On 10/4/21 11:13 AM, Volney wrote:
> On 10/4/2021 12:40 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> The Higgs is not a gauge boson (i.e. there is no corresponding
>> gauge symmetry). In the standard model all forces are mediated by
>> gauge bosons.
>
> Why isn't the Higgs field a gauge symmetry?

Because then it could not do what it was intended to do: give the gauge
bosons nonzero mass in the absence of a mass term in the Lagrangian.

The basic problem with gauge theories is that a mass term in the
Lagrangian breaks their gauge invariance, making it useless. So in the
standard model, none of the gauge bosons have a mass term, which makes
them APPEAR to be massless (in stark contrast to observation). The Higgs
boson was invented to give other particles nonzero masses by interacting
with the Higgs, rather than from a mass term. So instead of having
parameters for the (bare) masses of particles, the SM has parameters
corresponding to their coupling strength to the Higgs.

Tom Roberts

On 10/4/21 3:49 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> (IMHO, a *field* is *never* a symmetry; it may *exhibit* one, though.)

Yes.

Tom Roberts

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> Sorry, Lahn, I'm a hyper-mind.

No, you are mentally ill.

PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 8:27:24 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>
> > Sorry, Lahn, I'm a hyper-mind.
> No, you are mentally ill.
>
>
> PointedEars
> --
> A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
> The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."
>
> (from: WolframAlpha)

How sick am I?

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 8:35:57 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 8:27:24 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry, Lahn, I'm a hyper-mind.
> > No, you are mentally ill.
> >
> >
> > PointedEars
> > --
> > A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
> > The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."
> >
> > (from: WolframAlpha)
> How sick am I?

.... ...

I suppose I could pile these up....

Really though nothing I write here is important in the usual sense
without deriving the constants in a unified field theory down to
one or two constants, where, much physics these days is down in
some few constants, excuse me I'm terribly shallow, sometimes there's
Planck under hbar, with thus, proton lifetime, about muons probably,
which are the usual high energy devices where such things are measured.

The electrostatic, and, Boltzmann more or less, Boltzmann constant, this
is around a lot in the statistical mechanics for example between the what's
usual the kinetic, and usual just kinetic energy, in watts, say, that's not so
much constants as units, which is where under the constant, what's relative
to the running constant is that the underdefined terms are both in the units
but when they're approximations have their terms in higher order units that
aren't the same, it's where running constants work out, making for of course
what are linear regimes of running constants.

So, understanding the notion of "running constants", is, rather a requisite,
for resultingly writing them out, both the constants in their usual terms also
the resulting regimes more than less and usually under statistical mechanics
to reflect the total effect as probabilistic, make for the highly non-linear instead
of the chaotic and truncated, linear.

Which it is....

So, clearly you know now that fundamental physical constants are in the
sense of theory of other theories with varying constants what would model
a theory of running constants, that it's the same as for the fundamental
physical constants, their constant value, which these days is 25 orders of magnitude,
or rather more, with particle mechanics some more orders of magnitude
"verified in the experiment", as also relativity is.

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 8:57:41 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 8:35:57 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 8:27:24 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sorry, Lahn, I'm a hyper-mind.
> > > No, you are mentally ill.
> > >
> > >
> > > PointedEars
> > > --
> > > A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
> > > The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."
> > >
> > > (from: WolframAlpha)
> > How sick am I?
> ... ...
>
>
>
> I suppose I could pile these up....
>
>
>
> Really though nothing I write here is important in the usual sense
> without deriving the constants in a unified field theory down to
> one or two constants, where, much physics these days is down in
> some few constants, excuse me I'm terribly shallow, sometimes there's
> Planck under hbar, with thus, proton lifetime, about muons probably,
> which are the usual high energy devices where such things are measured.
>
> The electrostatic, and, Boltzmann more or less, Boltzmann constant, this
> is around a lot in the statistical mechanics for example between the what's
> usual the kinetic, and usual just kinetic energy, in watts, say, that's not so
> much constants as units, which is where under the constant, what's relative
> to the running constant is that the underdefined terms are both in the units
> but when they're approximations have their terms in higher order units that
> aren't the same, it's where running constants work out, making for of course
> what are linear regimes of running constants.
>
> So, understanding the notion of "running constants", is, rather a requisite,
> for resultingly writing them out, both the constants in their usual terms also
> the resulting regimes more than less and usually under statistical mechanics
> to reflect the total effect as probabilistic, make for the highly non-linear instead
> of the chaotic and truncated, linear.
>
> Which it is....
>
>
> So, clearly you know now that fundamental physical constants are in the
> sense of theory of other theories with varying constants what would model
> a theory of running constants, that it's the same as for the fundamental
> physical constants, their constant value, which these days is 25 orders of magnitude,
> or rather more, with particle mechanics some more orders of magnitude
> "verified in the experiment", as also relativity is.

