Prev: CERN, LHC, strangelet = droplet of death. Copy this letter and send it to another forum; to physicists, politicians, prosecutors, terrorists; to citizens of Geneva and so on.
Next: NATURE: A CoGeNT result in the hunt for dark matter [?]
From: Robert Higgins on 12 Mar 2010 11:59
On Mar 12, 8:01 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> wrote:
> "Robert Higgins" <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8c3d0a49-5636-40ca-8c5a-faaa65049f97(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 12, 7:19 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Robert Higgins" <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:0235a979-203f-44e6-a33b-4575fe6c67dc(a)o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com....
> > On Mar 11, 10:54 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:52:23 -0800, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> > > > On Mar 2, 6:26 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
> > > >> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 07:51:37 -0800, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> > > >> > he was NEVER an obstacle to quantum mechanics. he just had some
> > > >> > interesting points that where deeply filosofic. most of the times
> > > >> > he
> > > >> > was not so interested in details but in the deep mysteries of the
> > > >> > universe.
>
> > > >> He injected personal bias about how HE thought the universe ought to
> > > >> be
> > > >> into his "science". He just didn't LIKE the idea of QM and he had no
> > > >> scientific basis for doing so.
>
> > > > and what more powerful way to prove that his thoughts where correct
> > > > than
> > > > with an new theory of gravity.
>
> > > GR has nothing to do with QM. And his theory of gravity is more of a
> > > description of gravity, and not a theory.
>
> > > > he was one of the founders of QM so what could he posibly care about
> > > > it,
> > > > right!
>
> > > His contributions were using Dirac's quantum theory to explain the
> > > photo-
> > > electric effect,
>
> > Einstein explained the photoelectric effect in 1905, when Dirac was
> > three (!) years old. What version of QM had Dirac developed by age
> > three? Dirac was born in 1902 - maybe you can do the math, but maybe
> > not.
>
> > > and making really bad arguments based on his personal
> > > beliefs and biases against QM.
>
> > "really bad arguments" that continually tied Bohr in knots.
> > Eventually, Bohr found the holes in Einstein's arguments,
>
> > ============================================
> > So you agree Einstein's arguments were full of holes.
>
> About QM, certainly, in many cases.
> The martian's comments about Dirac, though, undermine his argument
> (even more than his inability to do arithmetic). One of Dirac's
> important contributions to QM was to incorporate the special theory of
> relativity to wave mechanics.
> =============================================
> Dirac was autistic

very speculative - it is pretty clear that the author has never seen
anyone with autism, and pulled the word out of the air based on
reading a paragraph in the encyclopedia.

> and the stupid theory of relativity has more holes than
> a colander.

It is amazing how the "stupid" theory of relativity applied to
Schroedinger's wave mechanics yielded the accurate prediction of the
positron... hmmm.

>  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113435529
> You've just produced a really bad argument. Hmm... I correct myself.
> You haven't produced an argument at all, just a statement that if it were
> an argument would be really bad.

I thought that you would like Dirac - him being an (electrrical)
engineer and all.
From: Marvin the Martian on 12 Mar 2010 12:15
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:03:24 -0800, Robert Higgins wrote:

> On Mar 11, 10:54 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:52:23 -0800, Raymond Yohros wrote:
>> > On Mar 2, 6:26 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 07:51:37 -0800, Raymond Yohros wrote:
>> >> > he was NEVER an obstacle to quantum mechanics. he just had some
>> >> > interesting points that where deeply filosofic. most of the times
>> >> > he was not so interested in details but in the deep mysteries of
>> >> > the universe.
>>
>> >> He injected personal bias about how HE thought the universe ought to
>> >> be into his "science". He just didn't LIKE the idea of QM and he had
>> >> no scientific basis for doing so.
>>
>> > and what more powerful way to prove that his thoughts where correct
>> > than with an new theory of gravity.
>>
>> GR has nothing to do with QM. And his theory of gravity is more of a
>> description of gravity, and not a theory.
>>
>> > he was one of the founders of QM so what could he posibly care about
>> > it, right!
>>
>> His contributions were using Dirac's quantum theory to explain the
>> photo- electric effect,
>
> Einstein explained the photoelectric effect in 1905, when Dirac was
> three (!) years old. What version of QM had Dirac developed by age
> three? Dirac was born in 1902 - maybe you can do the math, but maybe
> not.

