When an electron splits in two

[Sam Wormley]

When an electron splits in two

http://phys.org/news/2015-05-electron.html
(Phys.org)—As an elementary particle, the electron cannot be broken
down into smaller particles, at least as far as is currently known.
However, in a phenomenon called electron fractionalization, in
certain materials an electron can be broken down into smaller "charge
pulses," each of which carries a fraction of the electron's charge.
Although electron fractionalization has many interesting
implications, its origins are not well understood.
Now in a new paper published in Nature Communications, a team of
physicists led by Gwendal Fève at the Ecole Normale Supérieure in
Paris and the Laboratory for Photonics and Nanostructures in
Marcoussis have applied an experiment typically used to study photons
to investigate the underlying mechanisms of electron
fractionalization. The method allows the researchers to observe
single-electron fractionalization on the picosecond scale.

--

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion
of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related
social issues.

[reber g=emc^2]

Post by Sam Wormley
When an electron splits in two

http://phys.org/news/2015-05-electron.html
(Phys.org)--As an elementary particle, the electron cannot be broken
down into smaller particles, at least as far as is currently known.
However, in a phenomenon called electron fractionalization, in
certain materials an electron can be broken down into smaller "charge
pulses," each of which carries a fraction of the electron's charge.
Although electron fractionalization has many interesting
implications, its origins are not well understood.
Now in a new paper published in Nature Communications, a team of
physicists led by Gwendal Fève at the Ecole Normale Supérieure in
Paris and the Laboratory for Photonics and Nanostructures in
Marcoussis have applied an experiment typically used to study photons
to investigate the underlying mechanisms of electron
fractionalization. The method allows the researchers to observe
single-electron fractionalization on the picosecond scale.

--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion
of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related
social issues.

Sam you must have read my "STRUCTURE OF THE ELECTRON"? I posted it over the 23 years 50 times.It is simple and proven. TreBert

[john]

Take note, Bod.
Fractured electrons

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by john
Take note, Bod.
Fractured electrons

I don't see Sam's posts (I'm guessing it was Sam's), so I can't take
note of anything. Had you used quoting in your reply, I would have.

[john]

Sam cutnpasted:


"When an electron splits in two

http://phys.org/news/2015-05-electron.html
(Phys.org)--As an elementary particle, the electron cannot be broken
down into smaller particles, at least as far as is currently known.
However, in a phenomenon called electron fractionalization, in
certain materials an electron can be broken down into smaller "charge
pulses," each of which carries a fraction of the electron's charge.
Although electron fractionalization has many interesting
implications, its origins are not well understood.
Now in a new paper published in Nature Communications, a team of
physicists led by Gwendal Fève at the Ecole Normale Supérieure in
Paris and the Laboratory for Photonics and Nanostructures in
Marcoussis have applied an experiment typically used to study photons
to investigate the underlying mechanisms of electron
fractionalization. The method allows the researchers to observe
single-electron fractionalization on the picosecond scale. "

There goes your "fundamental " particles
(Good guess)

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by john
"When an electron splits in two

http://phys.org/news/2015-05-electron.html
(Phys.org)--As an elementary particle, the electron cannot be broken
down into smaller particles, at least as far as is currently known.
However, in a phenomenon called electron fractionalization, in
certain materials an electron can be broken down into smaller "charge
pulses," each of which carries a fraction of the electron's charge.
Although electron fractionalization has many interesting
implications, its origins are not well understood.
Now in a new paper published in Nature Communications, a team of
physicists led by Gwendal Fève at the Ecole Normale Supérieure in
Paris and the Laboratory for Photonics and Nanostructures in
Marcoussis have applied an experiment typically used to study photons
to investigate the underlying mechanisms of electron
fractionalization. The method allows the researchers to observe
single-electron fractionalization on the picosecond scale. "

There goes your "fundamental " particles
(Good guess)

Not really, no. This doesn't say, if you actually read the scientific
article, that the electron as been split into two pieces.

[R Kym Horsell]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by john
"When an electron splits in two

http://phys.org/news/2015-05-electron.html
(Phys.org)--As an elementary particle, the electron cannot be broken
down into smaller particles, at least as far as is currently known.
However, in a phenomenon called electron fractionalization, in
certain materials an electron can be broken down into smaller "charge
pulses," each of which carries a fraction of the electron's charge.
Although electron fractionalization has many interesting
implications, its origins are not well understood.
Now in a new paper published in Nature Communications, a team of
physicists led by Gwendal F?ve at the Ecole Normale Sup?rieure in
Paris and the Laboratory for Photonics and Nanostructures in
Marcoussis have applied an experiment typically used to study photons
to investigate the underlying mechanisms of electron
fractionalization. The method allows the researchers to observe
single-electron fractionalization on the picosecond scale. "

There goes your "fundamental " particles
(Good guess)

Not really, no. This doesn't say, if you actually read the scientific
article, that the electron as been split into two pieces.

And if obviously and specifically says the opposite in the first 2 lines of
the quote. Maybe the tongue-in-cheek title was what caught john's eye...

When they say that at the quantum level particles can be smeared over
a region (just as if they are waves begorrah!!) it's a bad assumption to
think each property of the particle will be smeared in exactly the same way.

Separating spin or charge or mangnetic moment from the position of a
particle or even physically separating wavelike and particlelike properties
is not a particularly new idea and some might call it a trick.

So the momentum is mostly over here and the charge is mostly
over there.

Pffsst. Big deal. :)

Given that first part of the quote most physicists call them
"quasiparticles" e.g. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractionalization .
--
[James (Follett) <***@fewpb.net> starts a thread
"Has science lost its way?" based on a piece written by sometime
denialist darling Judith Curry].

Post by Odd Bodkin
Poor misguided James posts something he thinks has to do with global
warming when it has to do with promoting on line journals. It is about
how medical studies,done by pharmaceutical companies,have perverted
science. Had you read the article to the end you would have read this.
"So, has science lost it's way? I don't think so,"
Judith Curry.

-- gordo <***@shaw.ca.remove>, 3 Dec 2013

[Sam Wormley]

Post by john
"When an electron splits in two

http://phys.org/news/2015-05-electron.html
(Phys.org)--As an elementary particle, the electron cannot be broken
down into smaller particles, at least as far as is currently known.
However, in a phenomenon called electron fractionalization, in
certain materials an electron can be broken down into smaller "charge
pulses," each of which carries a fraction of the electron's charge.
Although electron fractionalization has many interesting
implications, its origins are not well understood.
Now in a new paper published in Nature Communications, a team of
physicists led by Gwendal Fève at the Ecole Normale Supérieure in
Paris and the Laboratory for Photonics and Nanostructures in
Marcoussis have applied an experiment typically used to study photons
to investigate the underlying mechanisms of electron
fractionalization. The method allows the researchers to observe
single-electron fractionalization on the picosecond scale. "

There goes your "fundamental " particles
(Good guess)

Did you read the first sentence, John, that says, "the electron
cannot be broken down into smaller particles"?

