric
as "hush money" to keep her quiet that it was **her** not Einstein
who was the intellectual property owner and her who originated
the (in)famous 1905 paper... ahahahaha....
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c317bb71e593ff8b
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3519d92d18984b8c

[3]... == Nobel laureate David Gross, said in 2005 at the prestigious
Solvay Conference: "We are in a period of utter confusion", summing
up the current state on the quantum structure of space and time theories.
== Professor Carver A. Mead of Caltech, expressed his sentiments
with "It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth
century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of physics."
...and in some minds the problem is even more wide spread:
== "In the future, Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition ,
essentially associated with the names of Marx, Freud and Einstein!
F.A Hayek, Nobel Price for Economy.