For example between watts and joules, that in a theory with an infinite infinitesimal
current, that there's an infinite base unit, and in time, makes for its energy as in the
state of the mass-energy equivalence, that part that is massless.

I.e. that it's a finite quantity in the theory where that all potential here the "giant
lightning bolt from the giant black hole (in the center of the universe)", is free under
potential about working out a general flow for a general flux.

It's rather a point of "unified field theory" it would seem (or, "what's space and what's
in it", a theory of physics, here in terms of field occupation numbers and what would
be the potential terms as always evaluated and as infinitely over everything), this is
where there can be a way to look over terms, about that otherwise between the usual
kinetic, and the usual electrostatic, the usual electrodynamic and the statics.

Then under what regimes the scales collapse is usually enough least action,
as much as tendency to entropy. Asymptotically it's as so also.

Making basically a tipping model, is what tips up. (Usually for well models,
also here for the potential and uni-potential, tipping well model.)

Thank you I am much more coherent than a usual logorrheac.
(Though I back that up with also claiming "unified mathematical theory".)

Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 8:05:12 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 7:52:03 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>>
>>>> [incoherent nonsense, aka word salad]
>>>
>>> You really should see a psychiatrist and show them your postings. There may
>>> be a psychotherapy to treat the mental illness that causes your logorrhea.
>>>
>>> Get well soon. Seriously.
>>> PointedEars
>>> --
>>> Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
>>> does it take to change a light bulb?
>>> A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
>>> (from: WolframAlpha)
>> I don't care if you believe it -
>> all it takes is a thinking machine.
>
> Also - if you "fully agreed" with me -
> I'd have nothing to do but agree.
>
> Thanks, I'd rather read your terms, in the usual sense about
> the moment, that, torque, the static quantity expressed in
> rotational inertia besides linear inertia, is thus "static" from
> the rotational to the linear as about its moment. (Which is linear.)
>
> Whereas it's also rotational with respect to the rest of the static....
>
> Sorry, Lahn, I'm a hyper-mind.

I see a number of posters here sitting at home alone, reminding themselves
they are unappreciated geniuses, cast out by the world that does not
understand their revolutionary ideas.

>
> Static about the moment including the axle in terms of
> for example the next note of the moment, of course
> you might agree that's not "static" any more but "impulse".
> (Or along lines.)
>
> Thank you I have a full interpretation of the terms.
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 5:32:17 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 8:05:12 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 7:52:03 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> [incoherent nonsense, aka word salad]
> >>>
> >>> You really should see a psychiatrist and show them your postings. There may
> >>> be a psychotherapy to treat the mental illness that causes your logorrhea.
> >>>
> >>> Get well soon. Seriously.
> >>> PointedEars
> >>> --
> >>> Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
> >>> does it take to change a light bulb?
> >>> A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
> >>> (from: WolframAlpha)
> >> I don't care if you believe it -
> >> all it takes is a thinking machine.
> >
> > Also - if you "fully agreed" with me -
> > I'd have nothing to do but agree.
> >
> > Thanks, I'd rather read your terms, in the usual sense about
> > the moment, that, torque, the static quantity expressed in
> > rotational inertia besides linear inertia, is thus "static" from
> > the rotational to the linear as about its moment. (Which is linear.)
> >
> > Whereas it's also rotational with respect to the rest of the static....
> >
> > Sorry, Lahn, I'm a hyper-mind.
> I see a number of posters here sitting at home alone, reminding themselves
> they are unappreciated geniuses, cast out by the world that does not
> understand their revolutionary ideas.
> >
> > Static about the moment including the axle in terms of
> > for example the next note of the moment, of course
> > you might agree that's not "static" any more but "impulse".
> > (Or along lines.)
> >
> > Thank you I have a full interpretation of the terms.
> >
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

I suppose if you're bored, it's boring.

