"World's simplist overview of physics", appended
Tom Potter
Please forgive me!
I posted the following chart
which I billed as "The World's simplest overview of physics".
Apparently, the "overview" was not as "simple" as I thought,
as a Mr. Varney, who claims to be of superior intelligence
and an expert in physics, could not comprehend it.
So I have decided to explain the chart, so that mere mortals
who do not have Mr. Varney's superior intelligence and knowledge
can understand it.
The chart below plots "points" across, and time derivatives down.
0ne Two Three
Four
==============================================
point distance area volume
time^-1 velocity diffusity volume
flow
density acceleration phi mass
momentum angular mom viscosity mass flow
force energy pressure spring
constant
D power charge
poynting vector
J H current
capacitance^-1
==============================================
1. Two points constitute a "line".
Distance is the measure of a line.
If a point in a line pair
changes along a non-geodesic path
the distance between the points changes.
Note that the geodesic path of two points is a circle.
In other words, one point can circle another point
and there will be no change in the distance between the two points.
2. Three points constitute a surface.
Area is the measure of a surface.
If a point in an area
changes along a non-geodesic path,
the area changes.
3. Four points constitute a volume
(Unless all points are in the same plane.)
Volume the measure of a surface.
If a point in a volume
changes along a non-geodesic path,
the volume changes.
4. One point constitutes a "point".
If the point is the center of a "multiplication table"
the point can be considered
5. The property name for the
rate of change of a property vs. time
is listed below each property.
For example,
the rate of change of distance is velocity,
the rate of change of velocity is acceleration, etc.
The rate of change of an area is called diffusity.
The rate of change of a volume is called volume flow.
The rate of change of a point is simply
"per unit time" or time^-1 as shown.
6. The number of points are limited to four,
because man is hardwired to only perceive a
three dimensional space (Four points).
Man's mind consolidates multiple points into N number of volumes,
and maps the changes in the relationships
between points into new properties which are the
time derivatives of 1,2,3, or 4 points.
7. The first two lines should be clear to a
person with less than Mr. Varney's claimed intelligence,
but the question may arise, how does mass, and the
properties related to mass get where they are on the chart?
All physical properties are quantized in terms of one standard
cyclical standard. for example:
time period(X) = cycle count(cyclical standard) / cycle count(X)
time interval(X) = cycle count(cyclical standard) / cause(point(A)) to
effect(point(B))
distance(X) = time interval(X) * C
Mass is a composite of time periods, which are true times,
and time intervals, which are true spaces.
One bodies mass is another bodies space and time.
According to Newton's interpretation of Kepler's equation:
mass(Sun) * G = distance(Earth)^3 / time(Earth)^2
Expressing distance as a time interval,
and acknowledging that both the Sun and the Earth
share the same time period, we have:
mass(Sun) * G / C^3 = time interval(Earth to Sun)^3 / time period(Sun
and Earth)^2
As can be seen, G/C^3 is basically a universal time per mass constant,
and the mass time of the Sun is a composite of time intervals (Spaces)
and time periods (Real time).
This fixes the dimensions of mass to the position shown in the chart,
(Distance^3 / time^2)
and the dimensions of the properties related to mass
follow from the dimensions of the mass.
Note that Mr. Varney had a particular problem comprehending
"spring constant" but perhaps he does not know that "spring constant"
has the dimensions of mass flow per time (And force per unit
distance),
and he did not comprehend that my point was/is that
as man can only perceive three dimensions,
that he folds back properties outside the range he can
comprehend.to fit on the chart as shown.
It is interesting to note,
that if a point is changing along a geodesic,
and the distance, area, or volume remains constant,
that man CAN perceive that the shape of the system has changed,
even though the measure of a particular physical property has not.
In other words, the measure of the physical properties alone
does not tell the whole picture of what is going on in a system.
In fact, perhaps the "shape" of the points that constitute a system,
(vs. time) is more informative than a measure of the physical
properties.
Hopefully this presentation will be clear to Mr. Varney,
but if there are still points he does not comprehend,
I hope he will not be too shy to ask questions. ;-))
For more details on this, visit my web site.
--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Uncle Al
>
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
> Please forgive me!
>
> I posted the following chart
> which I billed as "The World's simplest overview of physics".
Hopeless uninformed techno-drool masquerading as Shannonized bullshit.
[snip]
> 2. Three points constitute a surface.
> Area is the measure of a surface.
Use three points to define the surface of a sphere possessing non-zero
finite radius.
[snip]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Sam Wormley
Dirk Van de moortel
"Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3cc9...@post.usenet.com...
We are broadminded.
We always forgive idiots.
No problem.
You're welcome.
Our pleasure.
Dirk Vdm
Mike Varney
No.
Mike Varney
>
> Please forgive me!
>
> I posted the following chart
> which I billed as "The World's simplest overview of physics".
And which should have been billed as "A cranks guide to physics"
> Apparently, the "overview" was not as "simple" as I thought,
Nothing is as simple as your thought.
> as a Mr. Varney, who claims to be of superior intelligence
> and an expert in physics, could not comprehend it.
As a comparison to you, my superior intelligence can be considered a truism.
Otherwise, I make no claims.
> So I have decided to explain the chart, so that mere mortals
> who do not have Mr. Varney's superior intelligence and knowledge
> can understand it.
Here we go:
"weeeeer off to see the wizard, the wonderful wizard of crank"
<SNIP Garbage>
>1. Two points constitute a "line".
No, a geodesic.
And please define a "point" for us.
> Distance is the measure of a line.
Oh brother.
> If a point in a line pair
> changes along a non-geodesic path
> the distance between the points changes.
Oh brother.
> Note that the geodesic path of two points is a circle.
> In other words, one point can circle another point
> and there will be no change in the distance between the two points.
>
> 2. Three points constitute a surface.
> Area is the measure of a surface.
You have define your units.
<SNIP more garbage>
> 6. The number of points are limited to four,
> because man is hardwired to only perceive a
> three dimensional space (Four points).
*smirk*
<SNIP more trash>
> 7. The first two lines should be clear to a
> person with less than Mr. Varney's claimed intelligence,
> but the question may arise, how does mass, and the
> properties related to mass get where they are on the chart?
Perhaps becuase you pulled them out of your ass?
> All physical properties are quantized in terms of one standard
> cyclical standard. for example:
Here we go, the standard for cranks are the so called "cycles".
> time period(X) = cycle count(cyclical standard) / cycle count(X)
<SNIP more compost>
> Mass is a composite of time periods, which are true times,
> and time intervals, which are true spaces.
*Snicker*
> One bodies mass is another bodies space and time.
And one crank's paper is another man's birdcage liner.
> According to Newton's interpretation of Kepler's equation:
>
> mass(Sun) * G = distance(Earth)^3 / time(Earth)^2
Well, at least the dimensions are correct. *smirk*
<SNIP more drek>
> Note that Mr. Varney had a particular problem comprehending
> "spring constant" but perhaps he does not know that "spring constant"
> has the dimensions of mass flow per time (And force per unit
> distance),
Not for torsion spring constant.
> and he did not comprehend that my point was/is that
> as man can only perceive three dimensions,
> that he folds back properties outside the range he can
> comprehend.to fit on the chart as shown.
Twit.
<SNIP more spew>
> Hopefully this presentation will be clear to Mr. Varney,
Yup.. it is clear that you are a raving crackpot.
> but if there are still points he does not comprehend,
I cannot comprehend how you can be so insane.
> I hope he will not be too shy to ask questions. ;-))
>
> For more details on this, visit my web site.
>
> --
> Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
And for other pages like Tom Crack-Potter's, go to www.crank.org
Dirk Van de moortel
>
> Please forgive me!
>
> I posted the following chart
> which I billed as "The World's simplest overview of physics".
An appropriate title for your first fumble on
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
Dirk Vdm
TB
Hell Dirk, you have got to start including some of Spaceman's stuff there!
-- TB
Tom Potter
> Tom Potter wrote:
> >
> > **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
> >
> > Please forgive me!
> >
> > I posted the following chart
> > which I billed as "The World's simplest overview of physics".
>
> Hopeless uninformed techno-drool masquerading as Shannonized bullshit.
>
> [snip]
>
> > 2. Three points constitute a surface.
> > Area is the measure of a surface.
>
> Use three points to define the surface of a sphere possessing non-zero
> finite radius.
First of all, this chart is a nemonic, like
"ROY G BIV" and
"Bad boys rape our young girls but prostitues give willingly.",
and is designed to help folks learn and remember physics.
Secondly, The universe is made up of particles,
and these particles act like TILES to make up
larger objects. Man's mind blends the particles
into a homogenous whole, much like it blends
fresco tiles into pictures.
