🚀 go-pugleaf

Hebie-Herbie  G=EMC^2 <cjpolins@aol.com> wrote in message
news:81abc314-1dec-41a8-ba81-07ff8eb8896a@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 10, 9:35 am, spoonbender <iw2...@umpire.com> wrote:
> On Feb 10, 9:41 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 22, 5:35 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> quoted
> > > > > Baez in http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
> > > > > John Baez: "I realized I didn't have enough confidence in either
> > > > > theory to engage in these heated debates. I also realized that 
> > > > > there
> > > > > were other questions to work on: questions where I could actually 
> > > > > tell
> > > > > when I was on the right track, questions where researchers 
> > > > > cooperate
> > > > > more and fight less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on
> > > > > quantum gravity. It was very painful to do this, since quantum 
> > > > > gravity
> > > > > had been my holy grail for decades. After you've convinced 
> > > > > yourself
> > > > > that some problem is the one you want to spend your life working 
> > > > > on,
> > > > > it's hard to change your mind. But when I finally did, it was
> > > > > tremendously liberating. I wouldn't urge anyone else to quit 
> > > > > working
> > > > > on quantum gravity. Someday, someone is going to make real 
> > > > > progress.
> > > > > When this happens, I may even rejoin the subject. But for now, I'm
> > > > > thinking about other things. And, I'm making more real progress
> > > > > understanding the universe than I ever did before."
>
> > > > The fat rat has discovered a new money-spinner (it seems Einstein's
> > > > zombies have no Masters now):
>
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfU4AFTZdN0
>
> > >http://geo600.aei.mpg.de/links/relativity-on-the-world-wide-web
> > > Relativity on the World Wide Web. Links to accurate sites on special
> > > and general relativity (by Christina Hillman and John Baez) The link
> > > address is:http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/
> > > "RelWWW has existed for approximately 15 years, but in the past 5
> > > years it has become clear that I lack the time and inclination to
> > > properly maintain this website. More seriously, the World Wide Web has
> > > not developed in the way I hopefully anticipated back in 1992.
> > > Consequently, I have concluded that the site is no longer useful for
> > > the hypothetical "serious student" whom I envisioned as the target
> > > audience. Therefore, I have deleted it." Christina Hillman, June 2007
>
> > > Why did fat rats John Baez and Christina Hillman delete the site? The
> > > answer:
>
> > >http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
> > > John Baez: "One of the big problems in physics -- perhaps the biggest!
> > > -- is figuring out how our two current best theories fit together. On
> > > the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all
> > > the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account.
> > > On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain
> > > gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both
> > > theories seem to be more or less on the right track -- but until we
> > > somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our
> > > picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic."
>
> > > Fat rats have created a schizophrenic world but do not want to live in
> > > it - let other people waste their time and energy wondering why Divine
> > > Albert has said either that the speed of light is constant or that it
> > > is variable or that the speed of light is both constant and variable
> > > or whatever Divine Albert has found it suitable to say.
>
> > Fat rats in the process of creating a schizophrenic world:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/d28e668a...
> > John Baez, Oct 27, 1995: "You can see that I did not assert anything
> > about the photon's mass. I know what the photon's mass is, but I never
> > talk about it around here because the endless discussion of the
> > photon's mass is boring, boring, boring."
> > Pentcho Valev pva...@yahoo.com
>
> thanks, so thay know very well that tha photons have mass
> as property, and keep that info away from public
> i always knew that a cubic meter of intense light
> weight more than a cubic meter of low intensity
> light- Hide quoted text -
>
Hebie-Herbie wrote:
Spoon:  Does that mean that long waves weigh less,than short?
>
hanson wrote:
Of course, Hebie-Herbie, right, if you define  "weight" more or
less appropriately, and like bent (concave or convex) spoon said:
it's hidden in the quoted text... Thanks for the laughs guys... ahaha...
ahahaha.... ahahahanson