My bad. Planck's hypothesis about the quantum, not Dirac.

>> and making really bad arguments based on his personal beliefs and
>> biases against QM.
>
> "really bad arguments" that continually tied Bohr in knots. Eventually,
> Bohr found the holes in Einstein's arguments, but it always took him a
> while to do so. I found the hole in your "Dirac" argument in about three
> seconds, so I guess YOU are the one guilty of REALLY BAD ARGUMENTS. I
> wonder if Dirac or Einstein at age three could have found the hole in
> your argument, too - probably.
>
> [snipped the rest of ignorant rant]

I made an mistake. In your case, your momma made a mistake and didn't
drown you immediately after birth.

The simple fact is, Einstein used someone else's theory to explain the
photoelectric effect, which was also discovered by someone else. That was
the point, which you totally missed.
From: Marvin the Martian on 12 Mar 2010 12:20
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:32:48 -0800, Robert Higgins wrote:


> About QM, certainly, in many cases.
> The martian's comments about Dirac, though, undermine his argument (even
> more than his inability to do arithmetic).

No, it shows you have a pea brain and are easily distracted by irrelevant
errors. Planck, not Dirac. The point remains the same. Einstein took
someone else's discovery about the photo electric effect and used someone
else's theory to explain it. It was a plug and chug.


> One of Dirac's important
> contributions to QM was to incorporate the special theory of relativity
> to wave mechanics.

You do love the red herring sandwich, don't you? :-)

> One (of many) important results was the prediction of
> anti-matter, which turned out to be quite correct. Dirac's version of QM
> is essential for the accurate calculation of properties for heavy atoms,
> where relativistic effects become important.

Well, thank god for Lorentz's discovery of the Lorentz transformation
which was based on Maxwell's equations, and Planck, Dirac, Schrödinger,
Heisenberg and the other great scientist who founded Quantum mechanics.

Too bad your hero had nothing to do with it besides objecting to it.

From: J. Clarke on 12 Mar 2010 12:48
On 3/12/2010 12:15 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:03:24 -0800, Robert Higgins wrote:
>
>> On Mar 11, 10:54 pm, Marvin the Martian<mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:52:23 -0800, Raymond Yohros wrote:
>>>> On Mar 2, 6:26 pm, Marvin the Martian<mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 07:51:37 -0800, Raymond Yohros wrote:
>>>>>> he was NEVER an obstacle to quantum mechanics. he just had some
>>>>>> interesting points that where deeply filosofic. most of the times
>>>>>> he was not so interested in details but in the deep mysteries of
>>>>>> the universe.
>>>
>>>>> He injected personal bias about how HE thought the universe ought to
>>>>> be into his "science". He just didn't LIKE the idea of QM and he had
>>>>> no scientific basis for doing so.
>>>
>>>> and what more powerful way to prove that his thoughts where correct
>>>> than with an new theory of gravity.
>>>
>>> GR has nothing to do with QM. And his theory of gravity is more of a
>>> description of gravity, and not a theory.
>>>
>>>> he was one of the founders of QM so what could he posibly care about
>>>> it, right!
>>>
>>> His contributions were using Dirac's quantum theory to explain the
>>> photo- electric effect,
>>
>> Einstein explained the photoelectric effect in 1905, when Dirac was
>> three (!) years old. What version of QM had Dirac developed by age
>> three? Dirac was born in 1902 - maybe you can do the math, but maybe
>> not.
>
> My bad. Planck's hypothesis about the quantum, not Dirac.
>
>>> and making really bad arguments based on his personal beliefs and
>>> biases against QM.
>>
>> "really bad arguments" that continually tied Bohr in knots. Eventually,
>> Bohr found the holes in Einstein's arguments, but it always took him a
>> while to do so. I found the hole in your "Dirac" argument in about three
>> seconds, so I guess YOU are the one guilty of REALLY BAD ARGUMENTS. I
>> wonder if Dirac or Einstein at age three could have found the hole in
>> your argument, too - probably.
>>
>> [snipped the rest of ignorant rant]
>
> I made an mistake. In your case, your momma made a mistake and didn't
> drown you immediately after birth.
>
> The simple fact is, Einstein used someone else's theory to explain the
> photoelectric effect, which was also discovered by someone else. That was
> the point, which you totally missed.