Thirdly, you may think of a sphere in terms of math,
but I am describing volumes, in terms of hard reality.
In other words, the Earth is NOT a sphere,
nor is the Sun, nor is the XXXX.
Tom Potter
Tom Potter
"Mike Varney" <var...@collorado.edu> wrote in message
news:pNgy8.48$EE5....@news.uswest.net...
I would like to thank Mr. Varney
for his mature, rational, intelligent, logical, analysis of my post.
If anyone wants to read a wide range of opinions of Mr. Varney,
one does not have to visit the web page of a flamer,
( Many schools have links to my web page,
and make my physics tutorial accessible to their students.)
one can just use google and search on "Varney" in "sci.physics".
--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Tom Potter
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:yfjy8.41523$Ze....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
It is interesting to see, that Dick Moortel
thinks that an outstanding, comprehensive mnemonic is a "fumble".
I wonder what he thinks about "ROY G BIV",
or "Oscar had a heap of apples"?
One has to wonder why some people
act like the Taliban, when it comes to new ideas?
It's hard headed worship of the old, and
reluctance to explore new ideas that
make companies like DEC go down the tubes.
Tom Potter
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@iastate.edu> wrote in message
news:3CC971BC...@iastate.edu...
> See:
http://www.google.com/search?q=+%22tom+potter%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
It is interesting to see that
rather than addressing the issues raise in the post,
that this poster simply refers readers to the web page of
a famous net flamer from way back.
One has to wonder if Sam Wormley is incapable
of addressing the questions involved?????
Or does Sam Wormley consider Erich Max Francis,
a former graphic programmer to be the world's
foremost expert in physics?????
One also has to wonder if today's crop of young physicists
are mindless, Taliban-like, zombies who worship what has been
drummed into their brains, and they cannot open their minds
and confront new ideas.
Stay tuned and find out,
can Sam think for himself, is he a member of the physics Taliban,
or does he worship Erich Max Francis????
Tom Potter
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:qufy8.41178$Ze....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
Who are "We"?
Are you pregnant again???
If you are referring to your butt buddy Varney,
I might remind you that
"He who lays down with dogs gets up with fleas."
Is Varney the kind of person you and your son
want to be identified with?
Tom Potter
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:yfjy8.41523$Ze....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
Thank you for giving me top billing on your web page.
Considering your great reputation and enormous following,
I am sure that many intelligent folks will have access
to my thoughts on your site.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3cca...@post.usenet.com...
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
> wrote in message news:yfjy8.41523$Ze....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > "Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3cc9...@post.usenet.com...
> > > **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
> > >
> > > Please forgive me!
> > >
> > > I posted the following chart
> > > which I billed as "The World's simplest overview of physics".
> >
> > An appropriate title for your first fumble on
> >
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
>
> Thank you for giving me top billing on your web page.
You won't last long at the top. The list is chronologically ordered.
> Considering your great reputation and enormous following,
> I am sure that many intelligent folks will have access
> to my thoughts on your site.
All bait for your hook.
Dirk
Dirk Van de moortel
"Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3cca...@post.usenet.com...
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
> wrote in message news:yfjy8.41523$Ze....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > "Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3cc9...@post.usenet.com...
> > > **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
> > >
> > > Please forgive me!
> > >
> > > I posted the following chart
> > > which I billed as "The World's simplest overview of physics".
> >
> > An appropriate title for your first fumble on
> >
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
>
> It is interesting to see, that Dick Moortel
> thinks that an outstanding, comprehensive mnemonic is a "fumble".
>
> I wonder what he thinks about "ROY G BIV",
> or "Oscar had a heap of apples"?
>
> One has to wonder why some people
> act like the Taliban, when it comes to new ideas?
>
> It's hard headed worship of the old, and
> reluctance to explore new ideas that
> make companies like DEC go down the tubes.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/DecCompaqHp.html
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"TB" <tbrow...@yahoo.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message news:3CC9E446...@yahoo.NOSPAM.com...
But Spacerant doesn't really qualify as a fumbler...
It takes a minimal amount of brains to be able to fumble.
Perhaps when it accidentally writes something interesting,
I will include it ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Mike Varney
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
>
> "Mike Varney" <var...@collorado.edu> wrote in message
> news:pNgy8.48$EE5....@news.uswest.net...
> >
> > "Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:3cc9...@post.usenet.com...
> > And for other pages like Tom Crack-Potter's, go to www.crank.org
>
>
> I would like to thank Mr. Varney
> for his mature, rational, intelligent, logical, analysis of my post.
You are welcome.
> If anyone wants to read a wide range of opinions of Mr. Varney,
> one does not have to visit the web page of a flamer,
> ( Many schools have links to my web page,
> and make my physics tutorial accessible to their students.)
Please give a list of those schools.
> one can just use google and search on "Varney" in "sci.physics".
Wow! You know how to use google!
Mike Varney
>
>
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@iastate.edu> wrote in message
> news:3CC971BC...@iastate.edu...
> > See:
> http://www.google.com/search?q=+%22tom+potter%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
>
> It is interesting to see that
> rather than addressing the issues raise in the post,
> that this poster simply refers readers to the web page of
> a famous net flamer from way back.
>
> One has to wonder if Sam Wormley is incapable
> of addressing the questions involved?????
>
> Or does Sam Wormley consider Erich Max Francis,
> a former graphic programmer to be the world's
> foremost expert in physics?????
>
> One also has to wonder if today's crop of young physicists
> are mindless, Taliban-like,
I wonder if the use of Taliban should be a thread ender the same as Nazi?
Tom Potter
It is interesting to examine the logic of this poster.
Apparently, he is of the opinion, that if one uses the
words Nazi, that it negates the persons message.
If this is the case, then people and nations can engage
in Nazi-like actions, and if intelligent, rational folks
make reference to this, those people whose minds have been
conditioned to shut down, do so, and lose an extremely important
message.
In other words, his logic makes it easy for Nazi-like,
and Taliban-like people to squelch messages they find
objectional, if they condition folks to ignore
messages that try to alert folks to their actions.
But if the poster is one whose mind <sic> shuts off,
and he breaks off contact, when he is refered to as a Nazi,
then I assert that his postings are Nazi-like.
Now, hopefully he will go away,
and interact with other immature boys, with
inferiority complexes, in alt.flame or similar newsgroup,
and cease posting his childish trash to sci.physics.
Tom Potter
Ray Vanlandingham
> One has to wonder why some people
> act like the Taliban, when it comes to new ideas?
I think you're supposed to call him a liar, homosexual, and bigot before
you call him a terrorist.
BTW, I'm curious to see the math on how you take the time derivative of a
point, since a 'point' is a one-dimensional object, and thus includes no
units, especially considering that:
df/dt=0, if f is not a function of t.
For that matter, how can you take /any/ derivative of a point, since it's
not a function?
Ray Vanlandingham
> "Mike Varney" <var...@collorado.edu> wrote in message
> news:<T0wy8.5$fb7....@news.uswest.net>...
>> "Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:3cca...@post.usenet.com...
>> > **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
<snip>
>> > One also has to wonder if today's crop of young physicists
>> > are mindless, Taliban-like,
>>
>> I wonder if the use of Taliban should be a thread ender the same as Nazi?
>
> It is interesting to examine the logic of this poster.
> Apparently, he is of the opinion, that if one uses the
> words Nazi, that it negates the persons message.
> If this is the case, then people and nations can engage
> in Nazi-like actions, and if intelligent, rational folks
> make reference to this, those people whose minds have been
> conditioned to shut down, do so, and lose an extremely important
> message.
>
> In other words, his logic makes it easy for Nazi-like,
> and Taliban-like people to squelch messages they find
> objectional, if they condition folks to ignore
> messages that try to alert folks to their actions.
>
> But if the poster is one whose mind <sic> shuts off,
> and he breaks off contact, when he is refered to as a Nazi,
> then I assert that his postings are Nazi-like.
He was talking about Godwin's Law, kook. Go read the Jargon File. And yes,
Mike, I think it should.
Ray Vanlandingham
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:<3CC97052...@hate.spam.net>...
>> Tom Potter wrote:
>> > 2. Three points constitute a surface.
>> > Area is the measure of a surface.
>>
>> Use three points to define the surface of a sphere possessing non-zero
>> finite radius.
>
> First of all, this chart is a nemonic, like
> "ROY G BIV" and
> "Bad boys rape our young girls but prostitues give willingly.",
> and is designed to help folks learn and remember physics.
It's amusing that you'd remember the version of that mnenonic that mentions
a violent sexual act.