Yes, everyone I think knows that the likelihood of a random jobber
"revolutionizing" mathematics, physics, ..., goes to zero.

It's like, I read this paper of Terrence MacMahon, and it's kind of amusing.

"Energy variation causes most principal constants to run,
while still adhering to this scale invariant, overall symmetry."

I wonder how he likes his lonely genius tea.

(I read MacMahon's papers and though the development's interesting
then I strike or reject most of the conclusions because the
quantities they reflect are others' that he's so extrapolated,
instead of re-interpreted.)

Maybe it's simply that I can't detect his errors, that otherwise
what is a tendered reserve is a tendered reserve.

It's like we talked about science before and about how it's all the
science that came before, also, only the theory of the moment,
here that there might be any unified theory is that everyone in
reference to the "true" unified theory is pointing at the same term.

I.e. there's not so much "revolutionizing" as "advancing", that
no putative theory is acceptible except of course what explains
(in the usual sense of not being falsified) all the previous theories'
theory, too.

That is, any physicist who comes along with "this is a theory of
everything for physics" gets "how is it for mathematics, too".

On Tuesday, 5 October 2021 at 16:03:38 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> Yes, everyone I think knows that the likelihood of a random jobber
> "revolutionizing" mathematics, physics, ..., goes to zero.

Your idiot guru was an unique case, sure.

On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 7:07:26 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 5 October 2021 at 16:03:38 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>
> > Yes, everyone I think knows that the likelihood of a random jobber
> > "revolutionizing" mathematics, physics, ..., goes to zero.
> Your idiot guru was an unique case, sure.

I.e. sometimes when theories talk about what happened in what epoch,
for example inflationary theories which these days are less held as absolute
and more describable as about the limits of energy and configuration in
experiment, or the "revisit Hubble, Le Maitre, Zwicky, ...", or the real wave-function
as "revisit Heisenberg" and about the "mass" of the Higgs boson or "revisit Higgs",
as we learn more about the theory and modern experiment, is for a re-interpretation
of the mathematical with respect to the physical interpretation they have and
vice-versa: it's fair to expect any physics "beyond the Standard Model" will
re-interpret those terms and help explain all the experiments that came before.

After mass-energy equivalence and a vanishing cosmological constant,
Einstein is lionized not because he was the "greatest", though he's great,
at least in part Einstein is lionized so that the public has an affable example
of a monumental physicist, besides that Relativity and all what followed from
the various notions including putting aside what was before the absolute
and the in a sense ill-advised "multiple world theory, theory", it was Relativity
that was the one of the real conceptual developments of the early 20'th century,
and with the non-Euclidean or "fourth dimension", that Einstein is lionized for
the general public as somewhere after Newton and then for physicists who
study the milieu of his developments, after Lorentz mostly and after Maxwell.

I.e. not all accept "all" the conceptual developments following Einstein's,
and instead see why there is made for revisiting the branching points,
there is for making a unified narrative, of all what's "true".

On 05.Oct.2021, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 7:07:26 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 5 October 2021 at 16:03:38 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, everyone I think knows that the likelihood of a random jobber
>> > "revolutionizing" mathematics, physics, ..., goes to zero.
>> Your idiot guru was an unique case, sure.
>
> I.e. sometimes when theories talk about what happened in what epoch,
> for example inflationary theories which these days are less held as

economic theories are not theories.

ROACH QUARANTINE https://www.bitchute.com/video/HP0JsBgE0sVl/

On Tuesday, 5 October 2021 at 16:41:14 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 7:07:26 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 5 October 2021 at 16:03:38 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, everyone I think knows that the likelihood of a random jobber
> > > "revolutionizing" mathematics, physics, ..., goes to zero.
> > Your idiot guru was an unique case, sure.
> I.e. sometimes when theories talk about what happened in what epoch,
> for example inflationary theories which these days are less held as absolute
> and more describable as about the limits of energy and configuration in
> experiment, or the "revisit Hubble, Le Maitre, Zwicky, ...", or the real wave-function
> as "revisit Heisenberg" and about the "mass" of the Higgs boson or "revisit Higgs",
> as we learn more about the theory and modern experiment, is for a re-interpretation
> of the mathematical with respect to the physical interpretation they have and
> vice-versa: it's fair to expect any physics "beyond the Standard Model" will
> re-interpret those terms and help explain all the experiments that came before.

