Google please assign this group a moderator
muser
newsgroup for the lay enthausiast. Now every semi illiterate,
juvenile, with an opinion posts on this forum. would it be too much
trouble for google to get a team together to moderate this group?
--- -. dotat
That "group" has been here long before Google even existed.
w.
Y.Porat
----------------------
and who will be the moderator ??
i suggest you to be
2
btw you say 5/6 years
can you point the big advance or
unprecedented contributions of those dream days beside smug
closed club mumblings
on coffee cup
by this ng ????
3
why the fuck sci.physics.research is not good enough for your
Highness ???
and btw
can you point the big contributions of
sci .research since ever ???
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
Richard Tobin
muser <charli...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Google has no authority or ability to moderate usenet newsgroups.
They could, technically, control what Google Groups users see or post,
but I doubt they would want to do that: selectively filtering based
on content might bring into question their right to use the group
at all.
-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
hhc...@yahoo.com
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 03:30:52 -0700 (PDT), muser
>
> >I remember 5\6 years ago this group was one of the best physics
> >newsgroup for the lay enthausiast. Now every semi illiterate,
> >juvenile, with an opinion posts on this forum. would it be too much
> >trouble for google to get a team together to moderate this group?
>
> That "group" has been here long before Google even existed.
>
> w.
Amen to that!
Sadly, the newbies have a problem distingishing Google Groups from
Usenet Newsgroups. They don't seem aware of the fact that except for
rare moderated Usenet Newsgroups, most newsgroups are and forever will
be unmoderated, so anyone can post whatever they damn well please.
Sometime this is good, and some times an annoyance.
At any rate, the OP seems to hold a believe that Google plays a role,
which of course they do not. To the OP I would offer this suggestion:
Get a clue on how Usenet operates, and realize that Google has no
influence on it. Sheesh!
Harry C.
Dirk Van de moortel
ea0e64e8-2d8b-4fd8...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
Try sci.physics.research - moderated and (therefore a bit) boring.
By the way, a few months ago a few newsgroups where flooded
by the most obvious spam, all posted through Google groups.
It looked like Google didn't care about taking action against
it, but at this point it looks like they have taken certain measures.
Dirk Vdm
Sam Wormley
This is USENET, an internet protocol independent of Google or
any corporate entity.
However you can contribute to raising the standards of this
USENET Newsgroup sci.physics by minimizing replies to trolls
and make credible postings about physics.
Noke
This is because the public is getting more intelligent. Prior
to it. Copenhagen zombies and relativistic miracle workers
rule. When the public realize that relativists describe that the
the universe with over 100 billion galaxies each with over 100
billion stars each star at least the size of the sun or bigger
and they were once contained in in a space smaller than
the head of the pin, then they begin to realize that this
is the most fantastic thing they ever heard. Now when
they realize further that beneath the world they inhabit,
things can be in two places at once (electrons before
measurement for example) and there is no physical
picture of it but everything encapsulated in the wavefunction
which works like magic. Many in the public has a mental
breakdown. And from this raised the super newtonians.
Super newtonians are what these crackpots are all about
as they try to put in picture and mechanical form what
occurs in the invironment of the atom for example and why
relativity is just wrong because there is just no way in
hell the entire unverse can fit into the head of pin. Its
more fantastic than saying angels can dance in the
head of the pin. Physicists indeed beat it by literally
describing that even the dance of galaxy in relation
to other galaxy can also fit into the head of the pin.
At this point. It's either their mind shuts down and
they suffer mental collapse so intense it can kill them
or they all focus over something that can prevent total
mental breakdown that would put them in mental institution.
The result of their focus is in the emergence of the
Super Newtonians. Those who want science being
explained but not using quantum mechanics nor relativity
but newtonian physics. Its the only way to save their mind.
Without them reverting to newtonian worlds. They mind
equilibrium can be so affected that they would literally lose
their mind by the simultaneiously brain wide neutral
collapse that could even kill them. So to attempt the
first try to moderate this newsgroup, we must have tie
with government mental institutions where these super
newtonians like Porat, Seto, Thomsons, Retic, etc. can
be locked up inside and be treated by experts to make
them loss memory or interests in them... to make them lose
totally their interests by inducing them epilectic seisure to
disconnect the brain with the final outcome of making them
understand and following the moto "Ignorance is Bliss".
hanson
I remember 5\6 years ago this group was one of the best physics
newsgroup for the lay enthausiast. Now every semi illiterate,
juvenile, with an opinion posts on this forum. would it be too much
trouble for google to get a team together to moderate this group?
>
Loser listen, you are an expemlary Einstein Dingleberry.
If you yearn & need to move closer to Albert's sphincter
then join s.p.research. There you'll find plenty EDs like yourself;
all of them dangling in the draft of the farts which come from
Einstein, and to boot, even consume the octonions that are
served there by the pound.
Thanks for the laughs you dangling control freak... ahaha...
ahahaha... ahahahahanson
Dirk Van de moortel
c5ae2062-b266-42fd...@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com
> On Jul 2, 6:30 pm, muser <charlie12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I remember 5\6 years ago this group was one of the best physics
>> newsgroup for the lay enthausiast. Now every semi illiterate,
>> juvenile, with an opinion posts on this forum. would it be too much
>> trouble for google to get a team together to moderate this group?
>
>
> This is because the public is getting more intelligent.
I think it is because internet is getting cheaper and more
accessible. And computers more idiot-friendly. Just look
at yourself for instance.
Dirk Vdm
Eric Gisse
Google groups is not USENET.
Noke
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Noke <gad.g...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> c5ae2062-b266-42fd-a045-a3bc18562...@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com
Oh, another Copenhagen zombie...
srp...@gmail.com
> I remember 5\6 years ago this group was one of the best physics
> newsgroup for the lay enthausiast.
It still is.
> Now every semi illiterate, juvenile, with an opinion posts on this
> forum.
The same as always in the past.
> would it be too much trouble for google to get a team together
> to moderate this group?
Google has no authority at all over the Usenet. Just one of the
windows allowing a peek at and allows posting to.
Nobody will ever moderate this group.
What you need to do what everybody else ends up doing,
that is, chose the people you want to interact with and ignore
the rest.
André Michaud
Y.Porat
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> muser <charlie12...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> ea0e64e8-2d8b-4fd8-89d9-5614ffb99...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
>
> > I remember 5\6 years ago this group was one of the best physics
> > newsgroup for the lay enthausiast. Now every semi illiterate,
> > juvenile, with an opinion posts on this forum. would it be too much
> > trouble for google to get a team together to moderate this group?
>
> Try sci.physics.research - moderated and (therefore a bit) boring.
its the first time in my life
i see Dirk talking sense and sincere
probably he started to understand that salvation
will not come just from crackparroters ......
in this 'messed ng you will find a thousand garbage posts
but if only one of those thousands will be a through breaker
it will make all of those thousand plus one 'grbage' ones
to be worth ** the** effort and 'trouble'
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
Jim Black
By the time you get to this point in the thread, you will have had pointed
out to you many times that Google Groups is not Usenet. Google Groups does
offer access to Usenet through a web interface, but not only is it a bad
interface, but you can't filter out posts from people you don't want to
read messages from.
If you want to keep reading this group, you should set up a real
newsreader. Thunderbird and Outlook, which you may already have, will read
newsgroups. I'm using 40tude Dialog, an old piece of freeware, because it
allows me to easily filter out replies to the posts I'm blocking. From
your headers, it appears you're using BT for Internet access; if that is
the case, your news server is news.btinternet.com.
And if you're looking for a moderated newsgroup like sci.physics, there's
sci.physics.research.
--
Jim E. Black (domain in headers)
How to filter out stupid arguments in 40tude Dialog:
!markread,ignore From "Name" +"<email address>"
[X] Watch/Ignore works on subthreads
tadchem
Translation:
"Mommy, I'm scared! Make it better for me!"
Google is not a "host" for this group. This is Usenet. Google is
just a portal to Usenet - one of many. Your own ISP could get you
here, as could any number of other servers available online.
Google "usenet servers": 58,600 hits.
The top 1000 servers as of last month were:
http://www.top1000.org/top1000.current.txt
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
muser
thank you. I'm a little frustrated at what this forum has become. I
know of sci.physics.research, but that is highly technical and it
requires a good grasp of algreba and calculus. For some of us mere
mortals a conversation on physical generalities will be ignored or
derided (if you're lucky). sci.physics.foundations is moderate but
don't let the word foundations throw you, it's virtually run in the
same manner as s.c.r. sci.physics was always the place any enthuasist
could come and air an opinion and have it met with a well rounded
response. That is unfortunately no longer the case.
srp...@gmail.com
The type of response you are looking for you will get if you
ask a well rounded question.
On unmoderated Usenet groups, it is up to the poster to
analyze and select the answers he finds well rounded for
his own purpose among the pile of answers he gets.
You just need to ignore the answers that you find offensive
or weird of off topic.
André Michaud
Noke
>
> - Show quoted text -
This newsgroup has been hijacked by a gang composing of few
members only namely.. Androcles, Pentcho, Y.Porat, Spaceman,
& Seto. These folks are super newtonian fanatics. They are willing
to die for Newton (subtly there are forming a Newton cult much like
the Nazi cults). They want to make sure our physics stop in
the time of Newton and Einsteinian physics never came. If
you have big connections in the government and law. Try to
indict them for crimes against humanity and progress and get
lawyer order to make them not come within 15 meters of any
internet machine with sci.physics in it.
Noke
Tom Potter
>"Noke" <gad....@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:a3d837dc-f519-4442...@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Noke demonstrates what is wrong with sci.physics.
In the early days, the science groups on CompuServe,
FidoNet, Genie, The Source, Delphi, Prodigy, AOL, etc.
experts and beginners alike interacted in a
rational, intelligent, civilized, moral way.
Experts could discuss heavy issues,
and beginners could toss in their two cents,
and get a civilized, informative response.
Unfortunately about the year 2000,
all of the commercial services migrated to the Internet,
and sci.physics became a battle ground between
John Baez and Jack Sarfatti
to be "King of the Mountain".