> Secondly, The universe is made up of particles,
> and these particles act like TILES to make up
> larger objects. Man's mind blends the particles
> into a homogenous whole, much like it blends
> fresco tiles into pictures.
>
> Thirdly, you may think of a sphere in terms of math,
> but I am describing volumes, in terms of hard reality.
No, you're not. You're babbling inanely.
You said earlier that three points defined a surface, not a volume. Can't
you even babble consistently?
Kook.
Richard Henry
> >
> > I wonder if the use of Taliban should be a thread ender the same as
Nazi?
>
> It is interesting to examine the logic of this poster.
> Apparently, he is of the opinion, that if one uses the
> words Nazi, that it negates the persons message.
> If this is the case, then people and nations can engage
> in Nazi-like actions, and if intelligent, rational folks
> make reference to this, those people whose minds have been
> conditioned to shut down, do so, and lose an extremely important
> message.
>
Hold on there! I think he is simply making the common misstatement of
Godwin's law.
Mike Varney
> "Mike Varney" <var...@collorado.edu> wrote in message
news:<T0wy8.5$fb7....@news.uswest.net>...
> > "Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:3cca...@post.usenet.com...
> > > **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
> > >
> > >
> > > "Sam Wormley" <swor...@iastate.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:3CC971BC...@iastate.edu...
> > > > See:
> > > http://www.google.com/search?q=+%22tom+potter%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
> > >
> > > It is interesting to see that
> > > rather than addressing the issues raise in the post,
> > > that this poster simply refers readers to the web page of
> > > a famous net flamer from way back.
> > >
> > > One has to wonder if Sam Wormley is incapable
> > > of addressing the questions involved?????
> > >
> > > Or does Sam Wormley consider Erich Max Francis,
> > > a former graphic programmer to be the world's
> > > foremost expert in physics?????
> > >
> > > One also has to wonder if today's crop of young physicists
> > > are mindless, Taliban-like,
> >
> > I wonder if the use of Taliban should be a thread ender the same as
Nazi?
>
> It is interesting to examine the logic of this poster.
Not the logic, twit, but standard Usenet protocol.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mike Varney" <var...@collorado.edu> wrote in message news:F0_y8.1149$VH5....@news.uswest.net...
Didn't you know then?
Man is hardwired to overthrow protocol and establish anarchy.
Al about it on
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=anarchy&as_uauthors=tom%20potter
Dirk Vdm
Tom Potter
It is interesting to see
that this poster thinks that it is rational
to be conditioned to quit thinking when you see
certain words.
It is also interesting to see that he
probably has a low I.Q. and an inferiority complex,
( Or else comes from a low social staus background.)
as he calls folks names, rather than interact with them
in an intelligent, mature, civilized manner.
It would be pretty simple to condition
rats to push a lever that lights a "kook" sign,
when they see a sign that says "Nazi",
by it would be impossible to condition them
to interact with intellegent folks in a civilized manner.
Tom Potter
Ray Vanlandingham
> It is also interesting to see that he
> probably has a low I.Q. and an inferiority complex,
<snicker>
So, what do you do for a living?
> ( Or else comes from a low social staus background.)
> as he calls folks names, rather than interact with them
> in an intelligent, mature, civilized manner.
You consider referring to an entire class of people you've never met as
terrorists simply because they have decided to actually /learn/ physics
(unlike you, apparently) as civilized?
> It would be pretty simple to condition
> rats to push a lever that lights a "kook" sign,
Actually, I decided you were a kook after about ten seconds of looking at
your website. You meet all of the classic criteria.
You also can't do basic math. I'd still like to know how you take the time
derivative of a point (which is obviously not a function of time) and get
anything other than zero.
Do you /know/ what a derivative is?
Tom Potter
"Ray Vanlandingham" <invalid...@192.168.0.1> wrote in message
news:2370324.U...@tachyon.mchsi.com...
> Tom Potter wrote:
>
> > It is also interesting to see that he
> > probably has a low I.Q. and an inferiority complex,
>
> <snicker>
Frankly, I have never seen a well-adjusted, intelligent person
"snicker".
> So, what do you do for a living?
I eat, drink and breath,
and stay out of the way of massive objects with a lot of momentum.
> > ( Or else comes from a low social staus background.)
> > as he calls folks names, rather than interact with them
> > in an intelligent, mature, civilized manner.
>
> You consider referring to an entire class of people you've never met
as
> terrorists simply because they have decided to actually /learn/
physics
> (unlike you, apparently) as civilized?
It is interesting to see that this poster is incapable
of rational thinking. He thinks <sic> that the issue has to do with
knowledge, when the issue is, and has been clearly stated,
that there are a few immature, rude, crude, uncivilized people
in sci.physics, who have inferiority complexes,
and try to massage their egos by putting down other folks.
I, like all rational, mature folks,
think it is great when others have
wealth, health, beauty, and knowledge,
but don't like low brow, uncivilized, trailer trash
trying to ego trip on others.
If the people that the poster refers to are knowledgeable
and civilized, I'd like to see them demonstrate it
by posting civil posts with some physics content.
> > It would be pretty simple to condition
> > rats to push a lever that lights a "kook" sign,
>
> Actually, I decided you were a kook after about ten seconds of
looking at
> your website. You meet all of the classic criteria.
It is interesting to see that this poster has, as I suggested,
a compulsion to try to boost his ego by demeaning folks.
Hopefully the poster will list "all of the classic criteria" of a
"kook",
and outline what what he found on my web page
that leads him to assert that I "meet all of the classic criteria".
If he is as smart and knowledgeable as he thinks he is,
or pretends to be, I suggest that he educate me, and others,
rather than try to boost his ego.
> You also can't do basic math. I'd still like to know how you take
the time
> derivative of a point (which is obviously not a function of time)
and get
> anything other than zero.
>
> Do you /know/ what a derivative is?
Apparently, this poster did not comprehend that
the "derivatives" in my chart are the "derivatives"
of the functions of the events associated with
one, two, three and four points.
On my web page, which the poster refers to,
I use "one" as the center of my charts,
but I used "one point" in the chart he objects to,
in order to create what I consider to be
a useful mnemonic.
I hope he doesn't object to me trying to give folks
a tool that I think might be useful.
If folks want to use my chart, great.
If not, that's also okay.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3ccd...@post.usenet.com...
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
>
> "Ray Vanlandingham" <invalid...@192.168.0.1> wrote in message
> news:2370324.U...@tachyon.mchsi.com...
> > Tom Potter wrote:
> >
> > > It is also interesting to see that he
> > > probably has a low I.Q. and an inferiority complex,
> >
> > <snicker>
>
> Frankly, I have never seen a well-adjusted, intelligent person
> "snicker".
>
> > So, what do you do for a living?
>
> I eat, drink and breath,
> and stay out of the way of massive objects with a lot of momentum.
>
> > > ( Or else comes from a low social staus background.)
> > > as he calls folks names, rather than interact with them
> > > in an intelligent, mature, civilized manner.
> >
> > You consider referring to an entire class of people you've never met
> as
> > terrorists simply because they have decided to actually /learn/
> physics
> > (unlike you, apparently) as civilized?
>
> It is interesting to see that this poster is incapable
It is interesting to see that this poster sees so many
interesting things in posters:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=interesting%20to%20see&as_uauthors=tom%20potter
Dirk Vdm
Ray Vanlandingham
> "Ray Vanlandingham" <invalid...@192.168.0.1> wrote in message
> news:2370324.U...@tachyon.mchsi.com...
>> Tom Potter wrote:
>>
>> > It is also interesting to see that he
>> > probably has a low I.Q. and an inferiority complex,
>>
>> <snicker>
>
> Frankly, I have never seen a well-adjusted, intelligent person
> "snicker".
Try getting out more. I did not, btw literally snicker. I was conveying the
idea of derisive amusement, while most people would probably have found
patently obvious.
<snip>
> It is interesting to see that this poster is incapable
> of rational thinking. He thinks <sic> that the issue has to do with
> knowledge, when the issue is, and has been clearly stated,
> that there are a few immature, rude, crude, uncivilized people
> in sci.physics, who have inferiority complexes,
> and try to massage their egos by putting down other folks.
A simple review of this thread will show that you have spewed large numbers
of insults in all directions. This is typical of a kook.
> I, like all rational, mature folks,
> think it is great when others have
> wealth, health, beauty, and knowledge,
> but don't like low brow, uncivilized, trailer trash
> trying to ego trip on others.
Actually, that entire paragraph was ego stroking and insults. I have yet to
compliment myself once, and have only referred to you as a kook. Common
consensus seems to agree with me, and thus dictates that rather than an
insult, it's a statement of fact.
