Prev: SR is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT - Tom Roberts
Next: SR is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT - Tom Roberts
From: BURT on 26 May 2010 21:08
On May 26, 5:36 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > We have good evidence that an e- + e+ => gamma rays,
>
> Yes.
>
> > I'm going to start working the conjecture v  + v' => matter  [...]
>
>         (your v means neutrino, your v' means antineutrino)
>
> In the standard model, "v + v' => matter" is going to happen (where "matter" has
> appropriate quantum numbers); this will happen with an incredibly small
> cross-section. Note the neutrino and antineutrino must be of the same type
> (electron, muon, or tau). This is the same sort of lepton-antilepton
> annihilation as e+ e- annihilation mentioned above.
>
> There is no instance in the history of physics of someone making a significant
> contribution who is ignorant of then-current theories and experiments. You would
> be well-advised to STUDY what is already known.
>
> Tom Roberts

Acccording to Feynman by only studying the past you give up on an
opertunity to discover something new.

MItch Raemsch
From: Ken S. Tucker on 27 May 2010 15:52
On May 26, 5:36 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > We have good evidence that an e- + e+ => gamma rays,
>
> Yes.
>
> > I'm going to start working the conjecture v + v' => matter [...]
>
> (your v means neutrino, your v' means antineutrino)
>
> In the standard model, "v + v' => matter" is going to happen (where "matter" has
> appropriate quantum numbers); this will happen with an incredibly small
> cross-section. Note the neutrino and antineutrino must be of the same type
> (electron, muon, or tau). This is the same sort of lepton-antilepton
> annihilation as e+ e- annihilation mentioned above.
>
> There is no instance in the history of physics of someone making a significant
> contribution who is ignorant of then-current theories and experiments. You would
> be well-advised to STUDY what is already known.
> Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts, the paper was written by REAL physicists for
REAL physicists, so it's unlikely you'll understand it,
try to read the paper, then we'll try to tell you what it means,
but I think it's far beyond you.
(No offense intended but Tom, you're not the brightest crayon
in the box).
Ken
From: eon on 27 May 2010 16:03
On May 27, 2:36 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > We have good evidence that an e- + e+ => gamma rays,
>
> Yes.
>
> > I'm going to start working the conjecture v + v' => matter [...]
>
> (your v means neutrino, your v' means antineutrino)
>
> In the standard model, "v + v' => matter" is going to happen (where "matter" has
> appropriate quantum numbers); this will happen with an incredibly small
> cross-section. Note the neutrino and antineutrino must be of the same type
> (electron, muon, or tau). This is the same sort of lepton-antilepton
> annihilation as e+ e- annihilation mentioned above.
>
> There is no instance in the history of physics of someone making a significant
> contribution who is ignorant of then-current theories and experiments.

wrong, someone were under 30 at that
time, and definitely knew less, if any,
than his teachers, which were professors
and doctors

i hear that that someone even had difficulties
doing homeworks and introduction basic
tests and examinations

> You would
> be well-advised to STUDY what is already known.
>
> Tom Roberts

i dont understand
From: eric gisse on 27 May 2010 16:35
Ken S. Tucker wrote:

> On May 26, 5:36 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> > We have good evidence that an e- + e+ => gamma rays,
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> > I'm going to start working the conjecture v + v' => matter [...]
>>
>> (your v means neutrino, your v' means antineutrino)
>>
>> In the standard model, "v + v' => matter" is going to happen (where
>> "matter" has appropriate quantum numbers); this will happen with an
>> incredibly small cross-section. Note the neutrino and antineutrino must
>> be of the same type (electron, muon, or tau). This is the same sort of
>> lepton-antilepton annihilation as e+ e- annihilation mentioned above.
>>
>> There is no instance in the history of physics of someone making a
>> significant contribution who is ignorant of then-current theories and
>> experiments. You would be well-advised to STUDY what is already known.
>> Tom Roberts
>
> Tom Roberts, the paper was written by REAL physicists for
> REAL physicists, so it's unlikely you'll understand it,
> try to read the paper, then we'll try to tell you what it means,
> but I think it's far beyond you.
> (No offense intended but Tom, you're not the brightest crayon
> in the box).
> Ken

I wonder where this arrogance comes from.

Tom has credential and publications, you have neither. I wonder how you
define 'real physicists' so folks like Tom Roberts are excluded and you
aren't.
From: Ken S. Tucker on 28 May 2010 01:27
On May 27, 1:03 pm, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 2:36 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > > We have good evidence that an e- + e+ => gamma rays,
>
> > Yes.
>
> > > I'm going to start working the conjecture v + v' => matter [...]
>
> > (your v means neutrino, your v' means antineutrino)
>
> > In the standard model, "v + v' => matter" is going to happen (where "matter" has
> > appropriate quantum numbers); this will happen with an incredibly small
> > cross-section. Note the neutrino and antineutrino must be of the same type
> > (electron, muon, or tau). This is the same sort of lepton-antilepton
> > annihilation as e+ e- annihilation mentioned above.
>
> > There is no instance in the history of physics of someone making a significant
> > contribution who is ignorant of then-current theories and experiments.
>
> wrong, someone were under 30 at that
> time, and definitely knew less, if any,
> than his teachers, which were professors
> and doctors
>
> i hear that that someone even had difficulties
> doing homeworks and introduction basic
> tests and examinations
>
> > You would
> > be well-advised to STUDY what is already known.
> > Tom Roberts
>
> i dont understand

Roberts was the type of student that would do pot and
LSD, while good students would do 3 hrs extra homework,
drinking coffee, from the love of the subject, so that
gives guys like us about 20-30 years experience on Tom,
but that's the US system, liberal socialism, Tom & ilk
pays money and Wizard of Oz sticks a diploma down there
pants, that's why we call them dopers.
Ken
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: SR is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT - Tom Roberts
Next: SR is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT - Tom Roberts