After John Baez create his infamous
"Crackpot Index" in an effort to smear Sarfatti,
the newsgroup quickly fell into two groups,
defenders of "conventional wisdom"
and attackers of "conventional wisdom".
The defenders of "conventional wisdom"
began to attack messengers
rather than address messages,
and the attackers of "conventional wisdom"
after being personally attacked
rather than having their messages
addressed in a rational, intelligent, civilized way,
began to respond in kind.
Regarding "Noke's" statement:
"This newsgroup has been hijacked by a gang composing of few
members only namely.. Androcles, Pentcho, Y.Porat, Spaceman, & Seto",
I suggest that if "Noke" applied his time, knowledge, and intellect
engaging those posters in debates on their positions,
that he would find that they are more than happy to accommodate him.
I suggest that folks interested in returning to the
wonderful days of yesteryear should note
who tries to focus attention on some issue,
and who tries to focus attention on some person or persons.
--
Tom Potter
http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
Sam Wormley
>
> In the early days, the science groups on CompuServe,
> FidoNet, Genie, The Source, Delphi, Prodigy, AOL, etc.
> experts and beginners alike interacted in a
> rational, intelligent, civilized, moral way.
>
Then scientific illiterates like you, Potter, started posting
nonsense and that kind of crap persists today because so many
untutored in physics find such behavior entertaining.
Tom Potter
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:0Fqbk.237955$yE1.37529@attbi_s21...
I would like to thank my pal Sam Wormley
for demonstrating the points I made on my post,
where I stated that sci.physics degenerated when:
"The defenders of "conventional wisdom"
began to attack messengers
rather than address messages,
and the attackers of "conventional wisdom"
after being personally attacked
rather than having their messages
addressed in a rational, intelligent, civilized way,
began to respond in kind.
Regarding "Noke's" statement:
"This newsgroup has been hijacked by a gang composing of few
members only namely.. Androcles, Pentcho, Y.Porat, Spaceman, & Seto",
I suggest that if "Noke" applied his time, knowledge, and intellect
engaging those posters in debates on their positions,
that he would find that they are more than happy to accommodate him.
I suggest that folks interested in returning to the
wonderful days of yesteryear should note
who tries to focus attention on some issue,
and who tries to focus attention on some person or persons."
I will be looking forward to seeing Sammy
apply his time, knowledge, and intellect
engaging posters in debates on their positions,
rather than attacking folks personally.
Thanks for demonstrating and confirming
the points I made in my post Sammy.
Don't be shy Sammy.
Even if you don't comprehend a thread
try to make a contribution to it.
The longest journey starts with a single step.
Your pal,
--
Tom Potter
http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
jmfbahciv
/BAH
Y.Porat
----------------
i just wonder why an orchestra conductor like
Sam Wormley
is not locating himself in sci.physics.research
and rejoice there !!???
while a crackparroter like him
is positioning himself in a position of a JUDGE !!
he becomes not just a crackparroter but a crook.
a harmful crook
and a pain in the neck fo real advance
Y.Porat
----------------------------------
Noke
I believe Sam Wormley is a genius with an IQ running in
gigahertz...
Noke
G=EMC^2 Glazier
religious nuts They have no place in a science group that is looking
for reality. Let them go some where else with their bible answers. I(
don't want to hurt their feelings but they are just 100% crazy. This
truth makes them very mad. Bert
Sam Wormley
You want to get rid of the physicist in a physics newsgroup?
You could start alt.herbfantasyphysics
and just be happy babbling away, Herb!
Spaceman
> G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
>> If we had a moderator with a brain he would get rid of the brain
>> washed religious nuts They have no place in a science group that is
>> looking for reality. Let them go some where else with their bible
>> answers. I( don't want to hurt their feelings but they are just
>> 100% crazy. This truth makes them very mad. Bert
>>
>
> You want to get rid of the physicist in a physics newsgroup?
No,
just the relativists.
They are the religious nuts.
The relativity religion of course.
LOL
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
hanson
>
Hebie-Herbie "G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbert...@webtv.net>
is bad-mouthing again just like his ugly son-in-ilk does here:
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O9W3UsdRyM >
or in < http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e1842edc4f >
and then, Hebe-Herbie, the hateful bigoted kike wrote:
" -- If we had a moderator with a brain he would get rid of the brain
washed religious nuts They have no place in a science group
that is looking for reality. Let them go some where else with their
100% crazy. This truth makes them very mad. Bert --"
>
hanson wrote:
Hebie-Herbie, look for your own reality: "1st moderate yourself!!!!
..... ahahahaha... Listen, Hebie-Herbie, you 2-faced zion-ass &
ashkeNazi, you are bad-mouthing again like you admitted to do
here yourself when the Sheriff came to get you, ... ahahahaha...:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b19435c22aac91c1?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5a0a075d94e9752e?hl=en
>
The only thing that can be said in defense of your behavior is that
you are damaged goods which is a consequence of what YOUR
own ilk has started ever since they bought into
::: the aberrant legacy of the perverse sociopathy of Abe,
::: the Arab. -- Abraham who was a child abuser & the original
::: self-circumciser due to his VD malady, a deranged member
::: from the criminal out-cast tribe of the Habaru, who some 5768
::: years ago, .... (acc. to the tales in the current Jewish calendar,
::: probably on a Oct. 25, during a Shabbat ... ahaha... ahahaha)
::: spawned the seeds of Monotheism that gave rise to Judaism,
::: Xianity and Islam, whose sole & chief raison d'etre seems to
::: be to kill each other off, wholesale, in the name of their own
::: respective irrational, godly-ungodly "spiritual" oye-weh-
::: Yahweh-, trall-Allah- or junk-Jehovah- delusions... ahahaha...
>
How does that feel to you after you said that all others, except you
Jews, are "100% crazy"? ... "Trust me!", Hebie Herbie, you true
blossom of Jewish wisdom... "Go figure"... L'Chaim, Shalom!...
but thanks for the laughs you splendid loud-mouthing olde kacker.
ahaha... ahahaha.... hahahahanson
G. L. Bradford
> G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
>> If we had a moderator with a brain he would get rid of the brain washed
>> religious nuts They have no place in a science group that is looking
>> for reality. Let them go some where else with their bible answers. I(
>> don't want to hurt their feelings but they are just 100% crazy. This
>> truth makes them very mad. Bert
>>
>
> You want to get rid of the physicist in a physics newsgroup?
>
Good, Sam. Very good! Excellent interception....in advance at that!
GLB
Tom Potter
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> >Tom Potterwrote:
My friend BAH is partly correct.
I was wrong about the date that the conflict
started between Sarfatti and Baez
that turned sci.physics into a "River of Shit".
As can be seen by the post by Sarfatti:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5e708010503c494a
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfa...@netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti)
Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 00:53:34 GMT
Local: Wed, May 18 1994 8:53 am
Subject: John Baez tells lies.
Some one just sent me a "net.legend.FAQ" about me written
by John Baez. It is totally fraudulent.
For example, Baez claims I tell a story that Murray Gell-Mann
finds my ideas interesting. I never told such a story. I never
spent time with Gell-Mann. I did spend time with Feynman on
several occassions in 1963 and 1967 and Feynman did send me
a funny letter to "The Great Sarfatti" to me at UCSD in 1967.
He did drive around with me in my Jaguar convertible in 1963.
But I never even spoke to Gell-Mann and never said I did.
Baez wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Used to tell people
Murray Gell-Mann found his ideas interesting; someone finally checked
with
Gell-Mann - and found the complete quote was "Your ideas are
interesting, but
[looking at watch] I'm late for an appointment." Posts from ....
------------------------------------------------------------------
Also Baez falsely says I wrote letters of complaint to academic
superiors of at least one other person other than him. This is
a lie - the only letter of complaint I did write was to John Baez's
Department Chirman and Academic Dean at UCR (where I got my Ph.D.
with Fred Cummings in 1969). John and his graduate student, David
Dixon, who has a history of terrorizing females on campus, have
been spreading lies about me for over a year on the internet for
over a year which is why I did complain to his Dean. This is not
professional behavior for a promising professor without tenure
and I wish he would stop it. My personal displeasure over his
distortions of my ideas etc will not stop me from reading his
book on Knots and Physics - but I hope his writng there is more
accurate than his lies about me.
What is this net.legend.FAQ which seems to be a repository of
false information? "
The conflict started not around 2000,
but around 1994.
Boy how times flies!
--
Tom Potter
http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
Tom Potter
> gigahertz...
>
> Noke
It looks like Sammy created himself a sock puppet.
Either that,
or some naive guy is confusing I.Q. with weight.
--
Tom Potter
http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
Noke
wrote:
Why take pot shot only at relativity, why not quantum
mechanics too? In QM, a particle doesn't go from A to B.
It takes all path at once.. so space and time cease to exist
in quantum mechanics (before measurement). At least with
relativity, things only get distorted and this only occurs
perspectivewise and not on the first person state. So you
still have space and time in relativity versus full reality
defeating stunt in qm. So why take pot shot just at relativity?
QM is even weirder.
noke
Spaceman
If they say time ceases to exist, they are also just as warped
as relativists and have completely lost the science of measurement.
once the science of measurement is distorted or lost, the science
itself is no longer there.
hanson
> >
Hebie Herbie G=EMC^2 Glazier, the bigoted, geriatric kike
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5a0a075d94e9752e?hl=en
wrote like a typical zio-Nazi that he is:
If we had a moderator with a brain he would get rid of the brain
washed religious nuts They have no place in a science group that is
looking for reality. Let them go some where else with their bible
answers. I( don't want to hurt their feelings but they are just
100% crazy. This truth makes them very mad. Bert
>
You want to get rid of the physicist in a physics newsgroup?
>
No, just the relativists.
They are the religious nuts. The relativity religion of course.
>
"Noke" <gad....@yahoo.com> wrote
Why take pot shot only at relativity, why not quantum
mechanics too? In QM, a particle doesn't go from A to B.
It takes all path at once.. so space and time cease to exist
in quantum mechanics (before measurement). At least with
relativity, things only get distorted and this only occurs
perspectivewise and not on the first person state. So you
still have space and time in relativity versus full reality
defeating stunt in qm. So why take pot shot just at relativity?