> If the people that the poster refers to are knowledgeable
> and civilized, I'd like to see them demonstrate it
> by posting civil posts with some physics content.
The large majority of the people that you referred to as 'Taliban-like',
namely 'today's crop of young physicists' have quite probably never even
heard of Usenet, much less posted to it.
>> > It would be pretty simple to condition
>> > rats to push a lever that lights a "kook" sign,
>>
>> Actually, I decided you were a kook after about ten seconds of
> looking at
>> your website. You meet all of the classic criteria.
>
> It is interesting to see that this poster has, as I suggested,
> a compulsion to try to boost his ego by demeaning folks.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
> Hopefully the poster will list "all of the classic criteria" of a
> "kook",
I'll list a few of the ones more relevant to you at the moment, happily.
Any attempt at a comprehensive list would be impossible, since people
invent new dumb things to say every day.
1. Consistently refers to himself in the third person. (Cross reference :
George Hammond)
2. Misunderstands logic. <http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/exmid.htm>
(The rules of formal logic, of which you misquote a few, apply to
/statements/, not things.)
3. Misunderstands the nature of time.
<http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/time.htm>
Usually three is enough to classify a kook, but you add some new ones.
4. Advocates a number system without zero.
<http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/zero.htm>
If you have an apple, and eat it, how many apples do you have left?
5. Advocates an entirely new number system that does not include numbers.
<http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/number.htm>
The description says enough.
And then, of course, there is the all-time favorite...
6. Has a 'fundamental theory of the universe' that makes no sense, explains
no unexplained phenomena, and predistsw no observable phenomena.
<http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/everything.htm>
> and outline what what he found on my web page
> that leads him to assert that I "meet all of the classic criteria".
Actually, what made me originally come to that conclusion seems to have
disappeared. It doesn't matter, though, since I quickly found plenty of
other things.
> If he is as smart and knowledgeable as he thinks he is,
> or pretends to be, I suggest that he educate me, and others,
> rather than try to boost his ego.
So far, you seem to be making every attempt to appear ineducable.
>> You also can't do basic math. I'd still like to know how you take
> the time
>> derivative of a point (which is obviously not a function of time)
> and get
>> anything other than zero.
>>
>> Do you /know/ what a derivative is?
>
> Apparently, this poster did not comprehend that
> the "derivatives" in my chart are the "derivatives"
> of the functions of the events associated with
> one, two, three and four points.
An 'event' occurs at a single location in time and space, and is still not
a function of time. Try again.
You explicitly stated, by the way, that 'The chart below plots "points"
across, and time derivatives down.'
Define a derivative, and explain how to calculate one.
> On my web page, which the poster refers to,
> I use "one" as the center of my charts,
> but I used "one point" in the chart he objects to,
> in order to create what I consider to be
> a useful mnemonic.
I saw nothing that implied any usefulness.
> I hope he doesn't object to me trying to give folks
> a tool that I think might be useful.
If it was correct, I wouldn't.
Tom Potter
"Ray Vanlandingham" <invalid...@192.168.0.1> wrote in message
news:2138740.e...@tachyon.mchsi.com...
> Tom Potter wrote:
>
>
> > "Ray Vanlandingham" <invalid...@192.168.0.1> wrote in message
> > news:2370324.U...@tachyon.mchsi.com...
> >> Tom Potter wrote:
> >>
> >> > It is also interesting to see that he
> >> > probably has a low I.Q. and an inferiority complex,
> >>
> >> <snicker>
> >
> > Frankly, I have never seen a well-adjusted, intelligent person
> > "snicker".
>
> Try getting out more. I did not, btw literally snicker. I was
conveying the
> idea of derisive amusement, while most people would probably have
found
> patently obvious.
Could you provide scientific references that verify
"most people would probably have found <it> patently obvious"
if you said you "snickered" and you didn't snicker?
> <snip>
>
> > It is interesting to see that this poster is incapable
> > of rational thinking. He thinks <sic> that the issue has to do
with
> > knowledge, when the issue is, and has been clearly stated,
> > that there are a few immature, rude, crude, uncivilized people
> > in sci.physics, who have inferiority complexes,
> > and try to massage their egos by putting down other folks.
>
> A simple review of this thread will show that you have spewed large
numbers
> of insults in all directions. This is typical of a kook.
Are you suggesting that the posters that I am trying to
discourage from insulting folks, are "kooks"?
As can be verified by simply reading their posts using Google.
they "spew large numbers of insults in all directions"
> > I, like all rational, mature folks,
> > think it is great when others have
> > wealth, health, beauty, and knowledge,
> > but don't like low brow, uncivilized, trailer trash
> > trying to ego trip on others.
>
> Actually, that entire paragraph was ego stroking and insults. I have
yet to
> compliment myself once, and have only referred to you as a kook.
Common
> consensus seems to agree with me, and thus dictates that rather than
an
> insult, it's a statement of fact.
Apparently, this poster can not distinguish between
"ego stroking", and using "tit for tat".
(Which science tells us is the most effective social strategy.)
And again, the poster claims to read the minds of
some "Common "consensus,
rather than posting known facts. (The sure mark of a "kook".)
> > If the people that the poster refers to are knowledgeable
> > and civilized, I'd like to see them demonstrate it
> > by posting civil posts with some physics content.
>
> The large majority of the people that you referred to as
'Taliban-like',
> namely 'today's crop of young physicists' have quite probably never
even
> heard of Usenet, much less posted to it.
>
> >> > It would be pretty simple to condition
> >> > rats to push a lever that lights a "kook" sign,
> >>
> >> Actually, I decided you were a kook after about ten seconds of
> > looking at
> >> your website. You meet all of the classic criteria.
> >
> > It is interesting to see that this poster has, as I suggested,
> > a compulsion to try to boost his ego by demeaning folks.
>
> Pot. Kettle. Black.
Apparently, this poster can not distinguish between
"ego stroking", and using "tit for tat".
> > Hopefully the poster will list "all of the classic criteria" of a
> > "kook",
>
> I'll list a few of the ones more relevant to you at the moment,
happily.
> Any attempt at a comprehensive list would be impossible, since
people
> invent new dumb things to say every day.
Apparently, what this poster is asserting,
is that he is the creator of some sort of "kook" criteria,
and that he revises it to suit himself.
> 1. Consistently refers to himself in the third person. (Cross
reference :
> George Hammond)
>
> 2. Misunderstands logic. <http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/exmid.htm>
> (The rules of formal logic, of which you misquote a few, apply to
> /statements/, not things.)
I was using Boolean algebra, Karnaugh maps,
and writing computer programs that included
logic that had to perform correctly,
before you were born.
> 3. Misunderstands the nature of time.
> <http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/time.htm>
Maybe you are the one who "misunderstands the nature of time."
I have been posting detailed posts on the nature of
time periods, time intervals and exponential changes in an
environment,
for many years, and so far no one has stepped up to the plate to
straighten me out.
It you are half as intelligent as you think you are,
and have one tenth the knowledge you think you have,
let's debate the issues. Read my posts about time periods, time
intervals,
and exponential changes, and post where they are in error.
> Usually three is enough to classify a kook, but you add some new
ones.
How can I dispute you,
when you are the world's creator of some sort of "kook" criteria?
> 4. Advocates a number system without zero.
> <http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/zero.htm>
> If you have an apple, and eat it, how many apples do you have left?
It is interesting to see that this poster thinks that
what goes into my stomach disappears from the universe.
But to give him the benefit of the doubt,
he simply didn't comprehend my article,
which basically makes the point,
that things change, but do not become "nothing",
that the something that arises from apparent "nothingness"
is energy. In other words, when an electron and a positron combine,
you don't get "nothing", you get energy.
> 5. Advocates an entirely new number system that does not include
numbers.
> <http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/number.htm>
> The description says enough.
Note that the poster makes an open loop statement,
as he cannot comprehend the concept of number systems
he has not been conditioned to.
> And then, of course, there is the all-time favorite...
>
> 6. Has a 'fundamental theory of the universe' that makes no sense,
explains
> no unexplained phenomena, and predistsw no observable phenomena.
> <http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/everything.htm>
Again the poster exposes his lack of knowledge,
(Or reading comprehension problem.)
as my system "explains" such things as reduced mass,
which has to be patched onto the existing system,
and I point out that fallacy behind the separate concepts
of "gravitational" and "inertia" masses.
Again, I challenge the poster,
if he is half as intelligent as he thinks he is,
post my article, and show where I am wrong,
rather than make open loop comments.
Any asshole can make an open loop statement
that does not join an issue.
> > and outline what what he found on my web page
> > that leads him to assert that I "meet all of the classic
criteria".