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by john
"When an electron splits in two

http://phys.org/news/2015-05-electron.html

There goes your "fundamental " particles
(Good guess)

John, has it occurred to you that your extremely superficial readings
have basically given you a kindergartener's understanding of physics,
wherein you believe:
- If a pop press article has a title "When an electron splits in two"
this proves that electrons are not fundamental.
- That matter attracts matter so antimatter should repel matter because
"anti" means "whatever matter does, antimatter does the opposite".
- That event should mean something that is a process that happens over a
region of space and an interval of time, and so if physicists mean
something else it's obviously mistaken.
- That photons have to travel in straight lines or I wouldn't be able to
see stars at night.
- That the word smaller means "smallest" is an impossible word, because
there would be smaller than smallest.
- That because some things have a fractal nature, then everything does,
and therefore there is life inside atoms.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by Odd Bodkin
- That event should mean something that is a process that happens over a
region of space and an interval of time, and so if [anyone else] mean[s]
something else it's obviously mistaken.

IIRC correctly, you held the same weird opinion not so long ago.

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Odd Bodkin
- That event should mean something that is a process that happens over a
region of space and an interval of time, and so if [anyone else] mean[s]
something else it's obviously mistaken.

IIRC correctly, you held the same weird opinion not so long ago.

No, I don't believe I did. I think I quoted both to you and to John how
it is described by Taylor and Wheeler, and by Geroch.

Robert Geroch, General Relativity From A to B:

"By an event we mean an idealized occurrence in the physical world
having extension in neither space nor time. For example, "the explosion
of a firecracker" or "the snapping of one's fingers" would represent an
event. (By contrast, "a particle" would not represent an event, for it
has "extension in time"; "a long piece of rope" has "extension in
space.") By "occurrence in the physical world" we mean that an event is
to be regarded as a part of the world in which we live, not as a
construct in some theory."

Spacetime Physics, Taylor and Wheeler, Section 1.3:

"In physics, the fundamental concept is _event_. The collision between
one particle and another is an event, with its own location in
spacetime. Another event is the emission of a flash of light from an
atom. A third is the impact of the pebble that chips the windshield of a
speeding car. A fourth event, likewise fixing in and by itself a
location in spacetime, is the strike of a lightning bolt on the rudder
of an airplane. An event marks a location in spacetime; it is like a
steel spike driven into spacetime."

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Odd Bodkin
- That event should mean something that is a process that happens over a
region of space and an interval of time, and so if [anyone else] mean[s]
something else it's obviously mistaken.

IIRC correctly, you held the same weird opinion not so long ago.

No, I don't believe I did. I think I quoted both to you and to John how
it is described by Taylor and Wheeler, and by Geroch.

Yes, you can quote, but that is all you can.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Odd Bodkin
- That event should mean something that is a process that happens over a
region of space and an interval of time, and so if [anyone else] mean[s]
something else it's obviously mistaken.

IIRC correctly, you held the same weird opinion not so long ago.

No, I don't believe I did. I think I quoted both to you and to John how
it is described by Taylor and Wheeler, and by Geroch.

Yes, you can quote, but that is all you can. Ping me when you have managed
to form an opinion of your own.

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Odd Bodkin
- That event should mean something that is a process that happens over a
region of space and an interval of time, and so if [anyone else] mean[s]
something else it's obviously mistaken.

IIRC correctly, you held the same weird opinion not so long ago.

No, I don't believe I did. I think I quoted both to you and to John how
it is described by Taylor and Wheeler, and by Geroch.

Yes, you can quote, but that is all you can. Ping me when you have managed
to form an opinion of your own.

I happen to agree with them.
I don't believe that it serves much purpose to form an opinion on a
matter of physics without reference to what physicists say. I also think
that a web engineer demonstrating that he can form an opinion that is
different than what physicists say is basically a demonstration of
nothing really.

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Yes, you can quote, but that is all you can. Ping me when you have managed
to form an opinion of your own.

I happen to agree with them.
I don't believe that it serves much purpose to form an opinion on a
matter of physics without reference to what physicists say. I also think
that a web engineer demonstrating that he can form an opinion that is
different than what physicists say is basically a demonstration of
nothing really.

There is another engineer in the group -- you may have run across Koobee
Wublee -- who has arrived at his opinion that he alone understands the
mathematics of Riemannian geometry and that no person since the mid 19th
century has been competent to even deal with it, and as a result it is
obvious (to Koobee) that the twin paradox is genuinely a logical
contradiction. His opinion that his opinion is unassailable is related
to why he refers to himself with capitalized third-person pronouns. One
wonders whether your opinion of your own opinions is comparable, given
your posting history to various newsgroups.

You may also be interested in comparing your position to Ken Fischer who
acknowledges that he has not read much of any of the books on gravity
that he has bought because he stops reading them when he gets to
something he doesn't believe (generally around page 4). And despite the
fact that algebra and trigonometry elude him, he is of the opinion that
he has done PhD-quality work in forming his own opinions about gravity.
So maybe you and he place comparable value on uninformed opinion.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Yes, you can quote, but that is all you can. Ping me when you have managed
to form an opinion of your own.

I happen to agree with them.
I don't believe that it serves much purpose to form an opinion on a
matter of physics without reference to what physicists say. I also think
that a web engineer demonstrating that he can form an opinion that is
different than what physicists say is basically a demonstration of
nothing really.

There is another engineer in the group […]

You are thinking of people in the way of labeled cupboard boxes.

Your logic is flawed.

[john]

He doesn't believe in logic

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by john
He doesn't believe in logic

Neither do you. You believe in intuition and common sense, and you like
to CALL that logic.

When something really happens in nature and you call it illogical....
well, John, that's just being silly.

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Yes, you can quote, but that is all you can. Ping me when you have managed
to form an opinion of your own.

I happen to agree with them.
I don't believe that it serves much purpose to form an opinion on a
matter of physics without reference to what physicists say. I also think
that a web engineer demonstrating that he can form an opinion that is
different than what physicists say is basically a demonstration of
nothing really.

There is another engineer in the group […]

You are thinking of people in the way of labeled cupboard boxes.

The cupboard labeling doesn't have much to do with being an engineer. It
does have a lot to do with hubris, bluster, and frothy claims that are
in disagreement with what physicists say. Couple that with augmenting
the frothy claims with "And I know more about it than you do because I
have training in an unrelated field, so you must have misunderstood
something," and you've got a bing-bing-bing match on the cupboard label.

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Your logic is flawed.

[HVAC]

Post by Odd Bodkin
You may also be interested in comparing your position to Ken Fischer who
acknowledges that he has not read much of any of the books on gravity
that he has bought because he stops reading them when he gets to
something he doesn't believe (generally around page 4). And despite the
fact that algebra and trigonometry elude him, he is of the opinion that
he has done PhD-quality work in forming his own opinions about gravity.
So maybe you and he place comparable value on uninformed opinion.