And in the meantime in the real world - GPS clocks keep
indicating t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

On 10/4/2021 11:12 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 10/4/21 11:13 AM, Volney wrote:
>> On 10/4/2021 12:40 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> The Higgs is not a gauge boson (i.e. there is no corresponding gauge
>>> symmetry). In the standard model all forces are mediated by gauge
>>> bosons.
>>
>> Why isn't the Higgs field a gauge symmetry?
>
> Because then it could not do what it was intended to do: give the gauge
> bosons nonzero mass in the absence of a mass term in the Lagrangian.

OK I guess it wouldn't make any sense if the Higgs got its mass from
interactions with the Higgs. :-)

Although that "it has mass but it doesn't have mass" is rather confusing.
>
> The basic problem with gauge theories is that a mass term in the
> Lagrangian breaks their gauge invariance, making it useless. So in the
> standard model, none of the gauge bosons have a mass term, which makes
> them APPEAR to be massless (in stark contrast to observation). The Higgs
> boson was invented to give other particles nonzero masses by interacting
> with the Higgs, rather than from a mass term. So instead of having
> parameters for the (bare) masses of particles, the SM has parameters
> corresponding to their coupling strength to the Higgs.
>
> Tom Roberts

Also I noticed one possible decay of Higgs is to 2 photons. But the
Higgs doesn't couple to the photon (otherwise the photon would have
mass, correct?) so shouldn't it be unable to decay into 2 photons?

What am I missing?

Can the decays all be classified as "strong decays" and "weak decays"
depending on the decay products?

Dear Volney:

On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 10:01:32 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> Also I noticed one possible decay of Higgs is to 2 photons. But the
> Higgs doesn't couple to the photon (otherwise the photon would have
> mass, correct?) so shouldn't it be unable to decay into 2 photons?
>
> What am I missing?

The Higgs boson does no longer couple Standard particles to the Higgs field (the boson found was too energetic / massive, could not fit the theory). The Higgs field gives mass to Standard particles directly. Experiment has shown a 1:1 correspondence between the Higgs field and spacetime.

Does that help?

David A. Smith

dlzc wrote:

>> What am I missing?
>
> The Higgs boson does no longer couple Standard particles to the Higgs
> field (the boson found was too energetic / massive, could not fit the
> theory). The Higgs field gives mass to Standard particles directly.
> Experiment has shown a 1:1 correspondence between the Higgs field and
> spacetime. Does that help?

I dont understand. How can a particle give mass to another particle. You
guys dont undrestand relativity too.

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 8:27:24 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> wrote:
>> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>> > Sorry, Lahn, I'm a hyper-mind.
>> No, you are mentally ill.
>>
>>
>> PointedEars
>> --
>> A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
>> The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."
>>
>> (from: WolframAlpha)

You should trim your quotes to the parts that you are referring to.
You have not referred to my signature, so it is pointless to quote it.
> How sick am I?

I am somewhat glad that you are asking.

I presume that you are mentally very ill. But I am not a doctor, so I leave
the final assessment of your condition to your psychologist/psychotherapist
to find out, for whom I hope (for you and the newsgroup) that you will
eventually, and soon, make an appointment.

I only know that something is very much not right with your mind as you are
putting words together without regard to their meaning (i.e. word salad),
and you are posting a lot of that without there being a reason for it. And
you are following up to postings, but actually you are talking *to yourself*
only.

And that *cannot* be explained by the assumption that English would not be
your native language (as your name might suggest: Finlayson is a name of
Scandinavian origin). It is an issue with regard to *behavior*, of
psychology, instead.

Most recent example: <news:8e812c92-a033-422f-
ac05-8a9d53a1d066n@googlegroups.com>

In reply to the statement “Your idiot guru was an unique case, sure.” you
wrote: “I.e. sometimes when theories talk about what happened in what
epoch, for example inflationary theories which these days are less held as
absolute and more describable as about the limits of energy and
configuration in experiment, […]”

Notice firstly that you did not address the statement that you replied to
*at all*. You simply kept on talking *to yourself* (just in writing).