>
> Actually, what made me originally come to that conclusion seems to
have
> disappeared. It doesn't matter, though, since I quickly found plenty
of
> other things.
>
> > If he is as smart and knowledgeable as he thinks he is,
> > or pretends to be, I suggest that he educate me, and others,
> > rather than try to boost his ego.
>
> So far, you seem to be making every attempt to appear ineducable.
Again, note that the poster tries to stroke his feeble ego,
and he wonders why I use "tit for tat".
It is interesting to see that this poster
thinks that he is God's "tool" inspector,
who knows what "tools" are and are not useful,
and if he thinks <sic> that a tool is not useful,
he tries to stroke his feeble ego,
by insulting the tool maker.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3cce...@post.usenet.com...
> Are you suggesting that the posters that I am trying to ...
> Apparently, this poster can not distinguish between ...
> And again, the poster claims to read the minds of ...
> Apparently, this poster can not distinguish between ...
> Apparently, what this poster is asserting, ...
> It is interesting to see that this poster thinks that ...
> Note that the poster makes an open loop statement, ...
> Again the poster exposes his lack of knowledge, ...
> Again, I challenge the poster, ...
> Again, note that the poster tries to stroke his feeble ego, ...
> It is interesting to see that this poster ...
Only 11 this time.
Dirk Vdm
Paul Cardinale
<snip>
>
> 4. One point constitutes a "point".
Gaaa!
I'll have to lay down and mull that one over for a while.
> If the point is the center of a "multiplication table"
> the point can be considered
Now there your wrong. I'm sure what you meant to write was:
"If the point is the center of a 'multiplication table' the point
can be ill-considered."
But its moot anyway - we're not allowed to have points at the center
of a multiplication table (haven't you ever noticed that there's
always a hole of size zero at the center of every multiplication
table?).
Paul Cardinale
Tom Potter
If two points define a line, three points define a surface,
and four points can define a volume, what does one point define?
Tom Potter
Tom Potter
I try to communicate as efficiently as I can.
If you do not comprehend what I am trying to convey,
or if you can provide me with more efficient phrases
that convey the same ideas, please let me know.
Tom Potter
Richard Herring
moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> writes
--
Richard Herring
Richard Herring
<t...@earthlink.net> writes
1. You can save a lot of keystrokes by typing "you" or a name, instead
of "the poster" or "this poster". It also removes that ambiguous
demonstrative - you say "this", but we can't see who you are pointing
at.
2. Don't waste time telling us what you think they think. We can see for
ourselves. Paraphrases are usually incorrect and indicate a strawman
argument.
3. What's the big deal about "open loop arguments"?
--
Richard Herring
Mike Varney
The most efficient phrases for you to convey your ideas are "I, Tom Potter,
am a twit crackpot."
QED.
Tom Potter
"Mike Varney" <var...@collorado.edu> wrote in message
news:7GPz8.1$8r5....@news.uswest.net...
And the most efficient phrase for you to convey what you are is:
"I, Mike Varney, am an immature, uncivilized, low brow, trailer park
punk,
with an inferiority complex."
Dirk Van de moortel
"Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3ccf...@post.usenet.com...
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
>
> "Mike Varney" <var...@collorado.edu> wrote in message
> news:7GPz8.1$8r5....@news.uswest.net...
[snip]
> > The most efficient phrases for you to convey your ideas are "I, Tom
> > Potter, am a twit crackpot."
>
> And the most efficient phrase for you to convey what you are is:
> "I, Mike Varney, am an immature, uncivilized, low brow, trailer park
> punk, with an inferiority complex."
The difference of course is that, at least as far as physics is
concerned, and regardless of what he and you are trying to
convey, from my point of view somewhere in the middle, he
is vastly superior and you are vastly inferior.
Dirk Vdm
Tom Potter
"Richard Herring" <richard...@baesystems.com> wrote in message
news:YnlghKGh...@baesystems.com...
As I indicated to you before,
I respond to the posts of immature flamers
to communicate with others, not the immature flamer,
therefore it is appropraite to type "the poster"...
> 2. Don't waste time telling us what you think they think. We can see
for
> ourselves. Paraphrases are usually incorrect and indicate a strawman
> argument.
I suggest that "paraphrases" can get to the root of a poster's agenda,
particullarily, when they use ad hominem or sarcasm.
> 3. What's the big deal about "open loop arguments"?
"Open loop argument"???
What's an "open loop argument"?
The purpose of most of my posts when responding to
immature, flamers, is to:
get them to "argue" rather than flame,
or use unsupported open loop statements that avoid the basic issue.
I have no problem with engaging in intelligent, mature, rational
"arguments",
as I think that truth comes about by engaging in dichotomies.
Tom Potter
"Richard Herring" <richard...@baesystems.com> wrote in message
news:uHHtJKFr...@baesystems.com...
I try to communicate as efficiently as I can.
If you do not comprehend what I am trying to convey,
or if you can provide me with more efficient phrases
that convey the same ideas, please let me know.
--
Richard Herring
writes
>
>> 3. What's the big deal about "open loop arguments"?
>
>"Open loop argument"???
>
>What's an "open loop argument"?
I beg your pardon. "Open loop statements", then.
Same question. It still looks like an oxymoron to me.
"When is a loop not a loop? When it's ..."
--
Richard Herring
Mike Varney
Crackpotter almost got the trailer park punk correct, except that I was
raised in a school bus, not a trailer, and I was never quite into the whole
punk genre.
As for low brow.. well hey! My occipital bun makes up for the extra weight
up front!
Uncivilized? Well, I admit it did take me a short while to get used to
eating at a table instead of balancing the plate on my lap.. but I always
used a fork and knife, or at least the knife.
:-)
Mike Varney
> >
> > We are broadminded.
> > We always forgive idiots.
> > No problem.
> > You're welcome.
> > Our pleasure.
Quote from another thread.
"
> I have no problem with engaging in intelligent, mature, rational
> "arguments",
> as I think that truth comes about by engaging in dichotomies.
"
And now.
> Who are "We"?
> Are you pregnant again???
>
> If you are referring to your butt buddy Varney,
> I might remind you that
> "He who lays down with dogs gets up with fleas."
>
> Is Varney the kind of person you and your son
> want to be identified with?
Wow crackpotter, are you going to start bringing mothers into it?
Ray Vanlandingham
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
>
> "Ray Vanlandingham" <invalid...@192.168.0.1> wrote in message
> news:2138740.e...@tachyon.mchsi.com...
>> Tom Potter wrote:
> Could you provide scientific references that verify
> "most people would probably have found <it> patently obvious"
> if you said you "snickered" and you didn't snicker?
No. Go look up the word 'probably'.
Instead, I provide the empirical observation that you are the /only/ person
to ever have claimed to be confused. It's pretty standard in text-based
media to somewhat exaggerate such responses, to make up for the lack of
body language and tone of voice.
>> A simple review of this thread will show that you have spewed large
> numbers
>> of insults in all directions. This is typical of a kook.
>
> Are you suggesting that the posters that I am trying to
> discourage from insulting folks, are "kooks"?
Nope. Insulting poeple isn't 'kooky'. It's just rude.
> As can be verified by simply reading their posts using Google.
> they "spew large numbers of insults in all directions"
Apparently you don't consider calling people 'Taliban-like' to be a insult.
Was calling people 'Taliban-like' supposed to be a compliment, then?
I'd also like to point out that while I have yet to resort to ad-hominem
attacks, you started out there and have only gone downhill.
> Apparently, this poster can not distinguish between
> "ego stroking", and using "tit for tat".
> (Which science tells us is the most effective social strategy.)
Really? What science? And what does gratuitiously complimenting yourself
have to do with 'tit for tat'?
> And again, the poster claims to read the minds of
> some "Common "consensus,
> rather than posting known facts. (The sure mark of a "kook".)
Again, I used 'non-specific' language, specifically the word 'seems', to
convey the fact that I was describing my impression. Are you unable to
discriminate between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact?
>> > If the people that the poster refers to are knowledgeable
>> > and civilized, I'd like to see them demonstrate it
>> > by posting civil posts with some physics content.
>>
>> The large majority of the people that you referred to as
> 'Taliban-like',
>> namely 'today's crop of young physicists' have quite probably never
> even
>> heard of Usenet, much less posted to it.
No response? So you still claim that you don't gratuitously insult people?
Or try to demean them?
> Apparently, what this poster is asserting,
> is that he is the creator of some sort of "kook" criteria,
> and that he revises it to suit himself.
No, what I was asserting is that it is impossible to anticipate the breath
and depths of inanity. Also, since no two kooks are identical, the
judgement does require some degree of discretion. Archimedes Plutonium, for
example, is definitely a kook, but he doesn't talk about himself in the
third person.