Too bad that Bert is gone. He doesn't read either. But he thinks he
should be awarded 4-5 Nobels

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Odd Bodkin
- That event should mean something that is a process that happens over
a region of space and an interval of time, and so if [anyone else]
mean[s] something else it's obviously mistaken.

IIRC correctly, you held the same weird opinion not so long ago.

No, I don't believe I did. I think I quoted both to you and to John how
it is described by Taylor and Wheeler, and by Geroch.

Yes, you can quote, but that is all you can. Ping me when you have
managed to form an opinion of your own.

I happen to agree with them.

I do not think that you actually know what you are agreeing with.

Post by Odd Bodkin
I don't believe that it serves much purpose to form an opinion on a
matter of physics without reference to what physicists say.

True, but at some point you should be able to formulate an opinion of your
own, that is, show that you have understood what you are quoting. So far,
nothing.

Post by Odd Bodkin
I also think that a web engineer demonstrating that he can form an opinion
that is different than what physicists say is basically a demonstration of
nothing really.

It is interesting that you keep repeating the same ad-hominem argument,
mentioning that I am a “Web engineer”, which is true (I am actually a long-
time software engineer with a specialty in Web-related development). Why do
you think that is important? Do you think that it does not take much to be
a (Web) software engineer, and a successful one at that? And do you think
it is easy to get that certification?

Consider:

Just like you (or so you claim, given that you may even be posting under a
fake name – “Odd” is an odd first name to begin with – I have no way to
verify what you said, while you have the possibilty to verify my CV), I have
completed studies at a university (two, actually).

However, different from you, apparently, I have not only the theoretical
knowledge but the practical experience (more than a decade) in my field
(computer science).

You are not a physicist either, you said you are not even a scientist (by
which you are saying that you do not consider yourself a scientist; another
matter on which we are different); you are, by your signature, a “maker of
fine toys, tools, tables”. By that, there is no good reason for you to
believe that your understanding of physics is in any way better than mine
(or anyone elses). Reading books written by physicicts does not make you
one. There is equally a chance that you misunderstood. There is equally a
chance that you have a collection of books, and read a selection from it,
that is not representative of the field.

So I think a little more humility on your part is indicated, lest you do not
want to come off as a wannabe.

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Odd Bodkin
- That event should mean something that is a process that happens over
a region of space and an interval of time, and so if [anyone else]
mean[s] something else it's obviously mistaken.

IIRC correctly, you held the same weird opinion not so long ago.

No, I don't believe I did. I think I quoted both to you and to John how
it is described by Taylor and Wheeler, and by Geroch.

Yes, you can quote, but that is all you can. Ping me when you have
managed to form an opinion of your own.

I happen to agree with them.

I do not think that you actually know what you are agreeing with.

Well, I quoted what they actually said. Now, if you think that they
actually MEANT something different than what they actually said, then I
congratulate you on your ability to telepathically divine their true
thoughts, especially from the ones that are dead.

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Odd Bodkin
I don't believe that it serves much purpose to form an opinion on a
matter of physics without reference to what physicists say.

True, but at some point you should be able to formulate an opinion of your
own, that is, show that you have understood what you are quoting. So far,
nothing.

I have formulated an opinion, as I've said. And I've stated my opinion
AS WELL AS quoting physicists who have explained it in a very similar
way. You can (or maybe you can't) look back in the posting history to
see what I've said about events other than the quoted statements.

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Odd Bodkin
I also think that a web engineer demonstrating that he can form an opinion
that is different than what physicists say is basically a demonstration of
nothing really.

It is interesting that you keep repeating the same ad-hominem argument,
mentioning that I am a “Web engineer”, which is true (I am actually a long-
time software engineer with a specialty in Web-related development). Why do
you think that is important? Do you think that it does not take much to be
a (Web) software engineer, and a successful one at that? And do you think
it is easy to get that certification?

I didn't say that being a web engineer was easy or not an
accomplishment. Being an architect also requires a great deal of work
but it does not confer expertise in vascular surgery. Being an
accomplished opera singer does not confer expertise in encryption
methods. Being an accomplished web engineer does not confer expertise in
anything other than web engineering. Being an avid Star Trek fan doesn't
confer expertise in anything other than the television show, and
certainly not in physics.

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Just like you (or so you claim, given that you may even be posting under a
fake name – “Odd” is an odd first name to begin with – I have no way to
verify what you said, while you have the possibilty to verify my CV), I have
completed studies at a university (two, actually).

That's fine. I wasn't aware that the newsgroup needed to be a
credential-based pissing contest. I'm happy to refer to the words and
work of physicists as being the state of art about physics.

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
However, different from you, apparently, I have not only the theoretical
knowledge but the practical experience (more than a decade) in my field
(computer science).

Very good, and I have theoretical and practical experience in
mathematics, philosophy, woodworking, and billiards. Congratulations all
around.

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
You are not a physicist either, you said you are not even a scientist (by
which you are saying that you do not consider yourself a scientist; another
matter on which we are different); you are, by your signature, a “maker of
fine toys, tools, tables”. By that, there is no good reason for you to
believe that your understanding of physics is in any way better than mine
(or anyone elses).

Well, there's the fact that my understanding of things is consistent
with what physicists have written and your understanding of things is
not consistent with what physicists have written. That being said, your
experience and training in computer science is completely irrelevant to
the mix, as is my experience and training in mathematics, philosophy,
woodworking, and billiards.

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Reading books written by physicicts does not make you
one. There is equally a chance that you misunderstood.

I don't think it's really difficult to understand the plain English that
the physicists have taken care to use to explain the concepts.

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
There is equally a
chance that you have a collection of books, and read a selection from it,
that is not representative of the field.
So I think a little more humility on your part is indicated, lest you do not
want to come off as a wannabe.

I really don't give a flying fuck how I come off to you. Your opinion of
me is completely insignificant. You've not exhibited one lick of the
humility that you are prescribing to others. Your ability to form and
express an opinion ABOUT PHYSICS based on your theoretical training and
practice as a computer scientist is as useful and compelling as your
ability to count to 200 without missing a number. Had you come in
yourself with the attitude, "Hey, you're right, all these physicists say
something completely different than what I'm saying, so maybe I'm not on
track after all," you wouldn't have gotten the reaction you've gotten so
far.

Bluster, bluff, and improvisational imposterism is a good strategy if
you are SURE you are among people who are just as amateurish as yourself
and who won't bother to check out what you're saying. But try to pull
that off in a venue where your audience WILL check out what you're
saying, and you'll only come off as an ass. In the end, it's always
going to come down to what physicists say.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Just like you (or so you claim, given that you may even be posting under
a fake name – “Odd” is an odd first name to begin with – I have no way to
verify what you said, while you have the possibilty to verify my CV), I
have completed studies at a university (two, actually).

