Editorial

"Unified field theory" (and the String Theory later): who tries to unify the quantum mechanics theory(describes: strong nuclear forces, weak nuclear forces, electromagnetic forces) and the general relativity theory(describes the gravity); to unite the world of the small and the world of the large. General relativity describes the force of gravity and hence is usually applied to the largest and most massive structures including stars, galaxies, black holes and even, in cosmology, the universe itself. Quantum mechanics is most relevant in describing the smallest structures in the universe such as electrons and quarks.
Why is so difficult to find the "Unified field theory"?
Because at quantum level space and time are so twisted and distorted, that the conventional ideas of left and right, up and down, even before and after break down. If I am at this level I can't say I'm here or there or both places at once; or maybe I'm right here before I'm right here!
In quantum theory, a field is not just something associated with waves, but is also related to particles by virtue of the well-known wave-particle duality.
The rules at small world don't behave at same way like the smooth way of the general relativity(Einstein didn't understand it and was far away to find the UNIFICATION, his dream)
The Standard Model is a highly successful and experimentally tested theory of "three-fourth of everything" (since it incorporates three of the four fundamental interactions) and does not include the graviton and its interactions. The reason why the Standard Model is useful despite the absence of gravity is that the strength of gravitational interactions depends on the masses of the gravitating bodies involved. For elementary particles, the gravitational force between them is so small that one cannot even conceive of observing it directly.
General relativity and quantum mechanics are mutually incompatible: any calculation which simultaneously uses both of these tools yields nonsensical answers.
The String Theory: based on the concept of elementary particles, tiny vibrating loops of energy called strings. The unification: all the fundamental particles we know can be described by one object, a string!
The theory started from the Euler equations.
Superstring theory did the Unification!
No experiment can prove the strings exist,because of course are so small. The size of a string is somewhere near the length scale of quantum gravity, called the Planck length, which is about a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a centimeter.
The strings have certain vibrational modes which can be characterized by various quantum numbers such as mass, spin, etc.
Compose of an enormous number of oscillating strings, the universe is like an elegant symphony.
Are five different Superstring theories, but not in harmony.
The M-Theory explain the origin of strings, why we have five superstring theories. Is a 10 dimensional theory.
The F-Theory is a 12 dimensional theory, has two time co-ordinates.
Imagine you live in a world with two times.
I consider too that a true theory may be independent of any dimensionality of space-time.

I see in The String Theory a EQUIVALENCE between Strings and Prana in Yoga and Qi in Qigong. This EQUIVALENCE it's a huge step in understanding the Universe.

Te repezi sa faci "copy-paste" dintr-un articol de popularizare a stiintei din cine stie ce sursa. Ca orice articol de popularizare e scris cam dupa ureche si combina locuri comune (adevarate de altfel, ca orice locuri comune) cu interpretari elucubrante de ziarist care n-a mai pus mana pe o carte de fizica de pe vremea cand era in liceu (daca o fi pus mana si pe atunci).

A intelege fizica moderna este deja un exercitiu intelectual extrem de dificil si nu la indemana oricui; a intelege filozofia implicita conceptelor vehiculate in fizica moderna e un domeniu rezervat celor "putini si alesi", ca sa zic asa: e vorba de o mana de oameni.

Desi nu ma numar intre acei putini care ar avea dreptul sa pretinda ca inteleg aceste lucruri, pot sa-ti spun cu siguranta ca articolul asta e de doua parale si trateaza problema extrem de superficial.

Asadar, iti recomand prieteneste sa lasi balta fizica si sa te ocupi doar de lucrurile la care te pricepi, in caz ca te pricepi de-adevaratelea la ceva...

Mai bine povesteste-ne ceva distractiv despre prana si ci (chi sau qi, cum preferi).