It is, however, widely understood that a 'kook' as a person who advocates
some strange theory that is logically implausible, will not or cannot
coherently and logically debate it's flaws, and claims that his detractors
are biased instead of admitting that those flaws exist. Kooks often also
exhibit symptoms of psychological dysfunction.
BTW, why is it that you continually phrase your posts as if you're writing
to some third person? Combined with
>> 1. Consistently refers to himself in the third person. (Cross
> reference :
>> George Hammond)
it raises doubts about your contact with reality.
>> 2. Misunderstands logic. <http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/exmid.htm>
>> (The rules of formal logic, of which you misquote a few, apply to
>> /statements/, not things.)
>
> I was using Boolean algebra, Karnaugh maps,
> and writing computer programs that included
> logic that had to perform correctly,
> before you were born.
Really? How, then, do you justify attempting to use the rules of logic,
which explicitly are about /statements/, to make claims about objects? Your
arguments on that page only prove that your statements were not well posed.
Also, what makes you think you know how old I am, or that it's relevant?
Apparently you're the one who can read minds, not me.
>> 3. Misunderstands the nature of time.
>> <http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/time.htm>
>
> Maybe you are the one who "misunderstands the nature of time."
> I have been posting detailed posts on the nature of
> time periods, time intervals and exponential changes in an
> environment,
> for many years, and so far no one has stepped up to the plate to
> straighten me out.
>
> It you are half as intelligent as you think you are,
> and have one tenth the knowledge you think you have,
> let's debate the issues. Read my posts about time periods, time
> intervals,
> and exponential changes, and post where they are in error.
I'm not going to go try to hunt down your posts. I'll just point out that
this page really doesn't say anything, but instead just describes vague
'associations'. You also say there are three types of time (period, decay,
and universal) but then later discuss precession time, which is undefined.
It does seem apparent from your entire discussion that you think of 'time'
as a 'rate', which would seem to be consistent with your misconception of
what a time derivative is.
>> Usually three is enough to classify a kook, but you add some new
> ones.
>
> How can I dispute you,
> when you are the world's creator of some sort of "kook" criteria?
Actually, I never said, or even implied, that my personal criteria are
universally accepted.
>> 4. Advocates a number system without zero.
>> <http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/zero.htm>
>> If you have an apple, and eat it, how many apples do you have left?
>
> It is interesting to see that this poster thinks that
> what goes into my stomach disappears from the universe.
It is interesting to see that you can't understand the implications of a
simple statement.
> But to give him the benefit of the doubt,
> he simply didn't comprehend my article,
> which basically makes the point,
> that things change, but do not become "nothing",
> that the something that arises from apparent "nothingness"
> is energy. In other words, when an electron and a positron combine,
> you don't get "nothing", you get energy.
Actually, no, that's not what I was saying. I was saying that the mere
applicability of the natural numbers to counting real objects implies the
need for a zero symbol. This is something the Hindus realized some
three-thousand-odd years ago.
>> 5. Advocates an entirely new number system that does not include
> numbers.
>> <http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/number.htm>
>> The description says enough.number
>
> Note that the poster makes an open loop statement,
> as he cannot comprehend the concept of number systems
> he has not been conditioned to.
A number system without numbers is not, by definition, a number system. You
may have invented some /other/ way of describing quantities, but it's not a
number system.
What's more, the natural, integer, real, and complex numbers are not
'systems'.
>> And then, of course, there is the all-time favorite...
>>
>> 6. Has a 'fundamental theory of the universe' that makes no sense,
> explains
>> no unexplained phenomena, and predistsw no observable phenomena.
>> <http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/everything.htm>
>
> Again the poster exposes his lack of knowledge,
> (Or reading comprehension problem.)
> as my system "explains" such things as reduced mass,
> which has to be patched onto the existing system,
> and I point out that fallacy behind the separate concepts
> of "gravitational" and "inertia" masses.
Explains, in the context of science, means 'mathematically describes'. You
can /claim/ that your statements explain or predict whatever you want, but
that doesn't mean that they do. I see no logical or mathematical arguments
on that page, but instead merely a series of unproven (and in some cases,
inane) assertations.
> Again, I challenge the poster,
> if he is half as intelligent as he thinks he is,
> post my article, and show where I am wrong,
> rather than make open loop comments.
I'll just state that a rational theory of the universe should not require
the existence of man as a priviliged observer. The universe appears to have
existed quite happily before man was extant.
> Any asshole can make an open loop statement
> that does not join an issue.
I though you didn't believe in being insulting.
>> Define a derivative, and explain how to calculate one.
I'm still waiting.
Tom Potter
"Ray Vanlandingham" <invalid...@192.168.0.1> wrote in message
news:2385262.F...@tachyon.mchsi.com...
> Tom Potter wrote:
>
> > **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
> >
> >
> > "Ray Vanlandingham" <invalid...@192.168.0.1> wrote in message
> > news:2138740.e...@tachyon.mchsi.com...
> >> Tom Potter wrote:
>
> > Could you provide scientific references that verify
> > "most people would probably have found <it> patently obvious"
> > if you said you "snickered" and you didn't snicker?
>
> No. Go look up the word 'probably'.
>
> Instead, I provide the empirical observation that you are the /only/
person
> to ever have claimed to be confused. It's pretty standard in
text-based
> media to somewhat exaggerate such responses, to make up for the lack
of
> body language and tone of voice.
And I have never seen an intelligent, rational, mature person
"snicker".
> >> A simple review of this thread will show that you have spewed
large
> > numbers
> >> of insults in all directions. This is typical of a kook.
> >
> > Are you suggesting that the posters that I am trying to
> > discourage from insulting folks, are "kooks"?
>
> Nope. Insulting poeple isn't 'kooky'. It's just rude.
Note that this poster states:
"..insults in all directions...is typical of a kook."
And then he states:
"Insulting poeple isn't 'kooky'. It's just rude."
> > As can be verified by simply reading their posts using Google.
> > they "spew large numbers of insults in all directions"
>
> Apparently you don't consider calling people 'Taliban-like' to be a
insult.
> Was calling people 'Taliban-like' supposed to be a compliment, then?
>
> I'd also like to point out that while I have yet to resort to
ad-hominem
> attacks, you started out there and have only gone downhill.
Note that this poster intrudes into a thread with the comment:
"A simple review of this thread will show that you have spewed large
numbers of insults in all directions. This is typical of a kook."
And then he states:
"I'd also like to point out that while I have yet to resort to
ad-hominem.."
> > Apparently, this poster can not distinguish between
> > "ego stroking", and using "tit for tat".
> > (Which science tells us is the most effective social strategy.)
>
> Really? What science? And what does gratuitiously complimenting
yourself
> have to do with 'tit for tat'?
I suggest that this poster do a Google search of "game theory".
After reading your two posts,
I suggest that Archimedes Plutonium is miles ahead of you
in terms of intelligence, logic, and maturity.
> It is, however, widely understood that a 'kook' as a person who
advocates
> some strange theory that is logically implausible, will not or
cannot
> coherently and logically debate it's flaws, and claims that his
detractors
> are biased instead of admitting that those flaws exist. Kooks often
also
> exhibit symptoms of psychological dysfunction.
Hopefully this poster will explain to me:
1. How one determines what is a "strange theory"?
2. How one determines what is "logically implausible"?
3. How one can "debate it's flaws" with immature, uncivilized people,
who bush whack with ad hominem and open loop, off target comments,
and refuse to debate?
4. And perhaps this poster can tell me what
"symptoms of psychological dysfunction" he detects in me?
> BTW, why is it that you continually phrase your posts as if you're
writing
> to some third person? Combined with
As I have posted a few times,
I address my posts to possible mature, intelligent, rational folks
who may read my posts now, or sometimes in the future,
and I do not address them to immature, uncivilized people,
as they need more ego building life experiences before they
can come to grips with the poinst I am trying to make.
> >> 1. Consistently refers to himself in the third person. (Cross
> > reference :
> >> George Hammond)
>
> it raises doubts about your contact with reality.
Hopefully this poster will point out some areas where I
lose "contact with reality".
As a long time entreprenuer,
who started and operated several successful businesses,
interacted with greats in the fields of science and business,
and raised three, independent, well-adjusted children,
and who never had to drink or take drugs to meet all the
challenges of life, I hope this poster will function as well
during his life.
> >> 2. Misunderstands logic.
<http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/exmid.htm>
> >> (The rules of formal logic, of which you misquote a few, apply to
> >> /statements/, not things.)