>
hanson wrote:
Noke, your point is valid, if you extend and expand it to all
theories. .... After all, theories are only shop-lingo for tales
that MODEL reality. But Professor Driscoll has a very valid
point too in his railings against the RELigious proselytizing
of Einstein's crap by the hordes of Einstein's Dingleberries
who are trying to pass it off as reality.. ahahaha....
Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahaha... ahahahanson
Spaceman
Sadly, All these silly religions are basically saying basic math
is wrong, and then they use basic math to prove that basic
math is wrong.
That is truly one of the funniest things about all the dingleberries.
They have lost the logic completely.
and sadly, they are too brainwashed to see what they have lost.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
G=EMC^2 Glazier
little brain can't understand my posts I say shame on you Bert
Jim Black
> On Jul 5, 8:47 pm, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>Tom Potterwrote:
>>
>>>> In the early days, the science groups on CompuServe, FidoNet, Genie,
>>>> The Source, Delphi, Prodigy, AOL, etc. experts and beginners alike
>>>> interacted in a rational, intelligent, civilized, moral way.
>>
>>> Then scientific illiterates like you, Potter, started posting
>>> nonsense and that kind of crap persists today because so many
>>> untutored in physics find such behavior entertaining.
And many of us who are tutored in physics also find it entertaining.
Fortunately, with killfiles we don't have to read any of it (not much,
anyway) unless we feel like being entertained.
>> His so-called history of what happened is also complete bullshit.
>>
>> /BAH
>
> My friend BAH is partly correct.
>
> I was wrong about the date that the conflict
> started between Sarfatti and Baez
> that turned sci.physics into a "River of Shit".
>
> As can be seen by the post by Sarfatti:
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5e708010503c494a
[snip Sarfatti post]
> The conflict started not around 2000,
> but around 1994.
>
> Boy how times flies!
For those following the soap opera, a cursory search of the Google archives
reveals that the "Crackpot Index" was first proposed by John Baez in 1992:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/f32dd5bb05208802
He was following up to this post by Robert McElwaine:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0ab6e7db67e6bdfb
Over the next few days, he applied the new index to posts from such people
as McElwaine and Alexander Abian:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/9fcb4033adb16018
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/f6dab03c8612046c
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/6d023f1a0f958024
And himself (discussing loop quantum gravity):
> In article <1992Oct14....@galois.mit.edu> jb...@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>
> >The former. Far from being revolutionary, it is the most conservative
> >approach devised so far in that it attempts to adhere to the principles
> >of both quantum mechanics (Hilbert space/operator formalism etc.) and
> >general relativity (Einstein's equations, general covariance etc.).
>
> >But the real point is that what matters is not whether a theory IS
> >revolutionary but whether it is CLAIMED to be, in the absence of
> >concrete testable predictions. Who knows, loop variables or Abian's
> >principles might prove to be revolutionary! But claiming so at this
> >point deserves 30 points.
>
> >Hopefully the present article gets a 0 crackpot index since my 5-point
> >credit cancels my use of caps.
>
> The above article has a crackpot rating of 6, since it has 2 capitalized
> words and one error of fact.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/aae73e53490da9eb
Sarfatti did take particular exception to the index, though, and started
two threads that week on it:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/9cb80029a7a83d5a/db40ffbb510cac50
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/291384f45faa0367/2a5e0e7f8691a99d
He also mentioned it in:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a77ea7f093c95a23/123a6eb7110af8fb
He says to Baez, "I think you mostly post good stuff - with some slips like
crackpot index."
Baez's response was:
> (Sarfatti also emailed me this letter and I emailed him a response, which
> I will not bother to repeat here. Let me simply note that my
> "crackpot index" posts and my reported "sinking feeling" upon
> encountering the title "EXORCIZING THE BAEZ DEMON" were intended to
> amuse, more than edify. It's called comedy, folks - comedy. If you
> don't like it, well, sorry.)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/123a6eb7110af8fb
Noke
> "Noke" <gad.g...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:04a5d756-3f96-4a03...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hebie Herbie G=EMC^2 Glazier, the bigoted, geriatric kikehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5a0a075d94e9752e?hl=en
> wrote like a typical zio-Nazi that he is:
> If we had a moderator with a brain he would get rid of the brain
> washed religious nuts They have no place in a science group that is
> looking for reality. Let them go some where else with their bible
> answers. I( don't want to hurt their feelings but they are just
> 100% crazy. This truth makes them very mad. Bert
>
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> You want to get rid of the physicist in a physics newsgroup?
>
> "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
>
> No, just the relativists.
> They are the religious nuts. The relativity religion of course.
> LOL -- James M Driscoll Jr -- Spaceman
>
> Why take pot shot only at relativity, why not quantum
> mechanics too? In QM, a particle doesn't go from A to B.
> It takes all path at once.. so space and time cease to exist
> in quantum mechanics (before measurement). At least with
> relativity, things only get distorted and this only occurs
> perspectivewise and not on the first person state. So you
> still have space and time in relativity versus full reality
> defeating stunt in qm. So why take pot shot just at relativity?
> QM is even weirder. --- noke
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> Noke, your point is valid, if you extend and expand it to all
> theories. .... After all, theories are only shop-lingo for tales
> that MODEL reality. But Professor Driscoll has a very valid
> point too in his railings against the RELigious proselytizing
> of Einstein's crap by the hordes of Einstein's Dingleberries
> who are trying to pass it off as reality.. ahahaha....
> Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahaha... ahahahanson
But it is reality. Particle accelerators, GPS, etc. apply
relativity. At the smallest scale and fastest velocity,
things are pretty distorted. Here, QM and relativity rule.
You just happen to be born in a small window where
newtonian laws is valid. This doesn't mean it is valid
all the way to smallest scale and fastest velocity.
This is simple common sense. Why can't you go on
terms with it???
I have a feeling that reasons can't penetrate, hostility
of physics runs too deep in your blood. So you end up as
newtonian cultists. Cant you see it?
Also. If relativists dig for einstenian religion.. you guys are
newtonian cultists.
Unfortunately. Experimental proof goes in the company
of the religious relativists so you newtonian cultists lose,
in light of quantum mechanics even more stranger foundation.
Ponder on it hanson and driscoll. Even weirder physics is to
come when the Large Hadron Collider goes online in August. Be
prepared or be left behind in the medieval ages.
Noke
Spaceman
> But it is reality. Particle accelerators, GPS, etc. apply
> relativity. At the smallest scale and fastest velocity,
> things are pretty distorted. Here, QM and relativity rule.
> You just happen to be born in a small window where
> newtonian laws is valid. This doesn't mean it is valid
> all the way to smallest scale and fastest velocity.
> This is simple common sense. Why can't you go on
> terms with it???
Particle accelerators would not work at all
if Newtons was not mostly if not all correct.
and nothing about a particle accelerator proves Newton incorrect.
GPS actually provides a massive problem for relativity,
because it actually uses absolutes to find absolutes in the long
run so if anything "again" it needs Newtons absolutes thinking.
The smallest scales work fine with Newton,
It is just a matter of finding all the newtonian forces
that apply, the only reason it fails is when some sort
of Newtonian force was left out of the equation.
> I have a feeling that reasons can't penetrate, hostility
> of physics runs too deep in your blood. So you end up as
> newtonian cultists. Cant you see it?
Hostility towards physics?
You got that 100% wrong,
You see, I want physics to again provide physical causes
for effects like Newton has done.
but poor old Relativity lacks it completely.
Relativity has not one physical cause for any of the effects
it describes.
> Also. If relativists dig for einstenian religion.. you guys are
> newtonian cultists.
>
> Unfortunately. Experimental proof goes in the company
> of the religious relativists so you newtonian cultists lose,
> in light of quantum mechanics even more stranger foundation.
>
> Ponder on it hanson and driscoll. Even weirder physics is to
> come when the Large Hadron Collider goes online in August. Be
> prepared or be left behind in the medieval ages.
If you truly believe relativity has found even one physical cause
you are only fooling yourself and joined the religion blindly.
:)
Newtons "science" explains each and every effect with
"physical causes".
That hardly puts it in a religious state such as relativity
at all.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Greg Neill
news:KtmdnRG8_I2HMe_V...@comcast.com
>> But it is reality. Particle accelerators, GPS, etc. apply
>> relativity. At the smallest scale and fastest velocity,
>> things are pretty distorted. Here, QM and relativity rule.
>> You just happen to be born in a small window where
>> newtonian laws is valid. This doesn't mean it is valid
>> all the way to smallest scale and fastest velocity.
>> This is simple common sense. Why can't you go on
>> terms with it???
>
> Particle accelerators would not work at all
> if Newtons was not mostly if not all correct.
Incorrect. Relativity entirely subsumes and supercedes
Newton.
> and nothing about a particle accelerator proves Newton incorrect.
Wrong. Almost everything about particle accelerators
proves Newton incorrect. But you've had this explained
to you on multiple occasions. For some reason you're
incapable of absorbing it.
> GPS actually provides a massive problem for relativity,
> because it actually uses absolutes to find absolutes in the long
> run so if anything "again" it needs Newtons absolutes thinking.
Wrong. GPS must use relativistic corrections or it
would be terribly inaccurate. GPS clocks are
corrected to keep time with a chosen time system
(which itself is corrected for local relativistic
effects, too).
>
> The smallest scales work fine with Newton,
> It is just a matter of finding all the newtonian forces
> that apply, the only reason it fails is when some sort
> of Newtonian force was left out of the equation.
Looking for magic boojums to fix a demonstrably incorrect
theory is silly when a better theory works fine without
imaginary fairies and goblins to hold it together.
There is possible combination of new forces that can
emulate observed quantum effects.
>> I have a feeling that reasons can't penetrate, hostility
>> of physics runs too deep in your blood. So you end up as
>> newtonian cultists. Cant you see it?
>
> Hostility towards physics?
> You got that 100% wrong,
> You see, I want physics to again provide physical causes
> for effects like Newton has done.
Newton never provided ultimate physical causes. He
always knew where to draw the line between science
and philosophy.