Notice secondly that you wrote *word salad*:

“I.e. sometimes when theories talk about what happened in what epoch, for
example […], as we learn more about the theory and modern experiment, is for
a re-interpretation of the mathematical with respect to the physical
interpretation they have and vice-versa: […]”

This is not a proper sentence as there is no sentence structure (and the
structure is not revealed in the omitted parts either): There is no clear
subject, predicate, or object to be found anywhere that *belong together*
to form a *coherent* statement or question.

The phrase “i.e.” (standing for «id est», Latin for “that is”) that you are
using in the beginning ought to refer to something that had been said
immediately before; but what had been said immediately before – “Your idiot
guru was an unique case, sure.” – has *nothing* to do with what you are
replying.

It all looks like a live reproduction of the randomly and rapidly changing
thoughts of a person, with none of them having run to its completion. IOW,
it looks as if you have not thought through any of which you are writing.
You may call that a “hyper-mind” (see below); I call it a very disturbed,
*dysfunctional* mind.

Notice thirdly that what you are saying is factually complete nonsense that
is very easily disproved. In the omitted part you claimed:

“inflationary theories which these days are less held as absolute
and more describable as about the limits of energy and configuration in
experiment”

That is plain not true. First of all, the term is not “inflationary
theory”, but “inflation theory” (such a theory postulates an inflationary
_model_ of our universe). Second, inflation theory as a general concept is
to date the most successful addition to the Big Bang theory as it can
explain both the near-isotropy of the CMB, and the flatness of the space of
the observable universe as obtained from CMB observations:

Don Lincoln et al. (2020): What really happened at the Big Bang?
YouTube: Fermilab. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZdvSJyHvUU>

See also:
Planck Collaboration (2020): “Planck 2018 results: X. Constraints on
inflation”

<https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2020/09/aa33887-18/aa33887-18.html>

The abstract ends with: “All these findings support the key predictions of
the standard single-field inflationary models, which will be further
tested by future cosmological observations.”

Inflation theory has absolutely nothing to do with any “limits of energy in
experiment”.

You also claimed:

“or the real wave-function as "revisit Heisenberg" and about the "mass" of
the Higgs boson or "revisit Higgs"”

That the wave function (of a quantum-mechanical system) would be real is
your *fantasy*. It is *complex*-valued instead.

That there would be a “revisiting Heisenberg” is your *fantasy*.

That there would be something wrong with the mass of the Higgs boson is
apparently your *fantasy*. (Because you wrote word salad, it is unclear
what you are arguing.)

That there would be a “revisiting Higgs” is your *fantasy*.

And the name is “(Georges) Lemaître”, not “Le Maitre”.

So what you are posting exhibits all the signs of logorrhea, if you compare
it with the description and the examples in the Wikipedia article that I
referred to. It also exhibits all the signs of a disconnection of the
author from reality.

All of this together with you seriously calling yourself a “hyper-mind”, and
professing to be able to write about a unified field theory even though you
clearly do not know what you are writing *about* – let alone what you are
*writing* – suggests (to me) a serious mental disorder on your part as the
underlying reason for your logorrhea (which is apparently a common symptom
then).

I also know that therefore it is probably impossible to convince you of that
fact using a textual medium such as Usenet, and futile for me to try it –
which is actually a sad thing. But at least now the truth is where it needs
to be.

HTH

PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)