Numa de bine,
Scorilo

La 2004-12-31 01:20:11, YOGHINUL a scris:

> "Unified field theory" (and the String Theory later): who
> tries to unify the quantum mechanics theory(describes: strong nuclear
> forces, weak nuclear forces, electromagnetic forces) and the general
> relativity theory(describes the gravity); to unite the world of the
> small and the world of the large. General relativity describes the
> force of gravity and hence is usually applied to the largest and most
> massive structures including stars, galaxies, black holes and even, in
> cosmology, the universe itself. Quantum mechanics is most relevant in
> describing the smallest structures in the universe such as electrons
> and quarks.
> Why is so difficult to find the "Unified field theory"?
> Because at quantum level space and time are so twisted and distorted,
> that the conventional ideas of left and right, up and down, even
> before and after break down. If I am at this level I can't say I'm
> here or there or both places at once; or maybe I'm right here before
> I'm right here!
> In quantum theory, a field is not just something associated with
> waves, but is also related to particles by virtue of the well-known
> wave-particle duality.
> The rules at small world don't behave at same way like the smooth way
> of the general relativity(Einstein didn't understand it and was far
> away to find the UNIFICATION, his dream)
> The Standard Model is a highly successful and experimentally tested
> theory of "three-fourth of everything" (since it
> incorporates three of the four fundamental interactions) and does not
> include the graviton and its interactions. The reason why the Standard
> Model is useful despite the absence of gravity is that the strength of
> gravitational interactions depends on the masses of the gravitating
> bodies involved. For elementary particles, the gravitational force
> between them is so small that one cannot even conceive of observing
> it directly.
> General relativity and quantum mechanics are mutually incompatible:
> any calculation which simultaneously uses both of these tools yields
> nonsensical answers.
> The String Theory: based on the concept of elementary particles, tiny
> vibrating loops of energy called strings. The unification: all the
> fundamental particles we know can be described by one object, a
> string!
> The theory started from the Euler equations.
> Superstring theory did the Unification!
> No experiment can prove the strings exist,because of course are so
> small. The size of a string is somewhere near the length scale of
> quantum gravity, called the Planck length, which is about a millionth
> of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a centimeter.
> The strings have certain vibrational modes which can be characterized
> by various quantum numbers such as mass, spin, etc.
> Compose of an enormous number of oscillating strings, the universe is
> like an elegant symphony.
> Are five different Superstring theories, but not in harmony.
> The M-Theory explain the origin of strings, why we have five
> superstring theories. Is a 10 dimensional theory.
> The F-Theory is a 12 dimensional theory, has two time co-ordinates.
> Imagine you live in a world with two times.
> I consider too that a true theory may be independent of any
> dimensionality of space-time.
> 
> I see in The String Theory a EQUIVALENCE between Strings and Prana in
> Yoga and Qi in Qigong. This EQUIVALENCE it's a huge step in
> understanding the Universe.
> 

Tu tot nu pricepi nici fizica, nici Yoga.
Articolul l-am scris eu sa priceapa toata lumea; nu are rost sa ma bag in teorie ca lumea nu mai pricepe nimic!

La 2004-12-31 09:14:27, Scorilo a scris:

> Te repezi sa faci "copy-paste" dintr-un articol de
> popularizare a stiintei din cine stie ce sursa. Ca orice articol de
> popularizare e scris cam dupa ureche si combina locuri comune
> (adevarate de altfel, ca orice locuri comune) cu interpretari
> elucubrante de ziarist care n-a mai pus mana pe o carte de fizica de
> pe vremea cand era in liceu (daca o fi pus mana si pe atunci).
> 
> A intelege fizica moderna este deja un exercitiu intelectual extrem de
> dificil si nu la indemana oricui; a intelege filozofia implicita
> conceptelor vehiculate in fizica moderna e un domeniu rezervat celor
> "putini si alesi", ca sa zic asa: e vorba de o mana de
> oameni.
> 
> Desi nu ma numar intre acei putini care ar avea dreptul sa pretinda ca
> inteleg aceste lucruri, pot sa-ti spun cu siguranta ca articolul asta
> e de doua parale si trateaza problema extrem de superficial.
> 
> Asadar, iti recomand prieteneste sa lasi balta fizica si sa te ocupi
> doar de lucrurile la care te pricepi, in caz ca te pricepi
> de-adevaratelea la ceva...
> 
> Mai bine povesteste-ne ceva distractiv despre prana si ci (chi sau qi,
> cum preferi).
> 
> Numa de bine,
> Scorilo
> 
> La 2004-12-31 01:20:11, YOGHINUL a scris:
> 
> > "Unified field theory" (and the String Theory later): who
> > tries to unify the quantum mechanics theory(describes: strong nuclear
> > forces, weak nuclear forces, electromagnetic forces) and the general
> > relativity theory(describes the gravity); to unite the world of the
> > small and the world of the large. General relativity describes the
> > force of gravity and hence is usually applied to the largest and most
> > massive structures including stars, galaxies, black holes and even, in
> > cosmology, the universe itself. Quantum mechanics is most relevant in
> > describing the smallest structures in the universe such as electrons
> > and quarks.
> > Why is so difficult to find the "Unified field theory"?
> > Because at quantum level space and time are so twisted and distorted,
> > that the conventional ideas of left and right, up and down, even
> > before and after break down. If I am at this level I can't say I'm
> > here or there or both places at once; or maybe I'm right here before
> > I'm right here!
> > In quantum theory, a field is not just something associated with
> > waves, but is also related to particles by virtue of the well-known
> > wave-particle duality.
> > The rules at small world don't behave at same way like the smooth way
> > of the general relativity(Einstein didn't understand it and was far
> > away to find the UNIFICATION, his dream)
> > The Standard Model is a highly successful and experimentally tested
> > theory of "three-fourth of everything" (since it
> > incorporates three of the four fundamental interactions) and does not
> > include the graviton and its interactions. The reason why the Standard
> > Model is useful despite the absence of gravity is that the strength of
> > gravitational interactions depends on the masses of the gravitating
> > bodies involved. For elementary particles, the gravitational force
> > between them is so small that one cannot even conceive of observing
> > it directly.
> > General relativity and quantum mechanics are mutually incompatible:
> > any calculation which simultaneously uses both of these tools yields
> > nonsensical answers.
> > The String Theory: based on the concept of elementary particles, tiny
> > vibrating loops of energy called strings. The unification: all the
> > fundamental particles we know can be described by one object, a
> > string!
> > The theory started from the Euler equations.
> > Superstring theory did the Unification!
> > No experiment can prove the strings exist,because of course are so
> > small. The size of a string is somewhere near the length scale of
> > quantum gravity, called the Planck length, which is about a millionth
> > of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a centimeter.
> > The strings have certain vibrational modes which can be characterized
> > by various quantum numbers such as mass, spin, etc.
> > Compose of an enormous number of oscillating strings, the universe is
> > like an elegant symphony.
> > Are five different Superstring theories, but not in harmony.
> > The M-Theory explain the origin of strings, why we have five
> > superstring theories. Is a 10 dimensional theory.
> > The F-Theory is a 12 dimensional theory, has two time co-ordinates.
> > Imagine you live in a world with two times.
> > I consider too that a true theory may be independent of any
> > dimensionality of space-time.
> > 
> > I see in The String Theory a EQUIVALENCE between Strings and Prana in
> > Yoga and Qi in Qigong. This EQUIVALENCE it's a huge step in
> > understanding the Universe.
> > 
> 
> 

La 2004-12-31 09:14:27, Scorilo a scris:

> Te repezi sa faci "copy-paste" dintr-un articol de
> popularizare a stiintei din cine stie ce sursa. Ca orice articol de
> popularizare e scris cam dupa ureche si combina locuri comune
> (adevarate de altfel, ca orice locuri comune) cu interpretari
> elucubrante de ziarist care n-a mai pus mana pe o carte de fizica de
> pe vremea cand era in liceu (daca o fi pus mana si pe atunci).
> 
> A intelege fizica moderna este deja un exercitiu intelectual extrem de
> dificil si nu la indemana oricui; a intelege filozofia implicita
> conceptelor vehiculate in fizica moderna e un domeniu rezervat celor
> "putini si alesi", ca sa zic asa: e vorba de o mana de
> oameni.
> 
> Desi nu ma numar intre acei putini care ar avea dreptul sa pretinda ca
> inteleg aceste lucruri, pot sa-ti spun cu siguranta ca articolul asta
> e de doua parale si trateaza problema extrem de superficial.
> 
> Asadar, iti recomand prieteneste sa lasi balta fizica si sa te ocupi
> doar de lucrurile la care te pricepi, in caz ca te pricepi
> de-adevaratelea la ceva...
> 
> Mai bine povesteste-ne ceva distractiv despre prana si ci (chi sau qi,
> cum preferi).
> 
> Numa de bine,
> Scorilo
> 
> La 2004-12-31 01:20:11, YOGHINUL a scris:
> 
> > "Unified field theory" (and the String Theory later): who
> > tries to unify the quantum mechanics theory(describes: strong nuclear
> > forces, weak nuclear forces, electromagnetic forces) and the general
> > relativity theory(describes the gravity); to unite the world of the
> > small and the world of the large. General relativity describes the
> > force of gravity and hence is usually applied to the largest and most
> > massive structures including stars, galaxies, black holes and even, in
> > cosmology, the universe itself. Quantum mechanics is most relevant in
> > describing the smallest structures in the universe such as electrons
> > and quarks.
> > Why is so difficult to find the "Unified field theory"?
> > Because at quantum level space and time are so twisted and distorted,
> > that the conventional ideas of left and right, up and down, even
> > before and after break down. If I am at this level I can't say I'm
> > here or there or both places at once; or maybe I'm right here before
> > I'm right here!
> > In quantum theory, a field is not just something associated with
> > waves, but is also related to particles by virtue of the well-known
> > wave-particle duality.
> > The rules at small world don't behave at same way like the smooth way
> > of the general relativity(Einstein didn't understand it and was far
> > away to find the UNIFICATION, his dream)
> > The Standard Model is a highly successful and experimentally tested
> > theory of "three-fourth of everything" (since it
> > incorporates three of the four fundamental interactions) and does not
> > include the graviton and its interactions. The reason why the Standard
> > Model is useful despite the absence of gravity is that the strength of
> > gravitational interactions depends on the masses of the gravitating
> > bodies involved. For elementary particles, the gravitational force
> > between them is so small that one cannot even conceive of observing
> > it directly.
> > General relativity and quantum mechanics are mutually incompatible:
> > any calculation which simultaneously uses both of these tools yields
> > nonsensical answers.
> > The String Theory: based on the concept of elementary particles, tiny
> > vibrating loops of energy called strings. The unification: all the
> > fundamental particles we know can be described by one object, a
> > string!
> > The theory started from the Euler equations.
> > Superstring theory did the Unification!
> > No experiment can prove the strings exist,because of course are so
> > small. The size of a string is somewhere near the length scale of
> > quantum gravity, called the Planck length, which is about a millionth
> > of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a centimeter.
> > The strings have certain vibrational modes which can be characterized
> > by various quantum numbers such as mass, spin, etc.
> > Compose of an enormous number of oscillating strings, the universe is
> > like an elegant symphony.
> > Are five different Superstring theories, but not in harmony.
> > The M-Theory explain the origin of strings, why we have five
> > superstring theories. Is a 10 dimensional theory.
> > The F-Theory is a 12 dimensional theory, has two time co-ordinates.
> > Imagine you live in a world with two times.
> > I consider too that a true theory may be independent of any
> > dimensionality of space-time.
> > 
> > I see in The String Theory a EQUIVALENCE between Strings and Prana in
> > Yoga and Qi in Qigong. This EQUIVALENCE it's a huge step in
> > understanding the Universe.
> > 
> 
> 

La 2004-12-31 12:45:24, YOGHINUL a scris:

> Tu tot nu pricepi nici fizica, nici Yoga.

Bai Yogi, te anunt ca io ceva-ceva fizica pricep, asa ca nu te sfii sa te bagi la teorie cu mine. Am insa mari indoieli ca tu intelegi despre ce-i vorba in articolul pe care tocmai l-ai postat.

Daca reusesti sa-mi explici EQUIVALENTUL (sic!) yoghinic al ecuatiei cu functii si valori proprii din mecanica cuantica (cunoscuta in cercurile matematicienilor drept teoria spectrala a operatorilor), io imi scot caciula in fata ta.