> but poor old Relativity lacks it completely.
> Relativity has not one physical cause for any of the effects
> it describes.
Neither has Newton (or any other phsyical theory for
that matter). There is no *reason* for action at a
distance, or for inertia, or for things to have mass.
>> Also. If relativists dig for einstenian religion.. you guys are
>> newtonian cultists.
>>
>> Unfortunately. Experimental proof goes in the company
>> of the religious relativists so you newtonian cultists lose,
>> in light of quantum mechanics even more stranger foundation.
>>
>> Ponder on it hanson and driscoll. Even weirder physics is to
>> come when the Large Hadron Collider goes online in August. Be
>> prepared or be left behind in the medieval ages.
>
> If you truly believe relativity has found even one physical cause
> you are only fooling yourself and joined the religion blindly.
What, in your mind, makes you think that science looks
for "physical cause"? It looks for models that work.
Philosophers are the ones who look for reasons why.
> Newtons "science" explains each and every effect with
> "physical causes".
No, it most certainly does not. "Hypotheses non fingo",
Newton wrote in the preface to his Principia, that is,
"I will propose no hypotheses", referring to *how* or
*why* the action at a distance gravitational force could
work.
Newton never proposed a reason *why* things have mass,
or *why* they have inertia, or *why* inertial mass is
the same as gravitational mass. All these things were
just defined to be so (postulates) and the theory
developed from there.
Special Relativity just adds another simple postulate,
namely the constancy of the speed of light as measured
in any inertial frame of reference. Everything else
follows naturally.
> That hardly puts it in a religious state such as relativity
> at all.
There is very little difference, fundamentally, between
Newtonian theory and Relativity theory. Both are based
upon otherwise unfounded postulates.
hanson
>
"Noke", the Bloke on Coke <gad....@yahoo.com>
didn't get to hear what he wanted to hear. So, "Noke",
the Bloke on Coke cranked himself & he wrote:
>
Sam Wormley wrote to Hebie-Herbie:
You want to get rid of the physicist in a physics newsgroup?
>
"Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
No, just the relativists.
They are the religious nuts. The relativity religion of course.
LOL -- James M Driscoll Jr -- Spaceman
>
"Noke" <gad.g...@yahoo.com> wrote
Why take pot shot only at relativity, why not quantum
mechanics too? In QM, a particle doesn't go from A to B.
It takes all path at once.. so space and time cease to exist
in quantum mechanics (before measurement). At least with
relativity, things only get distorted and this only occurs
perspectivewise and not on the first person state. So you
still have space and time in relativity versus full reality
defeating stunt in qm. So why take pot shot just at relativity?
QM is even weirder. --- noke
>
hanson wrote:
Noke, your point is valid, if you extend and expand it to all
theories. .... After all, theories are only shop-lingo for tales
that MODEL reality. But Professor Driscoll has a very valid
point too in his railings against the RELigious proselytizing
of Einstein's crap by the hordes of Einstein's Dingleberries
who are trying to pass it off as reality.. ahahaha....
Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
But it is reality....
>
hanson wrote:
.... ahahahaha... Bloke, you just blew the point you made
above and you dropped your other shoe. You just admitted
that you are one of those Einstein Dingleberries who yearn
to move closer to the warmth of Albert's sphincter in order
to worship and paying tribute there. Be sure to make the
proper and "real" Terrell rotation when you arrive there...
>
"Noke", the Bloke on Coke <gad....@yahoo.com> wrote
I have a feeling.....
>
hanson wrote:
.... ahahahaha... Bloke, yes, that feeling of yours is one of
the sure symptoms that you have fallen victim to a con that
makes you believe that Einstein's crap and whatever the
QM-asster indoctrinated you with is reality... ahahaha...
Now go and make another Terrell rotation and be sure that
it conforms to the edicts of the HUP... ahahahaha....
Thanks for the laughs you frothing Dreidel... ahahaha...
ahahahaha... ahahahanson
>
PS:
Maybe you can help the healing of your malady if you do
some "Frame dragging".. and do it like the Xians do carry
their cross. --- If you become such a physics martyr then
perhaps the big boys in physics will be RE-funding the
de-funded Gravity Probe B. --- They need hordes of
Einstein Dingleberries, like yourself, to do that though.
But your whining on the usenet will NOT do the trick.
But don't let me cramp your style... Good luck... ahaha...
Androcles
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:78zck.1101$bn3.556@trnddc07...
http://www.coseti.org/images/ospect_1.jpg
Nature's reality:
http://tinyurl.com/6dgoep
Anyone want a go at the fuzz at 6563 Angstrom?
Tom Potter
"Jim Black" <fml...@organization.edu> wrote in message news:bld9z2zu86ng$.1csgw7ugkfmh8.dlg@40tude.net...
> as McElwaine and Alexander Abian:
I am pleased to see that "Jim Black"
researched to find the point at which
sci.physics began to turn into a "River of Shit",
and it appears that he found the point to be in 1992.
As us old timers on the net know, pre 1992,
folks of all kinds, students, experts, professionals,
phonies and us "scientific illiterates"
interacted in a rational, intelligent, civil way.
As could be seen by actually witnessing the decay,
and as can be seen by researching the situation,
after Baez created his "Crackpot Index"
phonies like "Jim Black" and "Sam Wormley",
ego trippers, ignorant people, and young students
immediately began to use the list as
a weapon to attack messengers,
so they did not have to address messages
and expose their ignorance.
I suggest that "Jim Black" reflect on why
anyone would create a "Crackpot Index"
in the first place, and use it to demean
opponents in debates and discussions.
No doubt Alexander Abian and Sarfatti
had a few unconventional ideas tucked in with
their extensive and intensive knowledge and experience,
( Abian was a professor and great mathematical,
and Sarfatti knows far, far more about physics
that "Jim Black" and the phonies
who rally around and defend the "Crackpot Index"
like the Romans Armies defended their Standards.)
but rational, intelligent, moral people
attack SPECIFIC points of messages,
rather than try to create generalized INSTITUTIONALIZED ICONS
that can be used to demean messengers.
Phonies, con-men, dishonest and immoral people create
negative and positive ICONS and use them
to manipulate ignorant people.
Any time you see someone using icons like
"Crackpot Index", Nazi, Hitler, KKK, patriot, etc. as weapons,
you can be sure you are dealing with an immoral (Or stupid) person.
The scientific approach is to expose and debate SPECIFIC points ,
not to tag those who perceive an issue differently with a negative icon,
and those who agree with a positive icon.
That said, anyone who doesn't agree with me
is a dirty, ignorant, bigoted, Neo Nazi coward who hates America,
and a zombie-parrot who has been brainwashed to worship Relativity,
not to mention is a member of the KKK, a Jihad Muslim and a Communist.
Regarding "Jim Black" rationalization that Baez created his
"Crackpot Index" as a "joke" and that something is wrong with
the folks who don't see the humor in it.
It is interesting to see that Bush rationalizes his Iraqi War
by asserting that something is wrong with the folks who
don't go along with his war.
Personally, I don't see the humor in a list
designed to demean messengers,
and I don't see the patriotism in a needless war
against a tiny nation, located half way round the world.
Sam Wormley
Potter, you didn't fair well, did you, when scrutinized by the
The Crackpot Index? -- http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Contrary to your belief that it is "designed to demean messengers",
it serves as a useful tool to identify potential crackpots like
yourself. Should we say a little prayer for you, Potter?
Your pal
hanson
news:ZPFck.150701$8H5....@newsfe10.ams2...
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote
Classroom quantum reality:
http://www.coseti.org/images/ospect_1.jpg
Nature's reality:
http://tinyurl.com/6dgoep
Anyone want a go at the fuzz at 6563 Angstrom?
>
hanson wrote:
Fraunhofer absorption line C of H at 6562.816
H (1st emission spectrum) @ 6562.73(p), 6562.79 & 6562.85
== "smeared out" in/by the experimental recording setup up,
== or by the presence of
Cobalt emission @ 6563.42 &/or by
Samarium emission @ 6562.94 ... & other resonating elements,
== or by the H-electron's & H nucleus spin flips that are becoming
significant contributors here as the wave length increases to wards
the IR spectrum, via multiplexing like effects .. (nh)*f = h*(nf) ... that
manifest in the red.
>
That fuzz like many other fuzzes have been explained in very
many different ways including by the Einstein Dingleberries
who invented relativistic electrons, where they conveniently
take the Bohr H model which treats electrons as points (and
then whine under different circumstances that electrons do not
circle the nucleus in planetary fashion but can be only
determined as "probability clouds").... ahahahaha.... However,
if the ED were to treat the emitting/absorbing electrons as
resonances from dangling Dingleberries that swing from and
around Albert's sphincter I am sure they could produce a acurate
relativistic explanation for themselves even without any undue
frame dragging or complicating Terell rotations... ahahahaha...
>
Me being strictly application motivated asks immediately:
Is there any tech-commercial application for that phenomenon?
How can I turn that into a buck?
--- Anybody wanna make fuzz about that?.... ----
Thanks for the laughs, Andro... ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
PS:
Hey, all you Little Green Idiots, Enviro Turds and Green shits,
listen up:... by such a fuzz you may be able to nail down the
source of GW... not the GW in the WH who luckily does not
believe you and causes you to make a green fuzz about it....
ahahahaha.....
Eric Gisse
wrote:
[snip drivel]
I can't help but wonder what's going on in spaceshit's life that makes
him come back here where he is NOT wanted and once again prolifically
shitpost about subjects he does not understand.
Noke
> But it is reality....
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> .... ahahahaha... Bloke, you just blew the point you made
> above and you dropped your other shoe. You just admitted
> that you are one of those Einstein Dingleberries who yearn
> to move closer to the warmth of Albert's sphincter in order
> to worship and paying tribute there. Be sure to make the
> proper and "real" Terrell rotation when you arrive there...
>
> I have a feeling.....
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> .... ahahahaha... Bloke, yes, that feeling of yours is one of
> the sure symptoms that you have fallen victim to a con that
> makes you believe that Einstein's crap and whatever the
> QM-asster indoctrinated you with is reality... ahahaha...