Bored now.

<plonk>

From: Androcles on 12 Mar 2010 13:25

"Robert Higgins" <robert_higgins_61(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:be6de9cf-d1b3-4043-ad14-f87e621a6949(a)j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 12, 8:01 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> wrote:
> "Robert Higgins" <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8c3d0a49-5636-40ca-8c5a-faaa65049f97(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 12, 7:19 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Robert Higgins" <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:0235a979-203f-44e6-a33b-4575fe6c67dc(a)o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 11, 10:54 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:52:23 -0800, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> > > > On Mar 2, 6:26 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
> > > >> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 07:51:37 -0800, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> > > >> > he was NEVER an obstacle to quantum mechanics. he just had some
> > > >> > interesting points that where deeply filosofic. most of the times
> > > >> > he
> > > >> > was not so interested in details but in the deep mysteries of the
> > > >> > universe.
>
> > > >> He injected personal bias about how HE thought the universe ought
> > > >> to
> > > >> be
> > > >> into his "science". He just didn't LIKE the idea of QM and he had
> > > >> no
> > > >> scientific basis for doing so.
>
> > > > and what more powerful way to prove that his thoughts where correct
> > > > than
> > > > with an new theory of gravity.
>
> > > GR has nothing to do with QM. And his theory of gravity is more of a
> > > description of gravity, and not a theory.
>
> > > > he was one of the founders of QM so what could he posibly care about
> > > > it,
> > > > right!
>
> > > His contributions were using Dirac's quantum theory to explain the
> > > photo-
> > > electric effect,
>
> > Einstein explained the photoelectric effect in 1905, when Dirac was
> > three (!) years old. What version of QM had Dirac developed by age
> > three? Dirac was born in 1902 - maybe you can do the math, but maybe
> > not.
>
> > > and making really bad arguments based on his personal
> > > beliefs and biases against QM.
>
> > "really bad arguments" that continually tied Bohr in knots.
> > Eventually, Bohr found the holes in Einstein's arguments,
>
> > ============================================
> > So you agree Einstein's arguments were full of holes.
>
> About QM, certainly, in many cases.
> The martian's comments about Dirac, though, undermine his argument
> (even more than his inability to do arithmetic). One of Dirac's
> important contributions to QM was to incorporate the special theory of
> relativity to wave mechanics.
> =============================================
> Dirac was autistic

very speculative - it is pretty clear that the author has never seen
anyone with autism, and pulled the word out of the air based on
reading a paragraph in the encyclopedia.

> and the stupid theory of relativity has more holes than
> a colander.

It is amazing how the "stupid" theory of relativity applied to
Schroedinger's wave mechanics yielded the accurate prediction of the
positron... hmmm.

===============================================
Bwhahahahahaha!

So Schroedinger's wave mechanics + time dilation = electron * -1.

Very speculative - it is pretty clear that it is amazing how the gullible
like to spread bullshit as though it were jam on bread. hmmm...


> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113435529
> You've just produced a really bad argument. Hmm... I correct myself.
> You haven't produced an argument at all, just a statement that if it were
> an argument would be really bad.

I thought that you would like Dirac - him being an (electrrical)
engineer and all.
===============================================
I thought his greatest achievement was he managed to write a plus sign
on an electron, and Asimov developed a brain for his robots with it.
Given the present state of development of Japanese robots I'd say
positronic brains were a really bad argument.
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2009/03/16/robot.html
Compared to some Japanese engineers, your hero Dirac was an idiot.
What that makes you I'll not speculate.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Prev: CERN, LHC, strangelet = droplet of death. Copy this letter and send it to another forum; to physicists, politicians, prosecutors, terrorists; to citizens of Geneva and so on.
Next: NATURE: A CoGeNT result in the hunt for dark matter [?]