That's fine. I wasn't aware that the newsgroup needed to be a
credential-based pissing contest.

You were the one who brought it up, and now you are complaining? FOAD.

[john]

Now you see why he nym-shifts-
he tends to piss people off.

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by john
Now you see why he nym-shifts-
he tends to piss people off.

Pissed off, John? About what, exactly?

[john]

The guy just told you to FOAD.
I assumed he was pissed off.
He TOLD you why

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by john
The guy just told you to FOAD.

Yup. Remarkable manners for a web engineer pretending to be above other
amateurs on the subject of physics.

Post by john
I assumed he was pissed off.

Maybe so. You seem kinda pissed off yourself. Why?

Post by john
He TOLD you why

[john]

No, I'm not pissed off.
Why would I be mad?
Name-calling doesn't break bones.
I'm actually super happy.
My son just hooked up with
Alex Rodman. His cousin Michell
just got a contract with Karl
Lagerfeld. And I know how Gravity
works

[john]

Oh- and my daughter is getting married
next month and has raised her 5-year
University average to 91 (it's 94 for this
year).
Why would I be mad?

[benj]

Post by john
Oh- and my daughter is getting married
next month and has raised her 5-year
University average to 91 (it's 94 for this
year).
Why would I be mad?

91? 94? Oh my! Methinks she is working FAR too hard and needs to get a
life! Maybe married will help?
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/

[john]

She does choir several times a week.
She sings at church, often being paid.
She teaches a lab twice a week.
She goes to the gym 2 or 3 times a week.
And she still has time to hang with me lots.
We're heading over to see my mom right now-
play her a few games of crib.

Her trick is to redo her notes from class
immediately and do her homework as soon
as she gets it. She also pre-reads the
material before class.

[benj]

Post by john
No, I'm not pissed off.
Why would I be mad?
Name-calling doesn't break bones.
I'm actually super happy.
My son just hooked up with
Alex Rodman. His cousin Michell
just got a contract with Karl
Lagerfeld. And I know how Gravity
works

Odd accuses you of being pissed off for the same reason HVAC accuses me
of "froth". It is a political trick designed to make the public think
that the person with the opposing views is "out of control" and
therefore nothing they say needs to be listened to. It's just a
variation on the usual "accusations of being insane" tradecraft. Hey if
a person is insane then you don't need to think about anything they say,
right?

If you know how gravity works then tell us! The last person who made
that claim was Herb and he is gone now without ever explaining any of
his theories. All we know is how great they were and how well his
thinking worked!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by john
The guy just told you to FOAD.

Yup. Remarkable manners for a web engineer pretending to be above other
amateurs on the subject of physics.

You carefully omitted the fact that if this were true, it were amateurs
*like you*. Because you just cannot stand the fact that all your imagined
or actual knowledge in math and philosophy, and all your books about
physics, still do not make you a physicist.

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by john
The guy just told you to FOAD.

Yup. Remarkable manners for a web engineer pretending to be above other
amateurs on the subject of physics.

You carefully omitted the fact that if this were true, it were amateurs
*like you*. Because you just cannot stand the fact that all your imagined
or actual knowledge in math and philosophy, and all your books about
physics, still do not make you a physicist.

I have no problems not being a physicist. I'm completely happy deferring
to physicists, and use references to what they write as a good
demonstration of that.

I think you're the one that has been poking that people should form
their own opinions. In my view, for an amateur (like a web engineer) to
form opinions about physics, without *thorough* checking against what
physicists say, is a fool's venture.

So when an amateur lobs an opinion about something in physics, and I
know I've read differently from physicists, then it's worth bringing up.
When that amateur dismisses the objection as being a worthless comment
from another amateur, and doesn't bother backing it up with things
physicists say, then I know I'm dealing with a self-inflated buffoon.

And you know, all your interest in Star Trek still does not make you a
physicist.

[john]

Odd, do you REALLY tell the truth about
yourself? Have you EVER taught Physics?
Maybe for a few years? Say 25 or so?

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by john
Odd, do you REALLY tell the truth about
yourself? Have you EVER taught Physics?
Maybe for a few years? Say 25 or so?

Heck no.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by john
The guy just told you to FOAD.

Yup. Remarkable manners for a web engineer pretending to be above other
amateurs on the subject of physics.

You carefully omitted the fact that if this were true, it were amateurs
*like you*. Because you just cannot stand the fact that all your imagined
or actual knowledge in math and philosophy, and all your books about
physics, still do not make you a physicist.

And if that was not bad enough, it is obvious that the very fact is making
you feel inferior here, having your misconceptions corrected by real
physicists like Tom time and again. So you think the only way you can
increase your self-worth is to pick on others who are also not physicists.
Namely, you are abusing the trust I gave you by telling you truthfully about
my profession, again and again. And then you, of all people, dare complain
about the feedback?

All of this, for me, casts into doubt your honesty. I find it hard to
believe that your real name is “Odd Bodkin”. I find it hard to believe that
you have completed those studies of math and philosophy, as you have
claimed. And I find it hard to believe that an *accomplished* mathematician
and philosopher ends up as a “maker of fine toys, tools, tables”. Usually
they end up at a bank, doing complex calculations, or as a professor of
philosophy at a university. In particular as for the latter, I find it hard
to believe that an accomplished philosopher’s argument would contain so many
fallacies as can be found in yours. I find it much more likely that you are
using a pseudonym as a shield, so that you do not have to reveal who you
really are, that you think you can attack others from behind that shield
without being attackable yourself.

In any case, you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by john
The guy just told you to FOAD.

Yup. Remarkable manners for a web engineer pretending to be above other
amateurs on the subject of physics.

You carefully omitted the fact that if this were true, it were amateurs
*like you*. Because you just cannot stand the fact that all your imagined
or actual knowledge in math and philosophy, and all your books about
physics, still do not make you a physicist.

And if that was not bad enough, it is obvious that the very fact is making
you feel inferior here, having your misconceptions corrected by real
physicists like Tom time and again.

Tom and I have differed on some things, yes, where I can point to where
he is in disagreement with what physicists say. He maintains that
despite that disagreement, he believes he is in alignment with the body
of physicists as a whole. Maybe he is right, maybe not.

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
So you think the only way you can
increase your self-worth is to pick on others who are also not physicists.

I wouldn't pick on you at all if you bothered to cite the writings of
physicists and use that to support your opinions. As opposed to those
who DO cite the writings of physicists and to whom you say quoting is
easy and they should form their own opinions themselves. As opposed to
saying that the quotes are bad books, badly written books, or badly
written portions of books.

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Namely, you are abusing the trust I gave you by telling you truthfully about
my profession, again and again. And then you, of all people, dare complain
about the feedback?

I'll remind you that you imparted no trust to me. You announced yourself
on the newsgroup for all to see. Your presence in OTHER newsgroup
supports that. Heck, the fact that you have a public-facing website
where you refer to yourself as "Pointed-Ears" Lahn and that talks all
about your web-engineering projects and your fascination with Star Trek
makes this not a matter of confidence and trust.