> Now go and make another Terrell rotation and be sure that
> it conforms to the edicts of the HUP... ahahahaha....
> Thanks for the laughs you frothing Dreidel... ahahaha...
> ahahahaha... ahahahanson
>
> PS:
> Maybe you can help the healing of your malady if you do
> some "Frame dragging".. and do it like the Xians do carry
> their cross. --- If you become such a physics martyr then
> perhaps the big boys in physics will be RE-funding the
> de-funded Gravity Probe B. --- They need hordes of
> Einstein Dingleberries, like yourself, to do that though.
> But your whining on the usenet will NOT do the trick.
> But don't let me cramp your style... Good luck... ahaha...
Relativity.. Quantum Mechanics... is nothing compared to
what is to come that will bedazzle humanity. You may continue
to hide in the newtonian cave but what will come will sweep you
completely off your feet wherever you are in the dense newtonian
jungle where you had made your own prison (of your mind).
Noke
Noke
wrote:
Such Ignorance.
Imagine the characters in the Matrix movie. Imagine
they are looking for "physical causes" of their physics.
They may be able to describe how it work but not why
it work. Why it work has to do with the computer
programming behind the Matrix. When matrix characters
drop stones from a tower. They can measure the acceleration
due to gravity. If they are smart, they can even discover
General Relativity. But what is general relativity. Why is
it that way. They may not answer it unless they can
step outside and understand how the Matrix computer
and neuro-interactive interface work as well as the math
to make everything lorentz invariant as any virtual
environment should be. This is very similar to our reality
which may for all intent and purpose be another
simulation much like the Matrix where the malevolent
owners want to harvest us for our emotion (some kind
of energy) which they consume. So they created this
universe to harvest and even divert our attention. With enough
calculating power, our entire universe could actually be smallest
than a baseball in the real universe. They simply need
programming algorithm to fool us that the universe is really
big in our perspective. While using their technology, billions
of light years away can be entangled like in quantum experiment
because they are located only a few mm away in the real
world. Get it dude? Our universe is much like the Matrix and
there may not be "physical causes" for many things like
relativity and quantum mechanics because they may be just
computer algorithm and there is possibility this is the case.
All our physics come from point of view invariance. This
results in all the symmetries, even length contraction, etc.
This totally defeats newtonian mechanisms and is true if
math algorithm make up our universe. So our reality is
closer to a Matrix simulation than you realized. Our physicists
may realize this but ignore it. And instead goes into "shut up
and calculate" mode and living each day at a time. They
prefer sanity and religousness to the equations than insanity
if they would realize the physical causes is because we are
inside a real Matrix.
Noke
Androcles
All of that and Doppler shift due to the motion of the emitting
source too. Next time a rozzer pulls you over for speeding, point
the fuzz out to the judge and maybe you'll embarrass the fuzz
and save a buck.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_slang_terms_for_police_officers
| >
| PS:
| Hey, all you Little Green Idiots, Enviro Turds and Green shits,
| listen up:... by such a fuzz you may be able to nail down the
| source of GW... not the GW in the WH who luckily does not
| believe you and causes you to make a green fuzz about it....
| ahahahaha.....
|
The GHerbie before the GW in the WH said when asked what he'd do
about the GH (GreenHouse) effect "Show them the White House
effect" and promptly went off to play his guitar.
http://tinyurl.com/6rh6xa
Of course his son had to imitate him.
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/J/j/bush_guitar_neworleans.jpg
Spaceman
Yes, physical effects without physical causes is very ignorant.
:)
hanson
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4872b4c6$0$26079$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>
Noke wrote:
... GPS, etc. apply relativity.
>
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca>
Wrong. GPS must use relativistic corrections or it
would be terribly inaccurate. GPS clocks are
corrected to keep time with a chosen time system
(which itself is corrected for local relativistic
effects, too).
>
Einstein Dingleberries like Noke and Neil are damaged
goods who have fallen victim to Albert's REL-scam that
makes them live in their unreal fantasy world:
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/a2a290997bafd30c>
wherein it says:
" Where is Einstein referred to for his contributions in your link?
< http://lbs.gpsworld.com/gpslbs/content/printContentPopup.jsp?id=481835 >
Where does Nokia, Motorola, LG, Samsung, TRG, Garmin or
TomTom say that they could not have achieved that level/success
of technology were it not for Einstein and his SR and GR? "...
No answer, [Sam] huh, how come?.... ahahahahaha...
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/57ec86d591efba8c?hl=en
wherein its says:
GPS NEVER needed any SR nor GR! Not for its conception, not
for its design, not for its development, not for its manufacture, not for
its production, not for its testing, not for its operations and not for its
improvements.... ahahahaha... ONLY a few Einstein Dingleberries
in academia invented **BELATEDLY, AFTER THE FACT**, some
convoluted stories to describe GPS operations. .... BFD!... Any
fool and writerling can tell a story about something that has already
been built... and Einstein Dingleberries do take the cake in this...
... ahaha... AHAHAHA....
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7893092f38cf21e0?hl=en
wherein it says: In this case here, any decent engineer, let alone
physicist, can quickly see, in ONE FELL SWOOP, that all
what matters in such an approximation is the mass of the earth,
M_e, and the signal height traveled, h, to show in a single line that
>
[1] (M_e /h ) * (2 G/c^2) * 86400 = 38 microsec
>
the daily time drift, wherein M_e = the earth's mass, h = the orbit height
over the surface, G = Newton, c = Lightspeed & the 86400 sec/day.
>
After a decade in operation it took Ashby & other Einstein
Dingleberries, 39 equations to conjure up these same 38 usecs...
ahahaha... They all tried, as jonnies-come-lately ... to get fame
by association, .... ahahaha... and you sorry EDs suck up their
shit with a religious fervor that is only seen in Islamist extremists
who do defend their Koran.... ahahaha.... So, thanks for the laughs
you New-Age Disciples... ahahaha.... ahahahahahahahanson
hanson
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c371653c946f6bde?hl=entell me, which one the these 4 groups you belong to that
to hang onto the hair from/of Albert's sphincter with such
a religious fanaticisms?... Not that there is anything
with it... But meanwhile, in the real world, here is where
Einstein's crap is still used and where they laugh about it:
>
= mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL shit"
= *.edu and grantology ...................."does use REL, No shit"
= Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the shitload"
= Jews protect it as cultural heritage whether "REL is shit or not"
>
If you are not in any of these 4 groups then you are a victim
of/for having swallowed the propaganda of/in the popular sci
tabloids on the supermarket with hook, line and sinker...
IOW you don't understand jack shit about how science works...
ahahahaha...NOT that there is anything wrong with that.
The sci establishment needs peasant fanatics like you to
secure funding form the general public tax through.
Carry on Bloke, you are high and well intensioned even if you
have an intellectually low albedo.... But most of all....
... thanks for the laughs, dude... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
>
PS: read my note to ED Greg Neill, because you too cited
GPS and REL.... ahahahahaha.... ahahahaha....
Eric Gisse
[snip whatever]
Has anyone noticed that Tom Potter hasn't talked about physics for
quite a long time?
Cue stupid response by crackpotter that is guaran-fucking-teed to
include the phrases "faithful reader of my posts" and "points out" in
reference to a point I never made.
Benj
> It is interesting to see that Bush rationalizes his Iraqi War
> by asserting that something is wrong with the folks who
> don't go along with his war.
>
> Personally, I don't see the humor in a list
> designed to demean messengers,
>
> and I don't see the patriotism in a needless war
> against a tiny nation, located half way round the world.
Tom, there is a LOT you don't see. One thing is the standard methods
of politics. The difference that you are all whining about is the
entry of political action into the group. Slogans, My side is always
"right" and yours is always "wrong" arguments, name-calling,
assertions that your opponents are "insane" which implies that their
opinions can be rejected without any consideration are ALL political
methods.
The problem is that scientists usually HATE politics. Which is
unfortunately why they are so easily manipulated by it's standard
techniques! They usually don't even know they are being manipulated!
Just as YOU are so easily manipulated by those in power (in your case
on the left). Well there is no "humor" in a list designed to demean
(and dismiss) messengers. It's all a political tactic designed to keep
official physics dogma in it's place. Sure you have a cow over dogma
for the masses like George's excuses for the war, but you chime right
in with the dogma in physics perpetrated by the same bunch. You need
to wake up.
But that's the problem isn't it. If there is ANY person that makes
this group need a moderator you probably rank right up there on the
list! You have your agenda and work hard to bring your politics right
into this discussion of other topics.
Witness your references to Dubya's war. Now think about this for just
a minute. I KNOW you can do it if you try. Oil is a limited resource.
With the masses of the world (india, china) wanting the American good
life, it's clear to any thinking person that even though there is
quite a bit oil left, the price is just going to keep going up as the
competition for it grows.
So is your idea to just stand by and let America crash and burn as it
runs out of fuel? Not what I'd call good leadership. Is your leftist
idea to maybe burn food for vehicle fuel? Gosh I wonder what the
unintended consequences of that one would be? How about those lefty
favorites of water power, windmills, and solar cells? Obviously this
is "science" by people who only know how to write good novels, but
know nothing about anything else. The quantity of energy is simply not
there.
So what is the "solution"? Sorry bunkie, nobody knows what it is!
There IS NONE! The plans for a simple free energy device are not yet
on the internet! So there is ONLY one sensible thing to do. And that
is jump into the cesspool with the rest of the world squabbling over
the last remaining oil reserves. Grab as much as you can and sit on it
like a hen hatching eggs until the end comes. In the meantime you can
switch to natural gas vehicles (works for the gas companies) and coal
vehicles (electric cars are essentially powered by coal).
And just what did our Glorious Leader do? Duh! He grabbed one of the
larger (some reports say it's actually the largest) known oil reserves
for us. And now he's sitting on it like a hen hatching eggs. I don't
know what YOU think, (and I don't care) but that gives me the warm
fuzzies! Do I give a shit that Dubya had to lie his ass off to the
American people to do it? NO. What's he gonna say? "Hey, let's go grab
Iraq Oil because we can and Saddam is an asshole anyway?" Or maybe he
should have just been honest and fair and said, "We are gonna do
nothing about the peak oil problem. We are just going to let Iran and
Russia and anyone else that has more than we do tell us what to do as
time goes on. Expect to die eventually." There are NO rules in
sovereign politics, save what can you get away with.