> >
> > I was using Boolean algebra, Karnaugh maps,
> > and writing computer programs that included
> > logic that had to perform correctly,
> > before you were born.
>
> Really? How, then, do you justify attempting to use the rules of
logic,
> which explicitly are about /statements/, to make claims about
objects? Your
> arguments on that page only prove that your statements were not well
posed.
It is interesting to see that this poster thinks <sic>
that I was trying to use "the rules of logic" in a particular post,
when in fact, I, like most folks, in m,ost situations,
was simply trying to communicate.
Any asshole can nitpick statements about spelling, grammar,
not using locic, not doting all the "I"'s and crossing the "T"s, etc.
I suggest that the poster learn how to grasp the gestalt of posts,
and look at the forext, rather than the moos, or the grass, or the
trees.
Apparently, this poster is not too swift in following a clearly,
outlined path,
as I explicitly define each property as it is developed.
As I have mentioned many times over the years, and mentioned in
my previous post, I don't start fights, but I do use "tit for tat"
when some uncivilized, immature, trailer park, asshole starts a fight.
> >> Define a derivative, and explain how to calculate one.
I should give you the satisfaction of defining
"a derivative, and explain how to calculate one"?
If you don't know, do a Google search.
Any asshole can search the net,
and define anything,
so what does that prove?
Also, any asshole who cannot comprehend the gestalt of an article
can try to sidetrack the subject by focusing on points he THINKS he
is adequate in, or by insulting the poster.
Now go play in the street, and quit wasting my time.
I have more important and entertaining things to do.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3cd1...@post.usenet.com...> Note that this poster states: ...
> Note that this poster intrudes into a thread with the comment: ...
> I suggest that this poster do a Google search of "game theory". ...
> I suggest that Archimedes Plutonium is miles ahead of you ...
> Hopefully this poster will explain to me: ...
> 4. And perhaps this poster can tell me what ...
> Hopefully this poster will point out some areas where I ...
> It is interesting to see that this poster thinks <sic> ...
> I suggest that the poster learn how to grasp the gestalt of posts, ...
> Apparently, this poster is not too swift in following a clearly, ...
Only 10 this time..
Dirk Vdm
Tom Potter
As I wrote before,
I am interested in communicating,
and am not constrained by repetition, conventional wisdom,
words and phrases that the public has been condition to
avoid, or react to emotionally, etc.
If you can provide alternate phrasing that communicates the
same messages, and is more concise and more effective,
I certainly welcome it.
I suggest that I use repetition to try to add content
to sci.physics, whereas your repetition (Of my phrases),
add no content, and are simly efforts to try to boost your
ego, by demeaning others.
Tom Potter
Mike Varney
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:<g4fA8.54523$Ze....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>...
> > "Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3cd1...@post.usenet.com...
> > > **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
> > >
> > >
> > > Note that this poster states: ...
> > > Note that this poster intrudes into a thread with the comment: ...
> > > I suggest that this poster do a Google search of "game theory". ...
> > > I suggest that Archimedes Plutonium is miles ahead of you ...
> > > Hopefully this poster will explain to me: ...
> > > 4. And perhaps this poster can tell me what ...
> > > Hopefully this poster will point out some areas where I ...
> > > It is interesting to see that this poster thinks <sic> ...
> > > I suggest that the poster learn how to grasp the gestalt of posts, ...
> > > Apparently, this poster is not too swift in following a clearly, ...
> >
> > Only 10 this time..
>
> As I wrote before,
> I am interested in communicating,
> and am not constrained by repetition, conventional wisdom,
> words and phrases that the public has been condition to
> avoid, or react to emotionally, etc.
>
> If you can provide alternate phrasing that communicates the
> same messages, and is more concise and more effective,
> I certainly welcome it.
Sure. "Tom Potter is a crackpot." sums up your ideas very concisely.
> I suggest that I use repetition to try to add content
> to sci.physics,
Then please, jump up and down yelling "I am a crackpotter". That should do
for repetition.
Tom Potter
I give up!
It is a waste of time to try to communicate
with immature, uncivilized, trailer-park trash,
who didn't have the benefit of a nurturing, family environment.
Tom Potter
Ray Vanlandingham
> "Ray Vanlandingham" <invalid...@192.168.0.1> wrote in message
> news:2385262.F...@tachyon.mchsi.com...
>> Tom Potter wrote:
>> > "Ray Vanlandingham" <invalid...@192.168.0.1> wrote in message
>> > news:2138740.e...@tachyon.mchsi.com...
>> >> Tom Potter wrote:
>>
>> > Could you provide scientific references that verify
>> > "most people would probably have found <it> patently obvious"
>> > if you said you "snickered" and you didn't snicker?
>>
>> No. Go look up the word 'probably'.
>>
>> Instead, I provide the empirical observation that you are the /only/
> person
>> to ever have claimed to be confused. It's pretty standard in
> text-based
>> media to somewhat exaggerate such responses, to make up for the lack
> of
>> body language and tone of voice.
>
> And I have never seen an intelligent, rational, mature person
> "snicker".
Then you need to either get out more, or go look up 'snicker'. I see people
do it on a regular basis, instead of being rude by laughing loudly.
>> >> A simple review of this thread will show that you have spewed
> large
>> > numbers
>> >> of insults in all directions. This is typical of a kook.
>> >
>> > Are you suggesting that the posters that I am trying to
>> > discourage from insulting folks, are "kooks"?
>>
>> Nope. Insulting poeple isn't 'kooky'. It's just rude.
>
> Note that this poster states:
> "..insults in all directions...is typical of a kook."
>
> And then he states:
> "Insulting poeple isn't 'kooky'. It's just rude."
So what? Stating that a kook typically has a certain trait isn't the same
as saying that everyone with that trait is a kook.
Do you have a point? If so, try making it.
>> > As can be verified by simply reading their posts using Google.
>> > they "spew large numbers of insults in all directions"
>>
>> Apparently you don't consider calling people 'Taliban-like' to be a
> insult.
>> Was calling people 'Taliban-like' supposed to be a compliment, then?
No response?
>> I'd also like to point out that while I have yet to resort to
> ad-hominem
>> attacks, you started out there and have only gone downhill.
>
> Note that this poster intrudes into a thread with the comment:
> "A simple review of this thread will show that you have spewed large
> numbers of insults in all directions. This is typical of a kook."
Actually, no, I didn't. I 'intruded' onto this thread by telling you that
Mike Varney was talking about Godwin's Law.
I put 'intruded' in quotes because apparently you're under some kind of
misapprehension that you can 'own' a thread. If so, you're wrong, and
misunderstand the nature of Usenet.
Your response to me telling you what he was talking about, BTW, was "It is
also interesting to see that he probably has a low I.Q. and an inferiority
complex". Is this an example of what you consider a legitimate discussion?
> And then he states:
> "I'd also like to point out that while I have yet to resort to
> ad-hominem.."
Saying that you are a kook isn't an ad-hominem attack, since I have
justification for the statement.
Do you know what an 'ad hominem attack' is?
<snip>
>> It is, however, widely understood that a 'kook' as a person who
> advocates
>> some strange theory that is logically implausible, will not or
> cannot
>> coherently and logically debate it's flaws, and claims that his
> detractors
>> are biased instead of admitting that those flaws exist. Kooks often
> also
>> exhibit symptoms of psychological dysfunction.
>
> Hopefully this poster will explain to me:
> 1. How one determines what is a "strange theory"?
It's a matter of opinion.
> 2. How one determines what is "logically implausible"?
For your theories, not much beyond common sense and a basic education is
required. For more plausible ones, you actually have to think, and possibly
know something about the subject under discussion. If the possible kook
under consideration makes false or unproven assertations, or incorrect
arguments, then his theory is implausible. Circular reasoning is also a
good hint.
For some reason, after looking at your website I'm not surprised that you
don't know how to identify a 'logically implausible' argument.
> 3. How one can "debate it's flaws" with immature, uncivilized people,
> who bush whack with ad hominem and open loop, off target comments,
> and refuse to debate?
You can't. On the other hand, I've seen you do every one of those things,
except whatever it is you mean by 'open loop'. Someone else asked, and
you've failed to answer them.
What I have yet to see you do is use the phrase 'ad hominem' in a way that
implies you know what it means, or that you know what an 'ad hominem
attack' is. Referring to you as a 'kook' is obviously not an ad hominem
attack, as I have stated a justification for it.
> 4. And perhaps this poster can tell me what
> "symptoms of psychological dysfunction" he detects in me?