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
All of this, for me, casts into doubt your honesty. I find it hard to
believe that your real name is “Odd Bodkin”. I find it hard to believe that
you have completed those studies of math and philosophy, as you have
claimed.

You are under the impression that I have an obligation to assuage your
doubts?

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
And I find it hard to believe that an *accomplished* mathematician
and philosopher ends up as a “maker of fine toys, tools, tables”.

Why is that hard to believe?

I have a good friend, a few years older than me, who worked as a
post-doc physicist for about four or five years and then opened an ice
cream shop. He has been successful in that venture too and very happy.
Are you going to take that snippet of information and conclude that he
is not an accomplished physicist? (As an aside, he hates the whole Star
Trek thing.)

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Usually
they end up at a bank, doing complex calculations, or as a professor of
philosophy at a university.

Sorry, but you CLEARLY do not know what you're talking about here.
Remember, I'm the one that went that educational path and became
acquainted with the career path options, not you.

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
In particular as for the latter, I find it hard
to believe that an accomplished philosopher’s argument would contain so many
fallacies as can be found in yours.

You are apparently under the impression that I'm trying to muster an
argument. If you want to exercise argument skills, might I suggest
alt.conversations.confrontational.fun or soc.relations.backward?

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
I find it much more likely that you are
using a pseudonym as a shield, so that you do not have to reveal who you
really are, that you think you can attack others from behind that shield
without being attackable yourself.

Attack away. I think you've already established your reputation for
yourself. How's that working for you in the newsgroups where you DO know
what you're talking about?

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
In any case, you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
In any case, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Well, let's see.
From a frequently-linked conversation thread:

"I came on here for the first time yesterday with this question
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread/77bac03b14ec223f#
The Thomas 'PointedEars' guy you are describing attacked my question
quite rudely with an attitude of 'I'm so f**king knowledgable' and
'who do you think you are coming on here and asking questions' - kinda
attitude.
His answers were the least helpful, and apart from completely missing
the point, he seemed like the person with the least knowledge out of
anyone who tried to help.
I completely agree with Stevo in his post. From my experience this guy
needs an education and some manners.
Thanks to everyone else who was constructive and helpful."

and

"Everybody needs a 'pointed ears'.
Also, I suspect Mr Lahn is neither native english speaking, not
particularly facile with the written word.
Not a few people around the 'net have things like autism to deal with.
I think he is a bright guy, who knows a fair bit, but is very bad at
communicating. If you don't like it, kill file him.
Let's face it, being an arsehole on usenet is a great way to destress
after you have been asked to do the impossible three times before
breakfast."

and

"Would any of you seriously
want to hire Thomas ? I know I sure as hell wouldn't touch him with a
seriously long barge pole. I'm certain that everyone that had to work
with him for any length of time would either quit their job or refuse to
work alongside him. I wonder what his family and friends (if any stick
around) must think of him. He must be the most nerdy geeky pedantic twat
in the world."

and

"If his resume is written anything like the way he writes here he
wouldn't even make it in for an interview.
No amount of skill or knowledge can make up for his self-deluded
arrogance and overinflated self-worth. If he does have a job I can only
assume it's in a basement somewhere."

and

"Post by Randy Webb
Post by Matt Kruse
Post by Aaron Gray
I think it is a reference to Spock on StarTrek.
But lacking the sense of humor and personality. ;)
And Spock lacked common sense as well.
They do have unfounded arrogance in common."

and then of course there is your own site:
http://pointedears.de/

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
I find it hard to
believe that your real name is “Odd Bodkin”.

I find it hard to believe that your real name is 'PointedEars'.
If it helps, you can write mine 'Odd Bodkin'.

Geez. What a doofus.

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
In any case, you should be ashamed of yourself.

I'm going to take a wild stab here.
You're a web designer and so started participating in comp.* newsgroups
and other chat rooms a while back. You found an initially positive
response, but then discovered that some aspects of your personality
outweighed the value you brought in expertise and you weren't so
cordially embraced after that. Along with that came some comments that
you perhaps weren't as talented in your field as you tried to come off
to be.

So since you sensed you were being sniffed out by people who really did
know the subject matter and knew when you were being a knob, you took a
different tack.

"Where, oh where," thought PointedEars, "can I go and be surrounded by
amateurs who clearly don't know the subject matter, and where I can put
on some airs of authority and deep knowledge? Hmmm. Where, oh where? I
know! A physics newsgroup! I know just enough to appear smart in
physics, so no one need know that I'm a web engineer with a fascination
with Star Trek."

So, since that's not going so well, where will you go next? Maybe an art
history forum? How about one on mountain climbing?

[john]

Boinker

[Lofty Goat]

Post by Odd Bodkin
web engineer

Pardon me butting in please, but WTF is a "web engineer"?

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Lofty Goat

Post by Odd Bodkin
web engineer

Pardon me butting in please, but WTF is a "web engineer"?

You have the alternatives of googling or asking him. Of course, if you
choose the latter, who knows what you'll get?

[Lofty Goat]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Lofty Goat

Post by Odd Bodkin
web engineer

Pardon me butting in please, but WTF is a "web engineer"?

You have the alternatives of googling or asking him. Of course, if you
choose the latter, who knows what you'll get?

OK, that's what I thought. I am *not* an engineer. Trained as one,
didn't take the exam, so I can't claim that title for myself.

In 40 years of doing software I can't count the number of people I've met
who claim to be engineers, but can't define the term.

In Canada it is unlawful to call oneself an engineer without first passing
the boards. Wonder if that's true in Germany as well...?

Thinking with my hands on the keyboard... time to stop that for the day.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Lofty Goat

Post by Odd Bodkin
web engineer

Pardon me butting in please, but WTF is a "web engineer"?

You have the alternatives of googling or asking him. Of course, if you
choose the latter, who knows what you'll get?

If their question is not coming in via e-mail, I am not going to see it,
as I am also not seeing the posting you have replied to.


PointedEars

[Y.Porat]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn

Post by Odd Bodkin
- That event should mean something that is a process that happens over a
region of space and an interval of time, and so if [anyone else] mean[s]
something else it's obviously mistaken.

IIRC correctly, you held the same weird opinion not so long ago.

No, I don't believe I did. I think I quoted both to you and to John how
it is described by Taylor and Wheeler, and by Geroch.
"By an event we mean an idealized occurrence in the physical world
having extension in neither space nor time. For example, "the explosion
of a firecracker" or "the snapping of one's fingers" would represent an
event. (By contrast, "a particle" would not represent an event, for it
has "extension in time"; "a long piece of rope" has "extension in
space.") By "occurrence in the physical world" we mean that an event is
to be regarded as a part of the world in which we live, not as a
construct in some theory."
"In physics, the fundamental concept is _event_. The collision between
one particle and another is an event, with its own location in
spacetime. Another event is the emission of a flash of light from an
atom. A third is the impact of the pebble that chips the windshield of a
speeding car. A fourth event, likewise fixing in and by itself a
location in spacetime, is the strike of a lightning bolt on the rudder
of an airplane. An event marks a location in spacetime; it is like a
steel spike driven into spacetime."
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

===========================
space time '' is good

BUT NOT ''CURVED''!!!! SPACE TIME '
i was the first one that **proved ** that

''CURVED'' SPACE (TIME )--IS NON START PHYSICS !!!