The bottom line, is that YOU are the moron here who is constantly
bringing politics into this science group. The problem is YOU! Yes,
science people DO need to wake up and discover how they've been duped
by politics, but just coming in with slogans and name-calling isn't
going to do that.
Probably the best answer here is that when the government finally bans
all "alt." groups, they probably should ban all "sci." groups at the
same time. Or at minimum install a censor (moderator) since free
speech is a "collective" right and only applies to official media
organizations, not to the internet. Right?
Androcles
|
| "Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
| news:4872b4c6$0$26079$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
| >
| Noke wrote:
| ... GPS, etc. apply relativity.
| >
| "Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca>
| Wrong. GPS must use relativistic corrections or it
| would be terribly inaccurate.
AHAHAHAHAHA!
It IS terribly inaccurate. 90 feet above or below a runway
is not a good place to land... especially below. And where are
the calculations done? In the receiver.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
Bob Clarke writes (on the problem of finding Longitude in sci.astro):
> As far as I can tell, though, the
> basic idea is to use the Moon as a clock. The Moon moves its own
> diameter with respect to the background stars every hour or so, and
> thus measuring an accurate lunar position gives the time. Combining
> time with altitudes of stars gives longitude. There are second-order
> corrections for "horizontal parallax," but the basic method should
> work.
If Earth, like Mars, had two smaller moons instead one large one
how much easier would it be to locate latitude and longitude with
an astrolabe?
Or better yet, enough moons so that three or four could be seen
at all times instead of only when one is above the horizon?
Suppose we put a radio transmitter on every moon so that
we were not dependent on a visual sighting, but could "see"
right through cloud whenever we wanted to?
Suppose each moon could tell us where it was on that radio
signal so that we didn't need an astrolabe?
An even better improvement would be to have each moon
carry an accurate clock and tell us the exact time it was there
when it sent the radio transmission.
This would be sci-fi, of course... unless it was called GPS...
| GPS clocks are
| corrected to keep time with a chosen time system
| (which itself is corrected for local relativistic
| effects, too).
GPS clocks are corrected with GMT (the real British version of
the American imposter's UTC) just like every other fucking clock
including Cassini's. Amazingly, they are all "synchronized".
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/saturn-time.cfm
That Greg Neill fella sure is a bullshitting fuckhead.
That Greg Neill dingleberry wants some of the limelight.
He wants us to believe he's one of the smart guys.
Little does he realize limelight was canned in favour of the laser.
Still, let him go on with his music hall jokes.
"Who was that lady I saw you with last night?"
"That was no lady, that was my wi-fi."
Google please assign this group a moderator -- someone to filter out
Einstein's dingleberries.
hanson
>
Google please assign this group a moderator
-- someone to filter out Einstein's dingleberries.
>
ahahaha... AHAHAHHAHA!...AHAHAHAHHA... AHAHA....
>
-------------------
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
>
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:LJXck.1116$al3.341@trnddc06...
|
| "Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
| news:4872b4c6$0$26079$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
| >
| Noke wrote:
| ... GPS, etc. apply relativity.
| >
| "Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca>
| Wrong. GPS must use relativistic corrections or it
| would be terribly inaccurate.
>
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics>
wrote That Greg Neill dingleberry wants some of the limelight.
He wants us to believe he's one of the smart guys.
Little does he realize limelight was canned in favour of the laser.
Still, let him go on with his music hall jokes.
"Who was that lady I saw you with last night?"
"That was no lady, that was my wi-fi."
Google please assign this group a moderator --
someone to filter out Einstein's dingleberries.
>
hanson wrote:
ahahaha... AHAHAHHAHA!...AHAHAHAHHA... AHAHA....
PD
wrote:
> Noke wrote:
> > But it is reality. Particle accelerators, GPS, etc. apply
> > relativity. At the smallest scale and fastest velocity,
> > things are pretty distorted. Here, QM and relativity rule.
> > You just happen to be born in a small window where
> > newtonian laws is valid. This doesn't mean it is valid
> > all the way to smallest scale and fastest velocity.
> > This is simple common sense. Why can't you go on
> > terms with it???
>
> Particle accelerators would not work at all
> if Newtons was not mostly
> if not all correct.
That's right. Newtonian mechanics is mostly correct, but not all
correct.
> and nothing about a particle accelerator proves Newton incorrect.
That's wrong. There's quite a bit built into accelerator design that
is explicitly counter to what Newton would recommend. If Newton were
right, the accelerator wouldn't work. But it does, and that's because
the theories that have replaced Newtonian mechanics work better.
>
> GPS actually provides a massive problem for relativity,
> because it actually uses absolutes to find absolutes in the long
> run
It does no such thing. Where did you get such a notion?
> so if anything "again" it needs Newtons absolutes thinking.
>
> The smallest scales work fine with Newton,
That's also demonstrably wrong.
> It is just a matter of finding all the newtonian forces
> that apply, the only reason it fails is when some sort
> of Newtonian force was left out of the equation.
A couple of comments.
1. You say Newtonian physics would work just fine if we found all the
forces involved, and because it doesn't work well then this is only
and indication that we haven't found all the forces. But you don't
offer any guidance as to what you think the missing forces are.
2. Newton's laws cannot be tuned, by adding of arbitrary forces, to
model any old possible behavior at all. You have this idea that
Newton's laws are flexible enough to account for ANYTHING, if the
right forces are included. This is incorrect. There is structure to
Newton's laws so that, even with *arbitrary* forces, there are certain
constraints on the results. And nature flies in the face of those
constraints in certain places. This is how we *know* Newton's laws
cannot be made to work in any arbitrary case.
>
> > I have a feeling that reasons can't penetrate, hostility
> > of physics runs too deep in your blood. So you end up as
> > newtonian cultists. Cant you see it?
>
> Hostility towards physics?
> You got that 100% wrong,
> You see, I want physics to again provide physical causes
> for effects like Newton has done.
Really? What explanation do you think Newton offered for gravity?
(Please refer to what he actually wrote on this matter. It's short.)
Tom Potter
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:gjNck.189606$TT4.50841@attbi_s22...
Thanks to my pal Sammy
for demonstrating how the "Crackpot Index" is
used by ignorant people, immoral people, and fools,
when they do not have the intelligence or knowledge
to address a message.
For example,
although I score very low on the Crackpot Index,
at times a few immoral ( Or stupid ) people have tried
to create the impression that I score high on this odious list.
To put John Baez's "Crackpot Index" in perspective,
I have created an Einstein Cult Index
The Einstein Cult Index
Tom Potter
A simple method for rating Einstein Cult members.
1. A -5 point starting credit.
2. 5 points for using the phrase "gestalt experiment".
3. 5 points for each hype of "Einstein", "Feynman", Gel Mann, or a Jewish physicist.
4. 10 points for each claim that General Relativity models reality to 10 decimal places.
5. 10 points for each claim that General Relativity is a useful model
without providing solid, WORKED OUT, real world evidence of the fact.
6. 10 points for claiming that Einstein's models were positive "paradigm shifts".
7. 10 points for claiming that non-Einsteinian models cannot
be used to accurately model effects that involve changes of the frequency of oscillators
with distance, velocity, acceleration, pressure, temperature, etc.
8. 20 points for claiming that slave tick accumulators are clocks,
rather than instruments.
9. 20 points for claiming that the background times of
all remote oscillators in the universe change,
rather than that the frequency of the oscillators
change with changes in their environment with respect to
THE Master Oscillator that is used as a reference.
10. 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the Einstein Cult Index,
or attacking me personally in the newsgroups.
11. 20 points for suggesting that Einstein deserved the Nobel prize
for corrupting Planck's quantum of Action.
12. 20 points for each use of the phrases "crank", "crackpot", "stupid",
13. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein positions on politics, religion, and society
are the best positions.
14. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein developed the ultimate theory of reality.
15. 30 points for claiming that Einstein was the world's most intelligent man,
and deserved being named Time Magazine's "Man of the Century"
over Watson, Crick, Planck, Bohr, Ford, Edison, Truman, Eisenhower, etc.
16. 40 points for using the phrase "Jewish physics".
16. 40 points for attacking those who criticize the Einstein Cult as anti-Semitics..
18. 40 points for claiming that anti-Semitics are engaged in a "conspiracy"
to demean Einstein and the works of Jewish scientists.
19. 40 points for attacking opponents as uneducated, stupid, cranks, or crackpots.
20. 40 points for avoiding debating issues involving Einstein
by creating a flame web site, or using a flame web sites as a reference.
21. 40 points for claiming that when Einstein's theory is finally appreciated,
the Doppler Effect, the Hubble Effect, the Galileo Effect, the temperature effect,
and the DNA, Quantum Mechanics, and Classical Physics models
will be seen for the shams they truly are.
22. 50 points for claiming that General Relativity was essential to the GPS System
23. 50 points for hyping models that speculate about
the beginning and end of the universe,
time travel, space warps, worm holes, etc.
rather than accepting models that are used every day
by millions of people.to make life better for mankind.
24. 50 points for being on the public payroll
and not having to produce cost-effective useful results.
25. 50 points for being on the public payroll
and profiting from the promotion of General Relativity.
26. 50 points for being Jewish.
The bottom line seems to be that
members of the Einstein Cult are either Jews,
or people who have been brainwashed by the mass media
to believe that Jews are intelligent, virtuous victims.
rather than a cult that institutionalized bigotry
and the revisionism of history.
Thanks again Sammy
for demonstrating how the "Crackpot Index" is
used by immoral people.
Your pal,
hanson
>
"Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com> wrote in message
news:g52fgk$tap$1...@aioe.org...
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:gjNck.189606$TT4.50841@attbi_s22...
>
Tom Potter wrote:
Thanks to my pal Sammy
for demonstrating how the "Crackpot Index" is
used by ignorant people, immoral people, and fools,
when they do not have the intelligence or knowledge
to address a message.