On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 3:50:40 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>
> > On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 8:27:24 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> > wrote:
> >> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >> > Sorry, Lahn, I'm a hyper-mind.
> >> No, you are mentally ill.
> >>
> >>
> >> PointedEars
> >> --
> >> A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
> >> The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."
> >>
> >> (from: WolframAlpha)
> You should trim your quotes to the parts that you are referring to.
> You have not referred to my signature, so it is pointless to quote it.
>
> > How sick am I?
>
> I am somewhat glad that you are asking.
>
> I presume that you are mentally very ill. But I am not a doctor, so I leave
> the final assessment of your condition to your psychologist/psychotherapist
> to find out, for whom I hope (for you and the newsgroup) that you will
> eventually, and soon, make an appointment.
>
> I only know that something is very much not right with your mind as you are
> putting words together without regard to their meaning (i.e. word salad),
> and you are posting a lot of that without there being a reason for it. And
> you are following up to postings, but actually you are talking *to yourself*
> only.
>
> And that *cannot* be explained by the assumption that English would not be
> your native language (as your name might suggest: Finlayson is a name of
> Scandinavian origin). It is an issue with regard to *behavior*, of
> psychology, instead.
>
> Most recent example: <news:8e812c92-a033-422f-
> ac05-8a9d...@googlegroups.com>
>
> In reply to the statement “Your idiot guru was an unique case, sure.” you
> wrote: “I.e. sometimes when theories talk about what happened in what
> epoch, for example inflationary theories which these days are less held as
> absolute and more describable as about the limits of energy and
> configuration in experiment, […]”
>
> Notice firstly that you did not address the statement that you replied to
> *at all*. You simply kept on talking *to yourself* (just in writing).
>
> Notice secondly that you wrote *word salad*:
>
> “I.e. sometimes when theories talk about what happened in what epoch, for
> example […], as we learn more about the theory and modern experiment, is for
> a re-interpretation of the mathematical with respect to the physical
> interpretation they have and vice-versa: […]”
>
> This is not a proper sentence as there is no sentence structure (and the
> structure is not revealed in the omitted parts either): There is no clear
> subject, predicate, or object to be found anywhere that *belong together*
> to form a *coherent* statement or question.
>
> The phrase “i.e.” (standing for «id est», Latin for “that is”) that you are
> using in the beginning ought to refer to something that had been said
> immediately before; but what had been said immediately before – “Your idiot
> guru was an unique case, sure.” – has *nothing* to do with what you are
> replying.
>
> It all looks like a live reproduction of the randomly and rapidly changing
> thoughts of a person, with none of them having run to its completion. IOW,
> it looks as if you have not thought through any of which you are writing.
> You may call that a “hyper-mind” (see below); I call it a very disturbed,
> *dysfunctional* mind.
>
> Notice thirdly that what you are saying is factually complete nonsense that
> is very easily disproved. In the omitted part you claimed:
>
> “inflationary theories which these days are less held as absolute
> and more describable as about the limits of energy and configuration in
> experiment”
>
> That is plain not true. First of all, the term is not “inflationary
> theory”, but “inflation theory” (such a theory postulates an inflationary
> _model_ of our universe). Second, inflation theory as a general concept is
> to date the most successful addition to the Big Bang theory as it can
> explain both the near-isotropy of the CMB, and the flatness of the space of
> the observable universe as obtained from CMB observations:
>
> Don Lincoln et al. (2020): What really happened at the Big Bang?
> YouTube: Fermilab. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZdvSJyHvUU>
>
> See also:
> Planck Collaboration (2020): “Planck 2018 results: X. Constraints on
> inflation”
>
> <https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2020/09/aa33887-18/aa33887-18.html>
>
> The abstract ends with: “All these findings support the key predictions of
> the standard single-field inflationary models, which will be further
> tested by future cosmological observations.”
>
> Inflation theory has absolutely nothing to do with any “limits of energy in
> experiment”.
>
> You also claimed:
>
> “or the real wave-function as "revisit Heisenberg" and about the "mass" of
> the Higgs boson or "revisit Higgs"”
>
> That the wave function (of a quantum-mechanical system) would be real is
> your *fantasy*. It is *complex*-valued instead.
>
> That there would be a “revisiting Heisenberg” is your *fantasy*.
>
> That there would be something wrong with the mass of the Higgs boson is
> apparently your *fantasy*. (Because you wrote word salad, it is unclear
> what you are arguing.)
>
> That there would be a “revisiting Higgs” is your *fantasy*.
>
> And the name is “(Georges) Lemaître”, not “Le Maitre”.
>
>
> So what you are posting exhibits all the signs of logorrhea, if you compare
> it with the description and the examples in the Wikipedia article that I
> referred to. It also exhibits all the signs of a disconnection of the
> author from reality.
>
> All of this together with you seriously calling yourself a “hyper-mind”, and
> professing to be able to write about a unified field theory even though you
> clearly do not know what you are writing *about* – let alone what you are
> *writing* – suggests (to me) a serious mental disorder on your part as the
> underlying reason for your logorrhea (which is apparently a common symptom
> then).
>
> I also know that therefore it is probably impossible to convince you of that
> fact using a textual medium such as Usenet, and futile for me to try it –
> which is actually a sad thing. But at least now the truth is where it needs
> to be.
>
>
> HTH
> PointedEars
> --
> A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
> The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."
>
> (from: WolframAlpha)