ATB
Y.Porat
==================================

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by Y.Porat
space time '' is good

It is either “space-time” or “spacetime”. The former was more common in the
20th century[1] (especially in Einstein’s work[2]), the latter is more
common now [1].

[1] <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22space-time%22&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2C%22%20space%20-%20time%20%22%3B%2Cc0>
(0.00000050 % usage in English literature as of 2008)

[2] <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1987141/Albert-Einstein-on-Space-Time>

[3]
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=spacetime&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cspacetime%3B%2Cc0>

(0.0000800 % usage in English literature as of 2008)

Post by Y.Porat
BUT NOT ''CURVED''

But it is.

Post by Y.Porat
!!!!

“‘Multiple exclamation marks,’ he went on, shaking his head,
‘are a sure sign of a diseased mind.’”
—Terry Pratchett, in “Eric”

Post by Y.Porat
SPACE TIME '
i was the first one that **proved ** that
''CURVED'' SPACE (TIME )--IS NON START PHYSICS !!!

Cite evidence.

Post by Y.Porat
ATB

What does this mean?

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Post by Y.Porat
space time '' is good

It is either “space-time” or “spacetime”. The former was more common in the
20th century[1] (especially in Einstein’s work[2]), the latter is more
common now [3].

[1] <https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22space-time%22&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2C%22%20space%20-%20time%20%22%3B%2Cc0>
(0.00000050 % usage in English literature as of 2008)

[2] <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1987141/Albert-Einstein-on-Space-Time>

[3]
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=spacetime&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cspacetime%3B%2Cc0>

(0.0000800 % usage in English literature as of 2008)

Post by Y.Porat
BUT NOT ''CURVED''

But it is.

Post by Y.Porat
!!!!

“‘Multiple exclamation marks,’ he went on, shaking his head,
‘are a sure sign of a diseased mind.’”
—Terry Pratchett, in “Eric”

Post by Y.Porat
SPACE TIME '
i was the first one that **proved ** that
''CURVED'' SPACE (TIME )--IS NON START PHYSICS !!!

Cite evidence.

Post by Y.Porat
ATB

What does this mean?

[benj]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by john
Take note, Bod.
Fractured electrons

I don't see Sam's posts (I'm guessing it was Sam's), so I can't take
note of anything. Had you used quoting in your reply, I would have.

Odd, you are right. It's always best not to pay too much attention to
what is going on out there. Safest to keep your reading restricted to
books bearing the establishment imprimatur.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by benj

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by john
Take note, Bod.
Fractured electrons

I don't see Sam's posts (I'm guessing it was Sam's), so I can't take
note of anything. Had you used quoting in your reply, I would have.

Odd, you are right. It's always best not to pay too much attention to
what is going on out there. Safest to keep your reading restricted to
books bearing the establishment imprimatur.

Well, Ben, I do believe in managing the flow of information to filter
out what I think is garbage. I do see that a few people think like you
do, that the good stuff is buried in there somewhere in that humongous
pile other people call trash. Maybe that's because you have trouble
understanding the things other people call gold, and so you have decided
to despise it, call it a nest of lies, all written by secret societies
out to subjugate the masses. Which leaves only the humongous pile of
trash for you to sift through. And this is why you think there may be
something to ESP and UFOs and black-helicopter conspiracies and sweat
lodge epiphanies. You embrace the humongous pile of trash. "Bring it
on!" you cry, "The Truth is in there somewhere!!"

[john]

Ostrich

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by john
Ostrich

Anybody who's not Chicken Little is an ostrich?

[john]

Anybody who's not Chicken Little is
an ostrich.
That's actually pretty good- I'll bet you're
lots of fun to drink with. :)

[HVAC]

Post by Odd Bodkin
Well, Ben, I do believe in managing the flow of information to filter
out what I think is garbage. I do see that a few people think like you
do, that the good stuff is buried in there somewhere in that humongous
pile other people call trash. Maybe that's because you have trouble
understanding the things other people call gold, and so you have decided
to despise it, call it a nest of lies, all written by secret societies
out to subjugate the masses. Which leaves only the humongous pile of
trash for you to sift through. And this is why you think there may be
something to ESP and UFOs and black-helicopter conspiracies and sweat
lodge epiphanies. You embrace the humongous pile of trash. "Bring it
on!" you cry, "The Truth is in there somewhere!!"

Oh shit! That's going to bring a frothy reply!

[benj]

Post by HVAC

Post by Odd Bodkin
Well, Ben, I do believe in managing the flow of information to filter
out what I think is garbage. I do see that a few people think like you
do, that the good stuff is buried in there somewhere in that humongous
pile other people call trash. Maybe that's because you have trouble
understanding the things other people call gold, and so you have decided
to despise it, call it a nest of lies, all written by secret societies
out to subjugate the masses. Which leaves only the humongous pile of
trash for you to sift through. And this is why you think there may be
something to ESP and UFOs and black-helicopter conspiracies and sweat
lodge epiphanies. You embrace the humongous pile of trash. "Bring it
on!" you cry, "The Truth is in there somewhere!!"

Oh shit! That's going to bring a frothy reply!

Nothing to be gained trying to explain logic and science to
fundamentalist true believers like you and Boinker, Harlow.

God, said it! You believe it! That's all there is to it!

Governments NEVER lie to their subjects, right?

Hey Harlow, you solve that simple riddle yet?
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/

[HVAC]

Post by benj

Post by HVAC
Oh shit! That's going to bring a frothy reply!

Nothing to be gained trying to explain logic and science to
fundamentalist true believers like you and Boinker, Harlow.
God, said it! You believe it! That's all there is to it!
Governments NEVER lie to their subjects, right?
Hey Harlow, you solve that simple riddle yet?

Yes. But before I give my answer I want you to explain to me how ESP
works, physics wise. You can do that, right?

If that is too hard, let get to another 'science' that you are behind
100%. The science of remote viewing. Please explain how that works.

I'll wait right here.

[benj]

Post by HVAC

Post by benj

Post by HVAC
Oh shit! That's going to bring a frothy reply!

Nothing to be gained trying to explain logic and science to
fundamentalist true believers like you and Boinker, Harlow.
God, said it! You believe it! That's all there is to it!
Governments NEVER lie to their subjects, right?
Hey Harlow, you solve that simple riddle yet?

Yes. But before I give my answer I want you to explain to me how ESP
works, physics wise. You can do that, right?
If that is too hard, let get to another 'science' that you are behind
100%. The science of remote viewing. Please explain how that works.
I'll wait right here.