>
>> BTW, why is it that you continually phrase your posts as if you're
> writing
>> to some third person? Combined with
>
> As I have posted a few times,
> I address my posts to possible mature, intelligent, rational folks
> who may read my posts now, or sometimes in the future,
> and I do not address them to immature, uncivilized people,
> as they need more ego building life experiences before they
> can come to grips with the poinst I am trying to make.
Actually, you seem to switch back and forth at will in the middle of your
posts. I suspect it really depends on whether or not you're trying to sound
bombastic.
If you're trying to impress future readers, by the way, referring to
everyone who disagrees with you as 'trailer trash' is a poor approach.
>> >> 1. Consistently refers to himself in the third person. (Cross
>> > reference :
>> >> George Hammond)
>>
>> it raises doubts about your contact with reality.
>
> Hopefully this poster will point out some areas where I
> lose "contact with reality".
I thought I did.
> As a long time entreprenuer,
> who started and operated several successful businesses,
> interacted with greats in the fields of science and business,
> and raised three, independent, well-adjusted children,
> and who never had to drink or take drugs to meet all the
> challenges of life, I hope this poster will function as well
> during his life.
Thanks, I've been doing pretty good so far. I'm also glad you've had a good
life.
>> >> 2. Misunderstands logic.
> <http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/exmid.htm>
>> >> (The rules of formal logic, of which you misquote a few, apply to
>> >> /statements/, not things.)
>> >
>> > I was using Boolean algebra, Karnaugh maps,
>> > and writing computer programs that included
>> > logic that had to perform correctly,
>> > before you were born.
>>
>> Really? How, then, do you justify attempting to use the rules of
> logic,
>> which explicitly are about /statements/, to make claims about
> objects? Your
>> arguments on that page only prove that your statements were not well
> posed.
>
> It is interesting to see that this poster thinks <sic>
> that I was trying to use "the rules of logic" in a particular post,
> when in fact, I, like most folks, in m,ost situations,
> was simply trying to communicate.
I wasn't talking about a 'post', I was talking about a specific page on
your website, in response to you asking me to do so. Try to pay attention.
If you're going to say that you've 'disproven' one of the best tested
theories of all time, BTW, then you ought to at least use valid logic.
Nice way of trying to disguise the fact that your page is blatantly
incorrect, though.
> Any asshole can nitpick statements about spelling, grammar,
> not using locic, not doting all the "I"'s and crossing the "T"s, etc.
>
> I suggest that the poster learn how to grasp the gestalt of posts,
> and look at the forext, rather than the moos, or the grass, or the
> trees.
Again, I wasn't talking about a post. I was responding to your explicit
challenge to find flaws with your website.
Apparently the fact that I found it ridiculously easy to do so makes me an
'asshole' in your opinion. Is this an example of how 'mature' you are?
As I pointed out, you do not define 'precession time' before (or after) you
use it to define the quantity 'X'. Liar.
You also explicitly state that the three types of time are period, decay,
and universal. Sorry, but 'period', 'decay', 'universal', and 'precession'
is four.
>> >> 4. Advocates a number system without zero.
>> >> <http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/zero.htm>
>> >> If you have an apple, and eat it, how many apples do you have
> left?
>> >
>> > It is interesting to see that this poster thinks that
>> > what goes into my stomach disappears from the universe.
>>
>> It is interesting to see that you can't understand the implications
> of a
>> simple statement.
>>
>> > But to give him the benefit of the doubt,
>> > he simply didn't comprehend my article,
>> > which basically makes the point,
>> > that things change, but do not become "nothing",
>> > that the something that arises from apparent "nothingness"
>> > is energy. In other words, when an electron and a positron
> combine,
>> > you don't get "nothing", you get energy.
>>
>> Actually, no, that's not what I was saying. I was saying that the
> mere
>> applicability of the natural numbers to counting real objects
> implies the
>> need for a zero symbol. This is something the Hindus realized some
>> three-thousand-odd years ago.
No response? I'll assume you admit that your 'theory' is absurd, then.
>> >> 5. Advocates an entirely new number system that does not include
>> > numbers.
>> >> <http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/number.htm>
>> >> The description says enough.number
>> >
>> > Note that the poster makes an open loop statement,
>> > as he cannot comprehend the concept of number systems
>> > he has not been conditioned to.
>>
>> A number system without numbers is not, by definition, a number
> system. You
>> may have invented some /other/ way of describing quantities, but
> it's not a
>> number system.
>>
>> What's more, the natural, integer, real, and complex numbers are not
>> 'systems'.
Again, no response. Again, I'll assume you admit this 'theory' is also
absurd.
What, no response? You must be conceding this point too.
>> > Any asshole can make an open loop statement
>> > that does not join an issue.
>>
>> I though you didn't believe in being insulting.
>
> As I have mentioned many times over the years, and mentioned in
> my previous post, I don't start fights, but I do use "tit for tat"
> when some uncivilized, immature, trailer park, asshole starts a fight.
This statement is a perfect example of the 'ad hominem attacks' we were
discussing above.
Any 'future reader', since you say that's who you're talking to, can easily
review the thread and see that you responded to someone pointing out that
you're mentioned on a website by equating a large number of physicists with
muslim extremists.
Is this an example of how you 'don't start fights'? Liar.
>> >> Define a derivative, and explain how to calculate one.
>
> I should give you the satisfaction of defining
> "a derivative, and explain how to calculate one"?
> If you don't know, do a Google search.
Actually, I am well accquainted with both integral and differential
calculus, and use both daily.
Nice attempt to deflect the argument away from the fact that you make
incorrect statements on your website, and made incorrect statements in the
post that started this thread, though.
> Any asshole can search the net,
> and define anything,
> so what does that prove?
If any asshole can do it, why haven't you?
I only asked you to define it after you refused to give /any/ justification
for an incorrect statement. That led me to the (logical) conclusion that
you have no clue what you're talking about.
Instead of defining a derivative, then, why not just prove that your
statement that I was criticizing is correct?
> Also, any asshole who cannot comprehend the gestalt of an article
> can try to sidetrack the subject by focusing on points he THINKS he
> is adequate in, or by insulting the poster.
That's a great way of trying to avoid a discussion of all the blatantly
wrong statements on your website.
> Now go play in the street, and quit wasting my time.
> I have more important and entertaining things to do.
Try fixing your website. That should be fun.
Ray Vanlandingham
> I give up!
Good. Go away.
Before you go, though, please post a list of the schools that you claim
link to your website as an 'educational' resource.
Tom Potter
"Ray Vanlandingham" <invalid...@192.168.0.1> wrote in message
news:9213940.z...@tachyon.mchsi.com...
I "give up" trying to convince immature, uncivilized, trailer-park
trash
to act civilized, I don't "give up" trying to communicate with
intelligent, mature, rational, civilized folks.
Which group do you fit in?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:f76e0bb3.02050...@posting.google.com...
You'll be back.
Dirk Vdm
Mike Varney
Good! Now go away, hanging your head in shame.
> It is a waste of time to try to communicate
> with immature, uncivilized, trailer-park trash,
> who didn't have the benefit of a nurturing, family environment.
You use your crackpot-sense to glean all that about my family environment?
Impressive.
franz heymann
[Snip]
> I give up!
Is that a promise?
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
[Snip]
> I suggest that I use repetition to try to add content
> to sci.physics,
Reconsider.
Franz Heymann
jmfb...@aol.com
"franz heymann" <franz....@nospamcare4free.net> wrote:
Yay!
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Ian Stirling
>
> pcard...@volcanomail.com (Paul Cardinale) wrote in message news:<64050551.0204
> 301231....@posting.google.com>...
>> "Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<3cc9...@post.usenet.c
> om>...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >
>> > 4. One point constitutes a "point".
>>
>> Gaaa!
>> I'll have to lay down and mull that one over for a while.
>>
>> > If the point is the center of a "multiplication table"
>> > the point can be considered
>>
>> Now there your wrong. I'm sure what you meant to write was:
>> "If the point is the center of a 'multiplication table' the point
>> can be ill-considered."
>> But its moot anyway - we're not allowed to have points at the center
>> of a multiplication table (haven't you ever noticed that there's
>> always a hole of size zero at the center of every multiplication
>> table?).
>
> If two points define a line, three points define a surface,
> and four points can define a volume, what does one point define?
A point.
--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:inqui...@i.am | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
The fight between good and evil, an epic battle. Darth vader and Luke,
suddenly in the middle of the fight, Darth pulls Luke to him, and whispers
"I know what you'r getting for christmas!" Luke exclaims "But how ??!?"
"It's true Luke, I know what you'r getting for christmas" Luke tries to ignore
this, but wrenches himself free, yelling "How could you know this?",
Vader replies "I felt your presents" -- The Chris Evans breakfast show ca. 94