Prev: Well founded non-standard models?
Next: The purpose of the Peano Axioms
From: glird on 18 May 2010 16:05
On May 17, 10:38 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
>
> So, when you encounter something that is incomprehensible to you,
> despite it being comprehensible to hundreds of thousands of other
> people, rather than treat it as an opportunity to learn something you
> just assume it's nonsense and go back to spinning your wheels in your
> own little tiny universe.
> you are pitiable.
>

It is just the opposite! Hundreds of millions of people have never
understood
the mechanism of gravity or what light physically is or what a photon
is or how an atom reacts with transient light in a quantum reaction. I
do.
Rather than investigate my explanations, you just assume they are
nonsense, and ignorantly ignore them.

glird
From: PD on 18 May 2010 16:12
On May 18, 3:05 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On May 17, 10:38 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > So, when you encounter something that is incomprehensible to you,
> > despite it being comprehensible to hundreds of thousands of other
> > people, rather than treat it as an opportunity to learn something you
> > just assume it's nonsense and go back to spinning your wheels in your
> > own little tiny universe.
> > you are pitiable.
>
>   It is just the opposite!  Hundreds of millions of people have never
> understood
> the mechanism of gravity or what light physically is or what a photon
> is or how an atom reacts with transient light in a quantum reaction. I
> do.

A claim of understanding, plus 75 cents, will buy a cup of coffee.
What is needed is a *demonstration* of understanding. That
demonstration comes in one and only one way in science: Use your model
to make a quantitative prediction that is different than the
prediction of prevailing models, and which can be tested in accessible
experimental measurement. Until you do this, you really don't have
anything except possibly a cup of coffee.

>  Rather than investigate my explanations, you just assume they are
> nonsense, and ignorantly ignore them.

They will be ignored, yes, until you produce what I just described to
you.

>
> glird

From: BURT on 18 May 2010 16:16
On May 18, 1:05 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On May 17, 10:38 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > So, when you encounter something that is incomprehensible to you,
> > despite it being comprehensible to hundreds of thousands of other
> > people, rather than treat it as an opportunity to learn something you
> > just assume it's nonsense and go back to spinning your wheels in your
> > own little tiny universe.
> > you are pitiable.
>
>   It is just the opposite!  Hundreds of millions of people have never
> understood

You mean nobody at all at this time understands. Science is too young.
Give it time. Give it millions of years before saying it knows a lot.

Mitch Raemsch


> the mechanism of gravity or what light physically is or what a photon
> is or how an atom reacts with transient light in a quantum reaction. I
> do.
>  Rather than investigate my explanations, you just assume they are
> nonsense, and ignorantly ignore them.
>
> glird

From: glird on 18 May 2010 18:03
On May 18, 4:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>< A claim of understanding, plus 75 cents, will buy a cup of coffee. What is needed is a *demonstration* of understanding. That demonstration comes in one and only one way in science:
Use your model to make a quantitative prediction that is different
than the prediction of prevailing models, and which can be tested in
accessible experimental measurement.

I wrote a book, "The Nature of Matter and Energy", and published it
in 1965. It contains quantitative models of things that had no
comparable models in any other existing theories. Since then, almost
every such "prediction" has been experimentally confirmed by data
produced by experimental physicists who never heard of my book.
In 2008, after writing several other books that condensed and then
extended the things set forth in my prior ones, I decided to apply my
general comprehension of the structure of the real world to a stufy of
quantum theory. To do that I followed my usual procdure; which is to
go to the original papers written by the person or people who created
the given theory. In this case it was Max planck. Rather than read
what other people said about his theory I got a copy of his original
paper, and studied that. As usual, I found in it things that no-one
else seems to have noticed. Wrt one such detail I found that by doing
thus and so - which he never did, I came up with the exact
experimental value of h. Within a few days of that, I came up with an
explanation of every detail of what his quantum of action (h)
physically is and also what his quantum of energy (e_0 = hf) is, both
physically and mathematically.

> Until you do this, you really don't have
> anything except possibly a cup of coffee.

I did it; and published the results. As of now, it cost me more to
publish my books than I got back. But so what?
Coffee and food cost less than I get from SS and i own my
home so the "rent" is just the tax charged by various layers of our
government. So i don't want or need any money for helping the rest of
you understand the theory of reality.

glird


From: glird on 21 May 2010 13:59
On May 17, 10:38 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote:

>< A claim of understanding, plus 75 cents, will buy a cup of coffee. What is needed is a *demonstration* of understanding. That demonstration comes in one and only one way in science: Use your model to make a quantitative prediction that is different than the prediction of prevailing models, and which can be tested in accessible experimental measurement. >

glird replied,
< I wrote a book, "The Nature of Matter and Energy", and published it
in 1965. It contains quantitative models of things that had no
comparable models in any other existing theories. Since then, almost
every such "prediction" has been experimentally confirmed by data
produced by experimental physicists who never heard of my book.>

Furthermore, the physicists were surprised and amazed in almost
every case, at the data they found.

W had added,
> Until you do this, you really don't have
> anything except possibly a cup of coffee.

To which, after writing what follows below, I replied
< I did it; and published the results. As of now, it cost me more to
publish my books than I got back. But so what?
Coffee and food cost less than I get from SS and i own my
home so the "rent" is just the tax charged by various layers of our
government. So i don't want or need any money for helping the rest of
you understand the theory of reality. >

Here is what had followed:
< In 2008, after writing several other books that condensed and then
extended the things set forth in my prior ones, I decided to apply my
general comprehension of the structure of the real world to a study of
quantum theory. To do that I followed my usual procedure; which is to
go to the original papers written by the person or people who created
the given theory. In this case it was Max Planck. Rather than read
what other people said about his theory I got a copy of his original
paper, and studied that. As usual, I found in it things that no one
else seems to have noticed. Wrt one such detail I found that by doing
thus and so - which he never did, I came up with the exact
experimental value of h. Within a few days of that, I came up with an
explanation of every detail of what his quantum of action (h)
physically is and also what his quantum of energy (e_0 = hf) is, both
physically and mathematically. >

As usual, NO ONE has replied.
Evidently no one is interested in understanding the things physics
only
know how to measure. Too bad for them.

glird
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Well founded non-standard models?
Next: The purpose of the Peano Axioms