Hai, da-i zbice!

> Articolul l-am scris eu sa priceapa toata lumea; nu are rost sa ma bag
> in teorie ca lumea nu mai pricepe nimic!
> 
> La 2004-12-31 09:14:27, Scorilo a scris:
> 
> > Te repezi sa faci "copy-paste" dintr-un articol de
> > popularizare a stiintei din cine stie ce sursa. Ca orice articol de
> > popularizare e scris cam dupa ureche si combina locuri comune
> > (adevarate de altfel, ca orice locuri comune) cu interpretari
> > elucubrante de ziarist care n-a mai pus mana pe o carte de fizica de
> > pe vremea cand era in liceu (daca o fi pus mana si pe atunci).
> > 
> > A intelege fizica moderna este deja un exercitiu intelectual extrem de
> > dificil si nu la indemana oricui; a intelege filozofia implicita
> > conceptelor vehiculate in fizica moderna e un domeniu rezervat celor
> > "putini si alesi", ca sa zic asa: e vorba de o mana de
> > oameni.
> > 
> > Desi nu ma numar intre acei putini care ar avea dreptul sa pretinda ca
> > inteleg aceste lucruri, pot sa-ti spun cu siguranta ca articolul asta
> > e de doua parale si trateaza problema extrem de superficial.
> > 
> > Asadar, iti recomand prieteneste sa lasi balta fizica si sa te ocupi
> > doar de lucrurile la care te pricepi, in caz ca te pricepi
> > de-adevaratelea la ceva...
> > 
> > Mai bine povesteste-ne ceva distractiv despre prana si ci (chi sau qi,
> > cum preferi).
> > 
> > Numa de bine,
> > Scorilo
> > 
> > La 2004-12-31 01:20:11, YOGHINUL a scris:
> > 
> > > "Unified field theory" (and the String Theory later): who
> > > tries to unify the quantum mechanics theory(describes: strong nuclear
> > > forces, weak nuclear forces, electromagnetic forces) and the general
> > > relativity theory(describes the gravity); to unite the world of the
> > > small and the world of the large. General relativity describes the
> > > force of gravity and hence is usually applied to the largest and most
> > > massive structures including stars, galaxies, black holes and even, in
> > > cosmology, the universe itself. Quantum mechanics is most relevant in
> > > describing the smallest structures in the universe such as electrons
> > > and quarks.
> > > Why is so difficult to find the "Unified field theory"?
> > > Because at quantum level space and time are so twisted and distorted,
> > > that the conventional ideas of left and right, up and down, even
> > > before and after break down. If I am at this level I can't say I'm
> > > here or there or both places at once; or maybe I'm right here before
> > > I'm right here!
> > > In quantum theory, a field is not just something associated with
> > > waves, but is also related to particles by virtue of the well-known
> > > wave-particle duality.
> > > The rules at small world don't behave at same way like the smooth way
> > > of the general relativity(Einstein didn't understand it and was far
> > > away to find the UNIFICATION, his dream)
> > > The Standard Model is a highly successful and experimentally tested
> > > theory of "three-fourth of everything" (since it
> > > incorporates three of the four fundamental interactions) and does not
> > > include the graviton and its interactions. The reason why the Standard
> > > Model is useful despite the absence of gravity is that the strength of
> > > gravitational interactions depends on the masses of the gravitating
> > > bodies involved. For elementary particles, the gravitational force
> > > between them is so small that one cannot even conceive of observing
> > > it directly.
> > > General relativity and quantum mechanics are mutually incompatible:
> > > any calculation which simultaneously uses both of these tools yields
> > > nonsensical answers.
> > > The String Theory: based on the concept of elementary particles, tiny
> > > vibrating loops of energy called strings. The unification: all the
> > > fundamental particles we know can be described by one object, a
> > > string!
> > > The theory started from the Euler equations.
> > > Superstring theory did the Unification!
> > > No experiment can prove the strings exist,because of course are so
> > > small. The size of a string is somewhere near the length scale of
> > > quantum gravity, called the Planck length, which is about a millionth
> > > of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a centimeter.
> > > The strings have certain vibrational modes which can be characterized
> > > by various quantum numbers such as mass, spin, etc.
> > > Compose of an enormous number of oscillating strings, the universe is
> > > like an elegant symphony.
> > > Are five different Superstring theories, but not in harmony.
> > > The M-Theory explain the origin of strings, why we have five
> > > superstring theories. Is a 10 dimensional theory.
> > > The F-Theory is a 12 dimensional theory, has two time co-ordinates.
> > > Imagine you live in a world with two times.
> > > I consider too that a true theory may be independent of any
> > > dimensionality of space-time.
> > > 
> > > I see in The String Theory a EQUIVALENCE between Strings and Prana in
> > > Yoga and Qi in Qigong. This EQUIVALENCE it's a huge step in
> > > understanding the Universe.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