For example,
although I score very low on the Crackpot Index,
at times a few immoral ( Or stupid ) people have tried
to create the impression that I score high on this odious list.
To put John Baez's "Crackpot Index" in perspective,
I have created an Einstein Cult Index
The Einstein [Dingleberry] Cult Index
Tom Potter
A simple method for rating Einstein Cult members [aka
Einstein Dingleberries] .
------------------
The bottom line seems to be that
members of the Einstein Cult are either Jews,
or people who have been brainwashed by the mass media
to believe that Jews are intelligent, virtuous victims.
rather than a cult that institutionalized bigotry
and the revisionism of history.
>
hanson wrote:
.... ahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha....
It ain't quite that dire with/about and over the Jews, Tom.
Here, in the real world, is where Einstein's crap is still
used and where they laugh about it:
>
= mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL shit"
= *.edu and grantology ...................."does use REL, No shit"
= Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the shitload"
= Jews protect it as cultural heritage whether "REL is shit or not".
>
But thanks for the laughs, Tom. You produced a gem here!
ahahahaha.... ahahahahanson
>
Tom Potter
Thanks again Sammy
for demonstrating how the "Crackpot Index" is
used by immoral people.
Your pal,
Noke
> > Potter, you didn't fair well, did you, when scrutinized by the
> > The Crackpot Index? --http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Tom Potter seems to be one of the most brilliant anti-relavitists
around, compared to Driscoll, etc. For those who have mastered
Potter, what exactly are his theories and counter arguments? Can
anyone summarize it. We know for a fact that General Relativity
is not complete because it can't be reconcile with quantum
mechanics and special relativity is just approximations because
life really occurs in curved spacetime, not flat. Someday if we
have a better theory that can duplicate all predictions of general
relativity in the classical limit then it would not be called
general relativity but it would behave like general relativity. Is
this what Potter is claiming that his new model can predict it
yet not GR? Or is he ignoring experimental data like Driscoll?
If Potter is theorizing a new model that can produce the same
result as GR in the classical limit, then his model deserves
scrutiny esp. if it can be reconcle with QM. What is wrong
with his theory for those who is familiar with him?
Noke
Androcles
Thanks! You must be one of the few that appreciate my humour, but
its true enough.
sci.physics sprouted sci.physics.relativity for the dingleberries
and what happens? The silly bastards cross-post hoping to reach
a wider audience. What do I do about it? Nothing, I don't vote.
And who asked for a moderator?
An Einstein dingleberry.
Who are the moderators in other segments such as sci.physics.research?
Einstein's dingleberries.
What are moderators?
Fucking censors.
The freedom of the press belongs to those that own one.
Microsoft bless Google this group has no moderators.
Androcles
Too good not to im-moortel-ize it.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm
I've added a couple myself.
Androcles.
hanson
=========== Too much !!!! ===========the original Einstein Dingleberry Cult Index in message
news:g52fgk$tap$1...@aioe.org...
>
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote
thanks for the laughs, Tom. You produced a gem here!
ahahahaha.... ahahahahanson
>
>
hanson wrote:
ahahaha... Potter, extend thanks to Andro, cuz from now on all
you need do is say in your posts: "as can be seen in this link:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm
it says (for instance) on para 26. 50 points for being Jewish."
>
ahahaha.. AHAHAHAHA... That is too much, guys! That must
even make Einstein to pucker his sphincter and rattle his
Dingleberries... ahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAhahanson
Tom Potter
>"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5430720b-95ac-4ed6...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
I am pleased to see that Eric Gisse
who is a "faithful reader of my posts"
wants to discuss physics issues,
rather than engage in flame wars.
This article makes rigorous definitions of a few constants,
and discusses what physical properties should be considered invariant.
Let us consider a system composed of one electron and one proton.
1. Let M(P) = the mass of the proton.
2. Let M(E) the mass of the electron.
3. Let C = a universal distance per time constant. ( The speed of light. )
4. Two bodies interact about a common point in a common time.
The common point is the center of mass of the system
and the common time is the period of the system.
Let T(C) = the common period divided by 2 times pi
= L(C) / C
where L(C) is the distance light travels during one radian of
interaction of the electron-proton system.
5. Assume that K = a universal distance per mass constant.
K = 1.0585382 x 10^13 meters per kilogram for E-M interactions.
6. Assume that fine structure(E) = ( M(P) * K / L(C) ) ^1/3
then fine structure(E)^0 * L(C) = 1 / ( 2 * Rydberg Constant )
and fine structure(E)^1 * L(C) = 2 * pi * Bohr Radius
and fine structure(E)^2 * L(C) = Compton's wavelength
and fine structure(E)^3 * L(C) = 2 * pi * classical electron radius
= M(P) * K
As interactions are symmetrical about the common center of mass, we can
define a fine structure constant for the proton and obtain the following
equations:
fine structure(P) = ( M(E) * K / L(C) ) ^1/3
fine structure(P)^0 * L(C) = 1 / ( 2 * Rydberg Constant )
fine structure(P)^1 * L(C) = 2 * pi * Bohr Radius(proton)
fine structure(P)^2 * L(C) = Compton's wavelength(proton)
fine structure(P)^3 * L(C) = 2 * pi * classical radius(proton)
= M(E) * K
fine structure(P)^3 * M(P) = fine structure(E)^3 * M(E)
7. Let h(E) be the Planck's Constant for an electron.
8. Let h(P) be the Planck's Constant for a proton.
Note that:
M(E) * M(P) * K^2 = fine(E)^3 * fine(P)^3 * L(C)^2
= h(E) * fine(P) * K / C
= h(P) * fine(P) * K / C
Also note that:
h(E) * K / C = fine(P)^3 * fine(E)^2 * L(C)^2
= M(E) * K * fine(E)^2 * L(C)
and symmetrically:
h(P) * K / C = fine(E)^3 * fine(P)^2 * L(C)^2
= M(P) * K * fine(P)^2 * L(C)
Equations showing the simplest relationships between Planck's Constant
and the Fine structure constant:
fine(P) * h(P) = M(P) * M(E) * K * C
fine(E) * h(E) = M(P) * M(E) * K * C
Note: As K and C are universal constants, and as we are considering rest
masses to be constant, h(X) and fine(X) must vary reciprocally when a
system such as a hydrogen atom is changing states.
The relationship between the orbital velocity of a body and the fine
structure constant is:
sine(X) = velocity(X) / C = fine(X) * charge ratio
Comments:
1. The common period is associated with Rydberg's constant.
In other words, the distance symmetrical to both bodies
is the reciprocal of Rydberg's constant. The other distances
( Comptons wavelength, etc. ) relate to a particular body.
2. If we assume that rest masses are constants, we have to acknowledge that
the h's and fine structure constants must vary for a system to
accommodate change.
The simplest system would consider the rest masses
to be constant, the distance common to the masses L(C) to be an
independent variable and all properties to be dependent variables.
Note that the distance L(C) is related to the common period of the system.
3. Schrödinger's Equation would be symmetrical to both the electron and the
proton if were based on the mass products rather than a "constant"
associated with only one of the bodies. The equation works because the
incoming and outgoing frequencies are common to both parties to an
interaction, but the equation does not provide a symmetrical look at the
classical system absorbing or emitting the frequencies. Schrödinger's
Equation, like Planck's Constant is biased in favor of the electron.
4. I emphasized distances, rather than more fundamental times and angular
displacements, in order to more clearly show the relationships between
the common physical constants.
The more fundamental approach would be to use the time intervals
associated with the distances, as spaces are fundamentally time intervals.
Tom Potter
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message news:7df16afb-8fb3-46f8...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
I think what "Benj" is trying to say is:
1. Stealing is good.
2. Might makes right.
3. It is more cost effective to wage a continuous war
half way round the world that wastes enormous amounts of
lives, limbs, and energy,rather than to allow the free market
to operate.
4. Consume it now. Let our grandchildren eat cake.
5. The opinions of physicists about things like
Relativity, black holes, dark matter, worm holes, etc.
come about because "they are so easily manipulated".
6. To rationalize abuses, usurpations and crimes LIE!
Eric Gisse
> >"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:5430720b-95ac-4ed6...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >On Jul 8, 5:12 am, "Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com> wrote:
> >[snip whatever]
>
> >Has anyone noticed that Tom Potter hasn't talked about physics for
> >quite a long time?
>
> >Cue stupid response by crackpotter that is guaran-fucking-teed to
> >include the phrases "faithful reader of my posts" and "points out" in
> >reference to a point I never made.
>
> I am pleased to see that Eric Gisse
> who is a "faithful reader of my posts"
DING!
[snip remaining blather]
Sam Wormley
>> "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5430720b-95ac-4ed6...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> who is a "faithful reader of my posts"
> wants to discuss physics issues,
> rather than engage in flame wars.
>
You think so Potter.... I doubt it.
Hey Potter--Let's talk about special relativity. I was wondering
if you thought it was 1) a waste of time, or 2) a solid law of
nature needing to be taken into account in numerous engineering
projects? What's your take Potter?
Tom Potter
> AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA..
> =========== Too much !!!! ===========
> AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA..
>
> "Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com> wrote
>
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote
> thanks for the laughs, Tom. You produced a gem here!
> ahahahaha.... ahahahahanson
>
> Too good not to im-moortel-ize it.http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm
> I've added a couple myself. --- Androcles.
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> ahahaha... Potter, extend thanks to Andro, cuz from now on all
> you need do is say in your posts: "as can be seen in this link:http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm
> it says (for instance) on para 26. 50 points for being Jewish."
>
> ahahaha.. AHAHAHAHA... That is too much, guys! That must
> even make Einstein to pucker his sphincter and rattle his
> Dingleberries... ahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAhahanson
Andro did a great job!
It's amazing how well and how fast he does graphics.
I suggest that he add at the bottom
how many points are needed to be a dingleberry,
--
Tom Potter
Androcles
"Tom Potter" <tdp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5bf23eb2-10a7-4407...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
--
Tom Potter
=====================================================
The dingleberry pass mark is 5% of the total.
The total is 905, so nobody (at present) can score more than 900.
5% of 900 is 45, so that's the qualifying score.