Remote Viewing is simple. CIA dumps millions into the project in hopes
of getting and edge in intelligence. Early results are exceptional
though there are some skeptics. So they dump in even MORE millions and
results are so good that they have the media and all their "strageic
writers" (you) tell everyone the project failed and they classify all
the information they can about it. It proceeds as a "black" project.
Unfortunately many early participants write books about the projects.

Have I summed it up pretty well as you understand it?

Sure you've solve the riddle...NOT! Poor Wormley got so scared he had to
run away rather than try to solve it! No word from Treebert either.
Probably the riddle doesn't exist in the future.

So tell us, who owns the fish? You can get the answer using math but
it's better if you do it as I did using "remote viewing" of the answer
without bothering to work it out!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/

[HVAC]

Post by benj

Post by HVAC
Yes. But before I give my answer I want you to explain to me how ESP
works, physics wise. You can do that, right?
If that is too hard, let get to another 'science' that you are behind
100%. The science of remote viewing. Please explain how that works.
I'll wait right here.

Remote Viewing is simple. CIA dumps millions into the project in hopes
of getting and edge in intelligence. Early results are exceptional
though there are some skeptics. So they dump in even MORE millions and
results are so good that they have the media and all their "strageic
writers" (you) tell everyone the project failed and they classify all
the information they can about it. It proceeds as a "black" project.
Unfortunately many early participants write books about the projects.
Have I summed it up pretty well as you understand it?

Not at all. I am asking you to explain the physics of remote viewing.
The science behind it. The mechanism that allows for instant
communication between people with no gadgetry.

I will wait right here for your sensible explanation that I am positive
will soon be forthcoming.

[MarkA]

Post by HVAC

Post by benj

Post by HVAC
Yes. But before I give my answer I want you to explain to me how ESP
works, physics wise. You can do that, right?
If that is too hard, let get to another 'science' that you are behind
100%. The science of remote viewing. Please explain how that works.
I'll wait right here.

Remote Viewing is simple. CIA dumps millions into the project in hopes
of getting and edge in intelligence. Early results are exceptional
though there are some skeptics. So they dump in even MORE millions and
results are so good that they have the media and all their "strageic
writers" (you) tell everyone the project failed and they classify all
the information they can about it. It proceeds as a "black" project.
Unfortunately many early participants write books about the projects.
Have I summed it up pretty well as you understand it?

Not at all. I am asking you to explain the physics of remote viewing.
The science behind it. The mechanism that allows for instant
communication between people with no gadgetry.
I will wait right here for your sensible explanation that I am positive
will soon be forthcoming.

Clearly remote viewing works. All the billions of dollars we spend on
intelligence gathering satellites, spies, code breakers, etc, is all a
cover-up.

[benj]

Post by HVAC

Post by benj

Post by HVAC
Yes. But before I give my answer I want you to explain to me how ESP
works, physics wise. You can do that, right?
If that is too hard, let get to another 'science' that you are behind
100%. The science of remote viewing. Please explain how that works.
I'll wait right here.

Remote Viewing is simple. CIA dumps millions into the project in hopes
of getting and edge in intelligence. Early results are exceptional
though there are some skeptics. So they dump in even MORE millions and
results are so good that they have the media and all their "strageic
writers" (you) tell everyone the project failed and they classify all
the information they can about it. It proceeds as a "black" project.
Unfortunately many early participants write books about the projects.
Have I summed it up pretty well as you understand it?

Not at all. I am asking you to explain the physics of remote viewing.
The science behind it. The mechanism that allows for instant
communication between people with no gadgetry.
I will wait right here for your sensible explanation that I am positive
will soon be forthcoming.

Sure Harlow: Geodesics in an N-dimensional curvilinear orthogonal
Riemannian manifold.

Any further questions? Didn't think so.

Hey, you never told us who owns the fish? Cat got you tongue?
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/

[HVAC]

Post by benj

Post by HVAC
Not at all. I am asking you to explain the physics of remote viewing.
The science behind it. The mechanism that allows for instant
communication between people with no gadgetry.
I will wait right here for your sensible explanation that I am positive
will soon be forthcoming.

Sure Harlow: Geodesics in an N-dimensional curvilinear orthogonal
Riemannian manifold.

Lol will 'Riemannian manifold' be YOUR new buzz word?

Just as Bert would steal words he saw here and use them out of context,
will YOU now parrot Bert?

Why not just tell me that your beloved 'remote viewing' works by fractal
chaos and snowflakes in an endless big bang?

You are no scientist BJ. You are a gullible rube.

No offense

[benj]

Post by HVAC

Post by benj

Post by HVAC
Not at all. I am asking you to explain the physics of remote viewing.
The science behind it. The mechanism that allows for instant
communication between people with no gadgetry.
I will wait right here for your sensible explanation that I am positive
will soon be forthcoming.

Sure Harlow: Geodesics in an N-dimensional curvilinear orthogonal
Riemannian manifold.

Lol will 'Riemannian manifold' be YOUR new buzz word?
Just as Bert would steal words he saw here and use them out of context,
will YOU now parrot Bert?
Why not just tell me that your beloved 'remote viewing' works by fractal
chaos and snowflakes in an endless big bang?
You are no scientist BJ. You are a gullible rube.
No offense

I didn't tell you that it works by fractal chaos or snowflakes or big
bang because, you ignorant clod, that is NOT how it works.

Like you have a clue as to what "fractal chaos" or even snowflakes are!
Do you BELIEVE in snowflakes and the Big Bang, Harlow?

I love the way you political debaters (master-baiter in your case)
always accuse your critics of being exactly what they have accused YOU
of being. Are people dumb enough to fall for that nonsense? Probably.
That's why you do it.

Just remember Jesus Saves! All you need to do is BELIEVE!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/

[HVAC]

Post by benj

Post by HVAC
Lol will 'Riemannian manifold' be YOUR new buzz word?
Just as Bert would steal words he saw here and use them out of context,
will YOU now parrot Bert?
Why not just tell me that your beloved 'remote viewing' works by fractal
chaos and snowflakes in an endless big bang?
You are no scientist BJ. You are a gullible rube.
No offense

I didn't tell you that it works by fractal chaos or snowflakes or big
bang because, you ignorant clod, that is NOT how it works.
Like you have a clue as to what "fractal chaos" or even snowflakes are!
Do you BELIEVE in snowflakes and the Big Bang, Harlow?

Fuck no!

[benj]

Post by HVAC

Post by benj

Post by HVAC
Lol will 'Riemannian manifold' be YOUR new buzz word?
Just as Bert would steal words he saw here and use them out of context,
will YOU now parrot Bert?
Why not just tell me that your beloved 'remote viewing' works by fractal
chaos and snowflakes in an endless big bang?
You are no scientist BJ. You are a gullible rube.
No offense

I didn't tell you that it works by fractal chaos or snowflakes or big
bang because, you ignorant clod, that is NOT how it works.
Like you have a clue as to what "fractal chaos" or even snowflakes are!
Do you BELIEVE in snowflakes and the Big Bang, Harlow?

