It's official! I'm a crackpot!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: 3D shapes of the Prime Number Sums - 3D_solids.JPG (0/1)
Next: Quantum Gravity 395.3: 2-Time Memory Generalization of Riccati Differential Equations
From: blackhead on 16 May 2010 21:51 On 14 May, 01:42, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > On May 13, 1:43 am, Salmon Egg <Salmon...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > What is surprising is that you were the last to know. > > "Egg", I'm ALWAYS the last to know! > > I knew I could count on you guys to be jealous! > > Actually, guys, I've got much better credentials than this. For > example being fired from the Ohio State University Chemistry > Department for "incompetence". A state employee fired for > "incompetence"? Now THAT takes some SERIOUS ability! Did you honestly used to work there?
From: Benj on 17 May 2010 18:26 On May 16, 9:51 pm, blackhead <larryhar...(a)softhome.net> wrote: > > I knew I could count on you guys to be jealous! > > > Actually, guys, I've got much better credentials than this. For > > example being fired from the Ohio State University Chemistry > > Department for "incompetence". A state employee fired for > > "incompetence"? Now THAT takes some SERIOUS ability! > > Did you honestly used to work there? Why would I lie about that? What? You want me to tell you some "mutant cockroach" stories to prove I was there? Hey, I'll bet "Uncle Al" gets around enough to have heard of the famous "sawtooth roaches"!
From: Benj on 17 May 2010 18:30 On May 15, 8:53 am, jmfbahciv <See.ab...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > Not yet. But you are an example of the source of the problem. > You don't know how work is done, let alone how to do it. You > are very proud of yourself when you're abjectly stupid (defn. > stupid on purpose to the point where the action transforms > into a religious belief and practice). STOP! STOP! You are destroying my Self-of-Steam! Haven't you heard that in the modern world EVERYONE must be a winner! Hence I can't be a loser, because we are all winners! Even you!
From: blackhead on 18 May 2010 21:26 On 17 May, 23:26, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > On May 16, 9:51 pm, blackhead <larryhar...(a)softhome.net> wrote: > > > > I knew I could count on you guys to be jealous! > > > > Actually, guys, I've got much better credentials than this. For > > > example being fired from the Ohio State University Chemistry > > > Department for "incompetence". A state employee fired for > > > "incompetence"? Now THAT takes some SERIOUS ability! > > > Did you honestly used to work there? > > Why would I lie about that? > What? You want me to tell you some "mutant cockroach" stories to prove > I was there? > Hey, I'll bet "Uncle Al" gets around enough to have heard of the > famous "sawtooth roaches"! Lol, ok. But i guess you were fired just as you were retiring.
From: PD on 28 May 2010 10:58
On May 28, 9:32 am, "Bill Miller" <kt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > "Benj" <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote in message > > news:57e8c99b-8351-446f-8c6f-841dbd82981c(a)e2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > > I'm sure this will come as no surprise to any of the regulars here, > > but I just thought that you needed to know that now I'm "officially" a > > crackpot! There's nothing like having REAL "credentials" to prove > > your competence. I mean that's what college degrees are all about, no? > > Benj... Congratulations! > > And cheer up. > > If you had criticized the high-priest of Quetzelraincoatl (the Toltec god of > feathered rainwear) your chastisement would have included a quick bout of > open-heart surgery followed by a tumble down the stairs that would have made > the special effects director for Gone With The Wind weep with despair. > > Or, if you had criticized papal authority in 15th Century Spain, you would > have been invited to imbibe a liquid lead flagon in a farewell toast to your > beliefs. > > Of course, we live in a more enlightened age wherein cricism of the high > priests -- Ummm... Professors -- of physics simply banish heretical > accolytes from their presence. > > An associate of mine made the following comments regarding the current state > of physics: > > "1. Quantum gravity has been an active area of study for about 60 years. > That 60 years and a buck will get you a cup of coffee. > > 2. Quantum computing dates back to the 1970s and with a huge effort, the > number of useful products is zero. > > 3. Quantum entanglement has been around since about 1935; the number of > useful products is zero. Let's see, that is 75 years. > > 4. The Many Worlds concept has been around for about 40 years. The number of > useful products is zero. > > 5. The string theory concept has been around for about 40 years. The number > of useful products is zero." > > There are other examples, but this should be sufficient to show that physics > has been mostly spinning its wheels for a half-century. Hmmm. Mendelian genetics has been around since 1863. The work was completely ignored for 50 years, and it didn't have any impact on everyday life for a hundred years. Newton's universal law of gravity has been around since 1687. The first notable new prediction it made was the discovery of Neptune in 1846. The first practical implication of it was the launching of artificial satellites in the 1950s. You seem to believe that the metric for the value of science is how fast it can generate consumer devices. There is a difference between R & D, and there is a good reason for both. Research is done without necessarily keeping an eye on practical development. Development is taking the result of research and developing it into practical applications. I understand that you value D and not R, and you would rather see all investment removed from R and moved to D. I think most people who are active in either side of R&D would disagree with you. > > There's an old saying regarding problem solving: "If you find yourself in a > hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging." > > Perhaps it might be useful to go back to the point where things came unstuck > and re-examine the problem. Is it possible that the double slit experiment > that led us into wave-particle duality, entanglement, a moon that doesn't > exist until we look at it, and infinities that we must "normalize away" > *might* have some sensible alternative explanations? > > Or should we just keep digging? > > Bill (un-official crackpot) Miller |