That is, you get a five point credit so you can refer to "gedanken" or
"gestalt
experiment" and you still only score zero, but for "Jewish physics" (clause
16)
AND gedanken (clause 2) AND a hype of a Jewish physicist you fully qualify
as
a dingleberry. It's really quite tricky, clause 3 has an OR in it, so you
cannot
claim fully-paid-up dingleberry status for a hype of Einstein AND a hype
of a Jewish physicist.
The judge's decision is final. hahahanson is the judge, I'm just the clerk
of the
court (and Lord Privy Seal).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Privy_Seal
If I don't keep the privy sealed the dingleberries might escape.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Double or quits - can you produce a theory that disagrees on predictions
with Einsteins and is testably verified? Free Nobel Prize thrown in for
free.
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London
Androcles
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6dn86pF...@mid.individual.net...
Of course, but we don't call a ring laser gyroscope a "theory", we call it
existing technology. Here's how they work:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
| Free Nobel Prize thrown in for
| free.
Thanks, but give it to Georges Sagnac. He deserves it and I don't need it.
Tom Potter
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:sofdk.245969$yE1.9590@attbi_s21...
My take is,
as I have pointed out for many years,
velocity is a tangent function,
and the addition of velocities in "special relativity"
is just an expression of the addition of tangents.
And as can be seen from my posts,
I have never asserted that the addition of tangents,
which is the basis of Special Relativity,
is wrong.
Who discovered the addition of tangents anyway?
--
Tom Potter
Sam Wormley
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:sofdk.245969$yE1.9590@attbi_s21...
>>
>> Hey Potter--Let's talk about special relativity. I was wondering
>> if you thought it was 1) a waste of time, or 2) a solid law of
>> nature needing to be taken into account in numerous engineering
>> projects? What's your take Potter?
>
> My take is,
> as I have pointed out for many years,
> velocity is a tangent function,
> and the addition of velocities in "special relativity"
> is just an expression of the addition of tangents.
>
> And as can be seen from my posts,
> I have never asserted that the addition of tangents,
> which is the basis of Special Relativity,
> is wrong.
>
> Who discovered the addition of tangents anyway?
>
Do you get the same answers, Potter, with you tangent functions?
Physics FAQ: How Do You Add Velocities in Special Relativity?
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/velocity.html
http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/velocity.html
Tom Potter
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:BaQdk.248724$yE1.103637@attbi_s21...
> Tom Potter wrote:
>> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:sofdk.245969$yE1.9590@attbi_s21...
>
>>>
>>> Hey Potter--Let's talk about special relativity. I was wondering
>>> if you thought it was 1) a waste of time, or 2) a solid law of
>>> nature needing to be taken into account in numerous engineering
>>> projects? What's your take Potter?
>>
>> My take is,
>> as I have pointed out for many years,
>> velocity is a tangent function,
>> and the addition of velocities in "special relativity"
>> is just an expression of the addition of tangents.
>>
>> And as can be seen from my posts,
>> I have never asserted that the addition of tangents,
>> which is the basis of Special Relativity,
>> is wrong.
>>
>> Who discovered the addition of tangents anyway?
>>
>
> Do you get the same answers, Potter, with you tangent functions?
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TrigonometricAdditionFormulas.html
http://library.thinkquest.org/C0110248/trigonometry/formtangent.htm
http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/AdditionFormulaForTangent2.html
Here are the formulas Sammy.
If you are interested in numbers, you work it out.
My method is to work with models that can be falsified,
and leave it to the grunts to work on the details.
Sam Wormley
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:BaQdk.248724$yE1.103637@attbi_s21...
>> Do you get the same answers, Potter, with you tangent functions?
>
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TrigonometricAdditionFormulas.html
> http://library.thinkquest.org/C0110248/trigonometry/formtangent.htm
> http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/AdditionFormulaForTangent2.html
>
> Here are the formulas Sammy.
> If you are interested in numbers, you work it out.
>
> My method is to work with models that can be falsified,
> and leave it to the grunts to work on the details.
>
Do you get the same answers, Potter, with you tangent functions?
as with the formulation from:
http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/velocity.html
Tom Potter
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:mdXdk.194636$TT4.194073@attbi_s22...
Sammy, why would anyone use a phony,
pretend-to-be EDU web page as a reference?
I'd rather use your regular, primary reference source,
the web page of the unemployed computer programmer
who took some data processing classes at a third rate California college.
If you want to compare the numbers you get
using the law of addition of tangents
and Special relativity, I suggest that you
just plug in some numbers and compute away.
Sam Wormley
>
> Sammy, why would anyone use a phony,
> pretend-to-be EDU web page as a reference?
>
> I'd rather use your regular, primary reference source,
> the web page of the unemployed computer programmer
> who took some data processing classes at a third rate California college.
>
> If you want to compare the numbers you get
> using the law of addition of tangents
> and Special relativity, I suggest that you
> just plug in some numbers and compute away.
>
Do you get the same answers, Potter, with your tangent functions?
as with the formulation from:
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/velocity.html
hanson
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA..
======= Too much !!!! & it's getting better ===========
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA..
the original Einstein Dingleberry Cult Index in
messagenews:g52fgk$tap$1...@aioe.org...
>>
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote
thanks for the laughs, Tom. You produced a gem here!
ahahahaha.... ahahahahanson
>>
"Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote
Too good not to im-moortel-ize it.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm
I've added a couple myself. --- Androcles.
>>
hanson wrote:
ahahaha... Potter, extend thanks to Andro, cuz from now on all
you need do is say in your posts: "as can be seen in this link:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm
it says (for instance) on para 26. 50 points for being Jewish."
>>
ahahaha.. AHAHAHAHA... That is too much, guys! That must
even make Einstein to pucker his sphincter and rattle his
Dingleberries... ahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAhahanson
>
Andro did a great job!
It's amazing how well and how fast he does graphics.
I suggest that he add at the bottom
how many points are needed to be a dingleberry,
>
The dingleberry pass mark is 5% of the total.
The total is 905, so nobody (at present) can score more than 900.
5% of 900 is 45, so that's the qualifying score.
That is, you get a five point credit so you can refer to "gedanken"
or "gestalt experiment" and you still only score zero, but for
"Jewish physics" (clause 16) > AND gedanken (clause 2)
AND a hype of a Jewish physicist you fully qualify as
a dingleberry. It's really quite tricky, clause 3 has an OR in it, so you
cannot claim fully-paid-up dingleberry status for a hype of Einstein
AND a hype of a Jewish physicist.
The judge's decision is final. hahahanson is the judge, I'm just the
clerk > of the court (and Lord Privy Seal).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Privy_Seal
If I don't keep the privy sealed the dingleberries might escape.
>
predictions with Einsteins and is testably verified?
>
Of course, but we don't call a ring laser gyroscope a "theory",
we call it existing technology. Here's how they work:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
>
>
Thanks, but give it to Georges Sagnac. He deserves it and I don't need it.
>
Dirk, for crying out loud, you sound like a "Stadt Schreier",
proselitizing for Einstein's Dingleberries... ahahahaha....
>
Have you ever taken a look at Einstein's crap with his gamma
= (1/ [sqrt( 1-v^2/c^2)] which demands that when v = c
--- (1) that time stands still = nothing happens,
--- (2) that any particle, rod or the entire universe shrinks to zero
meaning it does not exist in the moving direction = it becomes
2 dimensional,.. an illusionary shadow of itself... ahahaha...
--- (3) that the mass of any particle is becoming infinitely large,
a mass many time larger then the sum of all the mass in the universe.
--- (4) that even when v coming close to c a small object must
turn its face towards you = Terrell rotation , BUT when the
object is large, of galactic size, it's not the object that turns
any longer but it's now conveniently the light that sneaks
around the object and shows you what behind its corners
via Einstein lensing = Remote viewing.... ahahaha....Dirk
>
'hanson wrote:
AHAHAHA.. ahahahaha... Ahhh... there we go!... You sure are
an enterprising soul... and you are making money off the
yearning of your disciples with your Remote Viewing classes.
That is good!... ahahahaha... Kudos & Congrats, Dirk!
>
Tell'em at/on every occasion that "Einstein said so", because if
your instructions don't work out, you can blame Albert... ahaha..
Turn around/invert the reasoning of each point in (1 - 4 ) above
by which you can then clearly demonstrate that "remote viewing"
is not only possible but is done in current Dingleberry astronomy
by means of "Einstein Rings" and all that your students have to do
is to shrink the Rings to the proper size for their own applications.
Of course, as usual, blame them for them not seeing and believing
in what Einstein saw, in case the remote viewing remains remote.
Good luck and make a sack of absolute money... ahahahanson
>
>
PS:
A sidebar note here for all the teachers of and proselytizers of
Albert's crap. -- I will make peace and will not ridicule nor bash
on them if they will tell their students that Einstein's crap is a tale
that does not apply to/in the real world...no matter how hard the
jonnie-come lately teachers post and try to gain fame by
"post-diction" of what has already been accomplished and done:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/dd09db9bcf2d1a72?hl=en
>
Remember: as can be seen in the real world, here is where
Einstein's crap is still used and where they laugh about it:
= mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL shit"
= *.edu and grantology ...................."does use REL, No shit"
= Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the shitload"
= Jews protect it as cultural heritage whether "REL is shit or not".
>
The tortured weaseling about GTR by Einstein Dingleberries
is even more pathetic than when they try to make-belief in/with
STR. GTR uses in any and all of its solutions the humble "G"
of Newton, "G", which Einstein & his Dingleberries were never
able to get rid of... ahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHAHAHA....
Androcles
The amusing thing about the ring laser gyroscope is that is
actually models Einstein's "thought experiment" but for practical
reasons the straight line path Einstein used is wrapped around a
circle so that x' coincides with 0. Now all you need do is spin
a turntable against a mark on a fixed table and you have the
"stationary" and "moving" frames perfectly modelled.
Do not view a ring laser gyroscope in action, your wristwatch
will run slow.
Maybe Dork Newpeace will give me that Nobel prize after all,
but I gotta tell yer... It's a prize by dorks for dorks, I could
not value it. I'll take the money, though.