Fuck no!

I KNEW you hadn't a clue about fractals or chaos theory. In fact you
have no clue of ANY science or math, do you?

So how in fuck does someone born without a brain whose only ability is
to play with words manage to make a living in life? Oh shit! I remember!
ARMY! And from there on to GOVERNMENT! Say no more!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/

[HVAC]

Post by benj
I KNEW you hadn't a clue about fractals or chaos theory. In fact you
have no clue of ANY science or math, do you?

Only enough to get a Master's Degree from a REAL higher institute.

Unlike YOU and your 'close cover before striking' diploma.

Post by benj
So how in fuck does someone born without a brain whose only ability is
to play with words manage to make a living in life? Oh shit! I remember!
ARMY! And from there on to GOVERNMENT! Say no more!

[benj]

Post by HVAC

Post by benj
I KNEW you hadn't a clue about fractals or chaos theory. In fact you
have no clue of ANY science or math, do you?

Only enough to get a Master's Degree from a REAL higher institute.
Unlike YOU and your 'close cover before striking' diploma.

Harlow, you don't want to play "credential war" with me. Trust me. And
that even goes for past employment by overlords.

Oh, What was that master's degree in? Elizabethan English Literature, or
Women's Studies?

Post by HVAC

Post by benj
So how in fuck does someone born without a brain whose only ability is
to play with words manage to make a living in life? Oh shit! I remember!
ARMY! And from there on to GOVERNMENT! Say no more!

--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/

[john]

Masters.
Big f***ing deal.
ESPECIALLY from the USA "no retard left
behind" education system

[hanson]

Post by HVAC

Harlow I KNEW you hadn't a clue about fractals or chaos theory.
In fact you have no clue of ANY science or math, do you?

Only enough to get a Master's Degree from a REAL higher institute.
Unlike YOU, Ben, and your 'close cover before striking' diploma.

So how in fuck does someone born without a brain, like you Harlow,
whose only ability is to play with words manage to make a living in
life? Oh shit! I remember!
ARMY! And from there on to GOVERNMENT! Say no more!

EE MSc Jabcoby benj wrote:
Harlow, you don't want to play "credential war" with me. Trust me. And
that even goes for past employment by overlords.
Oh, What was that master's degree in? Elizabethan English Literature, or
Women's Studies?
hanson wrote:
Easy there Benj. Since you are into religion and god, Harlow may
indeed have a Master's degree from "Hebrew National ", which is an
institution, that "answers to a higher power"...

Of course the Evangelical Zio-Sphincter Licker, poster Swine Moroney
will scream now: "Anti-Semitism", like he usually does. ROTFLMAO

[benj]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by benj

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by john
Take note, Bod.
Fractured electrons

I don't see Sam's posts (I'm guessing it was Sam's), so I can't take
note of anything. Had you used quoting in your reply, I would have.

Odd, you are right. It's always best not to pay too much attention to
what is going on out there. Safest to keep your reading restricted to
books bearing the establishment imprimatur.

Well, Ben, I do believe in managing the flow of information to filter
out what I think is garbage. I do see that a few people think like you
do, that the good stuff is buried in there somewhere in that humongous
pile other people call trash. Maybe that's because you have trouble
understanding the things other people call gold, and so you have decided
to despise it, call it a nest of lies, all written by secret societies
out to subjugate the masses. Which leaves only the humongous pile of
trash for you to sift through. And this is why you think there may be
something to ESP and UFOs and black-helicopter conspiracies and sweat
lodge epiphanies. You embrace the humongous pile of trash. "Bring it
on!" you cry, "The Truth is in there somewhere!!"

Oh my! Look at the froth I set off! You need to be sure to take your
blood pressure meds!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/

[HVAC]

Post by reber g=emc^2
Sam you must have read my "STRUCTURE OF THE ELECTRON"? I posted it over the 23 years 50 times.It is simple and proven. TreBert

Of course it is. Bert claims that an electron is made up of exactly 1
trillion photons. Not one more, not one less.

He realized this while contemplating his fractal gyroscope using chaos
theory as it relates to snowflakes in an endless storm of barrel boats.

Do you get the picture? Well, DO YOU?

[Double-A]

Post by Sam Wormley
When an electron splits in two

http://phys.org/news/2015-05-electron.html
(Phys.org)--As an elementary particle, the electron cannot be broken
down into smaller particles, at least as far as is currently known.
However, in a phenomenon called electron fractionalization, in
certain materials an electron can be broken down into smaller "charge
pulses," each of which carries a fraction of the electron's charge.
Although electron fractionalization has many interesting
implications, its origins are not well understood.
Now in a new paper published in Nature Communications, a team of
physicists led by Gwendal Fève at the Ecole Normale Supérieure in
Paris and the Laboratory for Photonics and Nanostructures in
Marcoussis have applied an experiment typically used to study photons
to investigate the underlying mechanisms of electron
fractionalization. The method allows the researchers to observe
single-electron fractionalization on the picosecond scale.

--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion
of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related
social issues.

Also see

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/23003/20141226/new-research-gives-explanation-for-electron-splitting.htm

Double-A

[Ewald Böhm]

Post by Sam Wormley
When an electron splits in two

http://phys.org/news/2015-05-electron.html
(Phys.org)--As an elementary particle, the electron cannot be broken
down into smaller particles, at least as far as is currently known.
However, in a phenomenon called electron fractionalization, in
certain materials an electron can be broken down into smaller "charge
pulses,"
each of which carries a fraction of the electron's charge. Although
electron fractionalization has many interesting implications, its
origins are not well understood

"smaller particles" is an oxymoron, since they assume it must be smaller,
but nothing prohibits in QM a particle to be broken into something larger.

[Y.Porat]

Post by Sam Wormley
When an electron splits in two

http://phys.org/news/2015-05-electron.html
(Phys.org)--As an elementary particle, the electron cannot be broken
down into smaller particles, at least as far as is currently known.
However, in a phenomenon called electron fractionalization, in
certain materials an electron can be broken down into smaller "charge
pulses," each of which carries a fraction of the electron's charge.
Although electron fractionalization has many interesting
implications, its origins are not well understood.
Now in a new paper published in Nature Communications, a team of
physicists led by Gwendal Fève at the Ecole Normale Supérieure in
Paris and the Laboratory for Photonics and Nanostructures in
Marcoussis have applied an experiment typically used to study photons
to investigate the underlying mechanisms of electron
fractionalization. The method allows the researchers to observe
single-electron fractionalization on the picosecond scale.

--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion
of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related
social issues.

======================
(:-)


it is 2 electrons that split to 2 electrons !!!
have you ever heard about conservation of mass ??

Y.Porat
========================