Since Hubble was mostly the notion "everywhere redshift". But, these days, it's not
so, since the configuration of experiment (the sky survey for 2MASS and outside
Laniakea the local supercluster), is much closer "even redshift/blueshift". If you
didn't know that, then you would have no context that "revisit Hubble" meant that
"since Hubble's old observation was long-standing but it's been falsified, now all
the derivations in the development of theory, basically have to be revisited with
respect to that while our local supercluster is a large feature and much expanding
or with apparent redshift, now it's known instead that models of inflation, or,
"what explains why the universe appears to be expanding, with usual models of
a Big Bang and then heat/cold/death/crunch", that they are just a form of extrapolation,
theories of inflation, and that furthermore after "revisit Hubble" is for Lemaitre (corr.) or
Big Bang Theory, also thusly to revisit Bondi/Hoyle and Steady State theory..

So, you see, according to configuration of experiment, what over time we know
sees that in ergy of experiment as primary configuration that atoms look smaller
and the universe looks bigger, that again with respect to these running constants,
what I wrote above is validated again here.

If you didn't know that then you would've had no context, to make sense of things,
but also you should check that in case you're not infallible, maybe you just don't
have enough context to be making sense of the extra pieces I've put here for my
foundational approach, for a usual suggestion that there is extra context to
make sense of it.

Also my form and style though long-winded is grammatical and I'm also opinionated,
grammatically.

About the "real wave-function" of course I meant "wave-function collapse is real",
if you'll please excuse that "wave-function" is as usually arrives at "what solves
the wave function in configuration space as it were is its 'collapse' and is real
with respect to Boehm over Copenhagen and a usual 'statistical' interpretation".
I.e., again that my extra opinion isn't necessarily usual, but, once again it's totally
usual in a theory of a "real wave-function" as it were. (Revisit Heisenberg.)

Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Basically my conversation to usenet is a monolog, but please feel free
> to expect that somewhere its entirety is as well, transparent and
> self-contained, in definition.
>
> ... And that it's to my dear readers primarily me.
>
>

To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me
that people who have mental issues are attracted to Internet forums for a
variety of reasons.

It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.

There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you
say something that’s a little nuts, at least not while you’re saying it.

There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you
can feel normal and healthy for a while, which can be a breath of fresh
air.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 2021-10-06, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Basically my conversation to usenet is a monolog, but please feel free
>> to expect that somewhere its entirety is as well, transparent and
>> self-contained, in definition.
>>
>> ... And that it's to my dear readers primarily me.
>>
>>
>
> To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me
> that people who have mental issues are attracted to Internet forums for a
> variety of reasons.
>
> It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
>
> There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you
> say something that’s a little nuts, at least not while you’re saying it.
>
> There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you
> can feel normal and healthy for a while, which can be a breath of fresh
> air.
>
>
So what's your menthal health problem?
LOVE
--

7-77-777
Evil Sinner!
to weak you should be meek, and you should brainfuck stronger
https://github.com/rofl0r/chaos-pp

On 10/6/2021 5:22 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me
> that people who have mental issues are attracted to Internet forums for a
> variety of reasons.
>
> It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
>
> There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you
> say something that’s a little nuts, at least not while you’re saying it.
>
> There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you
> can feel normal and healthy for a while, which can be a breath of fresh
> air.
>
>
Very Interesting.

On Thursday, 7 October 2021 at 01:02:50 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/6/2021 5:22 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> > To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me
> > that people who have mental issues are attracted to Internet forums for a
> > variety of reasons.
> >
> > It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
> >
> > There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you
> > say something that’s a little nuts, at least not while you’re saying it.
> >
> > There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you
> > can feel normal and healthy for a while, which can be a breath of fresh
> > air.
> >
> >
> Very Interesting.

Well, stupid Mike, of course you're too dumb to notice that
"attracted to Internet forums" describes you as well as your
opponents here?