La 2004-12-31 12:45:24, YOGHINUL a scris:

> Tu tot nu pricepi nici fizica, nici Yoga.
> Articolul l-am scris eu sa priceapa toata lumea; nu are rost sa ma bag
> in teorie ca lumea nu mai pricepe nimic!

Uite, Yogi, ca sa nu zici ca ma incurc in chitzibusuri si ecuatii cu functii si valori proprii, pe care lumea ar putea sa nu le inteleaga, te intreb urmatoarele:

Fii bun si enunta-mi postulatele mecanicii cuantice (principiile, axiomele, sau cum vrei tu sa le numesti). Ca sa fim lamuriti de la bun inceput, te anunt ca acestea sunt in numar de patru pana la opt, in functie de autorul cartii pe care o citesti (unii comaseaza doua sau mai multe principii intr-unul singur, in timp ce altii prefera enunturi separate).

Daca asta e prea mult, atunci enunta-mi macar cele doua postulate ale teoriei relativitatii restranse (sau speciale, cum o numesc unii ca s-o deosebeasca de teoria relativitatii generale).

Daca nu indraznesc prea mult, am sa te rog sa rog sa faci si ceva comentarii pe marginea lor si sa analizezi - tu cu cuvintele tale - implicatiile lor. Poate - la urma urmei - ne iesplici pe intelesul nostru si de ce teoria relativitatii e asa de revolutionara...

Hai sa traiesti si la multi ani (precum si la multi bani).
Scorilo

La 2004-12-31 21:38:13, Scorilo a scris:

> La 2004-12-31 12:45:24, YOGHINUL a scris:
> 
> > Tu tot nu pricepi nici fizica, nici Yoga.
> > Articolul l-am scris eu sa priceapa toata lumea; nu are rost sa ma bag
> > in teorie ca lumea nu mai pricepe nimic!
> 
> Uite, Yogi, ca sa nu zici ca ma incurc in chitzibusuri si ecuatii cu
> functii si valori proprii, pe care lumea ar putea sa nu le inteleaga,
> te intreb urmatoarele:
> 
> Fii bun si enunta-mi postulatele mecanicii cuantice (principiile,
> axiomele, sau cum vrei tu sa le numesti). Ca sa fim lamuriti de la
> bun inceput, te anunt ca acestea sunt in numar de patru pana la opt,
> in functie de autorul cartii pe care o citesti (unii comaseaza doua
> sau mai multe principii intr-unul singur, in timp ce altii prefera
> enunturi separate).
> 
> Daca asta e prea mult, atunci enunta-mi macar cele doua postulate ale
> teoriei relativitatii restranse (sau speciale, cum o numesc unii ca
> s-o deosebeasca de teoria relativitatii generale).
> 
> Daca nu indraznesc prea mult, am sa te rog sa rog sa faci si ceva
> comentarii pe marginea lor si sa analizezi - tu cu cuvintele tale -
> implicatiile lor. Poate - la urma urmei - ne iesplici pe intelesul
> nostru si de ce teoria relativitatii e asa de revolutionara...
> 
> Hai sa traiesti si la multi ani (precum si la multi bani).
> Scorilo
> 

Scorilo,

teoria o gasesti pe internet; am terminat Electronica in Bucuresti deci le am pe astea cu matematica.
Ce este important este aceasta legatura intre teoria stringurilor(de care puteti scrie si in ziar-de la Pitagora se trage) si Prana in Yoga, descoperita de mine.
Adica, stiinta si Yoga se apropie si este normal sa fie asa.