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 7 October 2021 at 01:02:50 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 10/6/2021 5:22 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>>> To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me
>>> that people who have mental issues are attracted to Internet forums for a
>>> variety of reasons.
>>>
>>> It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
>>>
>>> There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you
>>> say something that’s a little nuts, at least not while you’re saying it.
>>>
>>> There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you
>>> can feel normal and healthy for a while, which can be a breath of fresh
>>> air.
>>>
>>>
>> Very Interesting.
>
> Well, stupid Mike, of course you're too dumb to notice that
> "attracted to Internet forums" describes you as well as your
> opponents here?
>

O greatest logician of modern times, the mentally ill being attracted to
Internet forums does not logically imply that all that are attracted to
Internet forums are mentally ill.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, 7 October 2021 at 14:18:10 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 7 October 2021 at 01:02:50 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 10/6/2021 5:22 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>
> >>> To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me
> >>> that people who have mental issues are attracted to Internet forums for a
> >>> variety of reasons.
> >>>
> >>> It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
> >>>
> >>> There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you
> >>> say something that’s a little nuts, at least not while you’re saying it.
> >>>
> >>> There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you
> >>> can feel normal and healthy for a while, which can be a breath of fresh
> >>> air.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Very Interesting.
> >
> > Well, stupid Mike, of course you're too dumb to notice that
> > "attracted to Internet forums" describes you as well as your
> > opponents here?
> >
> O greatest logician of modern times, the mentally ill being attracted to
> Internet forums does not logically imply that all that are attracted to
> Internet forums are mentally ill.

Sure, poor halfbrain. Has someone said it does?

On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 5:18:10 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 7 October 2021 at 01:02:50 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 10/6/2021 5:22 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>
> >>> To the point about mental health, a clinical psychologist friend tells me
> >>> that people who have mental issues are attracted to Internet forums for a
> >>> variety of reasons.
> >>>
> >>> It helps to vent all the internal noise and chatter.
> >>>
> >>> There is no eye contact and so you don’t get that look from others when you
> >>> say something that’s a little nuts, at least not while you’re saying it.
> >>>
> >>> There’s a buffer period where people’s assessment of you is delayed and you
> >>> can feel normal and healthy for a while, which can be a breath of fresh
> >>> air.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Very Interesting.
> >
> > Well, stupid Mike, of course you're too dumb to notice that
> > "attracted to Internet forums" describes you as well as your
> > opponents here?
> >
> O greatest logician of modern times, the mentally ill being attracted to
> Internet forums does not logically imply that all that are attracted to
> Internet forums are mentally ill.
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

That's funny, many people are put off my Internet forae,
because they get attacked by random a-noms.

In fact it takes a sort of stubborn-ness to weary out an
unmoderated forum with its usual pathologies, and,
moderated forums are often boring.

It's much easier to feel the like minded with no dissent.

This though basically is for comment on "sci.physics.relativity".

Reputation of course is a critical asset in many people's lives.

Also it's often the basis of trust.

Or lack thereof....

("... Or lack thereof.")

If we might agree the matter then here it's outright -
physics is all quite well held up by mathematics,
theories in the modern are profound and exquisite,
the new renaissance of theory is making way for
the super-classical, neatly, quantum mechanics and
relativity together, modern theory collected
is the matter. "Foundations".

Let's agree that "moderated forums, of, only a
once-off chop of spew and one-rule deletes,
resulting in a feed", are different than "moderated
and unmoderated forums, cultivated vote-down".

Now, you three men, Maciej, Mike, and the OB,
and myself, Ross, or here Ross Finlayson, let's
say we all "claim" to understand physics, the comment,
to understand physics enough, that it's de rigeur
that it's _right_, it's correct, to be both competent
and also direct, any comment, on physics.

[Here that 'any at least one' is not 'any and all'.]

Or not.

This is basically that comment, thanks to etiquette,
can be correct.

Now, this is Rich's thread, constants are constants,
and in theory there's only one object that reflects
both what is constant and variable, monism, directly,
let's agree that "running constants" are for reference,
that, NIST CODATA and SI, constants and units, these
are as they are and correct under definition, that in
the terms, about the potential fields of course for these
measured definitions from inside the classical fields
and our theories, that parastatistics for string theory,
is on its way in, that really most the symmetry-flex,
has at least a way to explain to individual people,
enough of the mathematics of all the theory, what
results a combined fundamental theory, that reflects
most all the science of the day.

"Reputation, or lack thereof, the basis of trust, or not."

If you'd please excuse me most all the reason that
I post to usenet is a letter-writing campaign what to
have fulfilled a modern rhetoric on foundations.

Usually there's _no possible chance of that_ but I
was let to put the countable and continuous together
and here physics for its part after that.