Va doresc tuturor: LA MULTI ANI !



La 2004-12-31 21:38:13, Scorilo a scris:

> La 2004-12-31 12:45:24, YOGHINUL a scris:
> 
> > Tu tot nu pricepi nici fizica, nici Yoga.
> > Articolul l-am scris eu sa priceapa toata lumea; nu are rost sa ma bag
> > in teorie ca lumea nu mai pricepe nimic!
> 
> Uite, Yogi, ca sa nu zici ca ma incurc in chitzibusuri si ecuatii cu
> functii si valori proprii, pe care lumea ar putea sa nu le inteleaga,
> te intreb urmatoarele:
> 
> Fii bun si enunta-mi postulatele mecanicii cuantice (principiile,
> axiomele, sau cum vrei tu sa le numesti). Ca sa fim lamuriti de la
> bun inceput, te anunt ca acestea sunt in numar de patru pana la opt,
> in functie de autorul cartii pe care o citesti (unii comaseaza doua
> sau mai multe principii intr-unul singur, in timp ce altii prefera
> enunturi separate).
> 
> Daca asta e prea mult, atunci enunta-mi macar cele doua postulate ale
> teoriei relativitatii restranse (sau speciale, cum o numesc unii ca
> s-o deosebeasca de teoria relativitatii generale).
> 
> Daca nu indraznesc prea mult, am sa te rog sa rog sa faci si ceva
> comentarii pe marginea lor si sa analizezi - tu cu cuvintele tale -
> implicatiile lor. Poate - la urma urmei - ne iesplici pe intelesul
> nostru si de ce teoria relativitatii e asa de revolutionara...
> 
> Hai sa traiesti si la multi ani (precum si la multi bani).
> Scorilo
> 

Nu ca-mi pun eu mintea cu de-alde Yogi, dar ca se baga chiar pe domeniul meu, pe fizica, si se mai da si mare expert, asta nu pot s-o inghit...

Sanatate,
Scorilo

La 2005-01-01 19:52:20, Mos Grigore a scris:

> La 2004-12-31 21:38:13, Scorilo a scris:
> 
> > La 2004-12-31 12:45:24, YOGHINUL a scris:
> > 
> > > Tu tot nu pricepi nici fizica, nici Yoga.
> > > Articolul l-am scris eu sa priceapa toata lumea; nu are rost sa ma bag
> > > in teorie ca lumea nu mai pricepe nimic!
> > 
> > Uite, Yogi, ca sa nu zici ca ma incurc in chitzibusuri si ecuatii cu
> > functii si valori proprii, pe care lumea ar putea sa nu le inteleaga,
> > te intreb urmatoarele:
> > 
> > Fii bun si enunta-mi postulatele mecanicii cuantice (principiile,
> > axiomele, sau cum vrei tu sa le numesti). Ca sa fim lamuriti de la
> > bun inceput, te anunt ca acestea sunt in numar de patru pana la opt,
> > in functie de autorul cartii pe care o citesti (unii comaseaza doua
> > sau mai multe principii intr-unul singur, in timp ce altii prefera
> > enunturi separate).
> > 
> > Daca asta e prea mult, atunci enunta-mi macar cele doua postulate ale
> > teoriei relativitatii restranse (sau speciale, cum o numesc unii ca
> > s-o deosebeasca de teoria relativitatii generale).
> > 
> > Daca nu indraznesc prea mult, am sa te rog sa rog sa faci si ceva
> > comentarii pe marginea lor si sa analizezi - tu cu cuvintele tale -
> > implicatiile lor. Poate - la urma urmei - ne iesplici pe intelesul
> > nostru si de ce teoria relativitatii e asa de revolutionara...
> > 
> > Hai sa traiesti si la multi ani (precum si la multi bani).
> > Scorilo
> > 
> 
>