The supreme arrogance that is bilge - Is that he won't learn or that he can't??
Pmb
regarding why Einstein turned the tables on Newtonian ideas
That the relation of gravity to inertia was the motivation for general
relativity is expressed in an article Einstein wrote which appeared in the
February 17, 1921 issue of Nature
---------------------------------------------------------
Can gravitation and inertia be identical? This question leads directly to
the General Theory of Relativity. Is it not possible for me to regard the
earth as free from rotation, if I conceive of the centrifugal force, which
acts on all bodies at rest relatively to the earth, as being a "real"
gravitational field of gravitation, or part of such a field? If this idea
can be carried out, then we shall have proved in very truth the identity of
gravitation and inertia. For the same property which is regarded as inertia
from the point of view of a system not taking part of the rotation can be
interpreted as gravitation when considered with respect to a system that
shares this rotation. According to Newton, this interpretation is
impossible, because in Newton's theory there is no "real" field of the
"Coriolis-field" type. But perhaps Newton's law of field could be replaced
by another that fits in with the field which holds with respect to a
"rotating" system of co-ordiantes? My conviction of the identity of inertial
and gravitational mass aroused within me the feeling of absolute confidence
in the correctness of this interpretation.
----------------------------------------------------------
Notice the very imporant comment ---
"Is it not possible for me to regard the earth as free from rotation, if I
conceive of the centrifugal force, which acts on all bodies at rest
relatively to the earth, as being a "real" gravitational field of
gravitation, or part of such a field?"
Einstein's answer to that question
----------------------------------------------------------
My conviction of the identity of inertial and gravitational mass aroused
within me the feeling of absolute confidence in the correctness of this
interpretation
----------------------------------------------------------
Yet when this point is made to sparky over here (aka bilge) and it's been
shown that this is the idea in relativity - i.e. there are gravitational
forces and non-gravitational forces - each of which are "real" - all sparky
can do is repeat him self and flame
----------------------------------------------------------
In newtonian mechanics, the second two terms are called fictitious
forces (what you call inertial forces). You don't just need hit with a
clue bat, you need to rent yourself out to baseball teams for batting
practice.
----------------------------------------------------------
Apparently bilge can't figure out that this was a relativity newsgroup?
Is that he won't learn or that he can't??
Well at least he has the PERFECT name -
From Webster's Dictionary
bilge - stale or worthless remarks or ideas
Yup! bilge is the perfect name for this supremely arrogonant child
Pmb
Bil
stale or worthless remarks or ideas
Bilge
>regarding why Einstein turned the tables on Newtonian ideas
Dear Miss Creant,
Still obssessed with me? I'm flattered that you devote so much
attention to me, but really, you should give up on stalking. This
is a physics newsgroup not a stalking newsgroup.
The only way you could legitimately claim to be a victim of abusive
responses is if you wer to claim you've received less abuse than you
deserve.
Joe Fischer
: The bilge character is a joke. After everything has been explained to him
: regarding why Einstein turned the tables on Newtonian ideas
Please do not make a participant the subject
matter of an article, please follow Usenet guidelines
and post on topic.
: That the relation of gravity to inertia was the motivation for general
: relativity is expressed in an article Einstein wrote which appeared in the
: February 17, 1921 issue of Nature
: ---------------------------------------------------------
: Can gravitation and inertia be identical? This question leads directly to
: the General Theory of Relativity. Is it not possible for me to regard the
: earth as free from rotation, if I conceive of the centrifugal force, which
: acts on all bodies at rest relatively to the earth, as being a "real"
: gravitational field of gravitation, or part of such a field?
Please check your source, the phrase "gravitational
field of gravitation" seems odd, if it is a typo, please
say so.
: If this idea can be carried out, then we shall have
: proved in very truth the identity of gravitation and inertia.
Now this is getting closer to the concept
General Relativity is based on, but the reader
should not misconstrue this to mean that inertia
causes acceleration in freefalling objects, it
means just the opposite.
: For the same property which is regarded as inertia
: from the point of view of a system not taking part
: of the rotation can be interpreted as gravitation
: when considered with respect to a system that
: shares this rotation.
The important thing appears to be lost in
the process of translation, or simply mispoken.
It is the fact that centrifugal force
_blends_ with gravitation, reducing it in
some cases, like the rotating Earth makes
the acceleration of gravity less at the
equator, and a person riding on a merry-
go-round feels increased gravity, only
at a slightly different angle, and there
is no way to separate the portion due
to the surface of the Earth pushing up
from the centrifugal force due to the
rotation of the merry-go-round.
This is something I observed and
thought about in the mid 1930's, before
even hearing the name Einstein, and
then really got interested in this facet
of gravity about 1944 when I rode on a
spinning ride that held people on the
wall when the floor dropped after the
rotation was fast enough.
: According to Newton, this interpretation is impossible,
: because in Newton's theory there is no "real" field of the
: "Coriolis-field" type. But perhaps Newton's law of field
: could be replaced by another that fits in with the field
: which holds with respect to a "rotating" system of
: co-ordiantes? My conviction of the identity of inertial
: and gravitational mass aroused within me the feeling of
: absolute confidence in the correctness of this interpretation.
Yes, in Newton there is a distinct field
of gravity separate from and in addition to the
fictitious forces of Coriolis and Centrifugal.
What General Relativity does is make
gravity a fictitious force identical to and
blendable with centrifugal, and this removes
the concept of acceleration from freefall.
Wording that conveys thoughts precisely
is very difficult. Not knowing what language
Einstein wrote or spoke certain passages in
makes the precision even more difficuult to
ascertain.
Gravity is the ground pushing up in
General Relativity, and centrifugal force
makes the acceleration of gravity less at
the equator, but how this relates to a "real"
gravitational field, I fail to see.
It simply means that the Principle of
Equivalence is meaningful, that the ground
pushing up is identical to the floor of an
elevator in space accelerating.
This does not appear to be what you
have been saying, your words seem to mean
that the "real" gravitational field pulls
things down, which I think every relativist
would disagree with if General Relativity
is the model under discussion.
I do not day these things based on
reading texts or from classroom lectures,
I am going by what I think is the right
way to view gravity.
But I do think that I state what
General Relativity is based on.
This all leaves freefall as _NOT_
caused by gravity, but as an observer
phenomenon, it is the observer that is
accelerated, and the freefalling object
is _NOT_!
This is precisely why the first
chapter of MTW asks, "but what is
accelerating".
And then states "the man on
the ground might just as well have
rockets strapped to his legs" (not
an exact quote, but close).
This does not seem to be correspond
with what seems to be your interpretation
of what it all means.
Somehow you seem to have taken the
Newtonian view and made it even more
absurd.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Gauge
> Pmb <som...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> : The bilge character is a joke. After everything has been explained to him
> : regarding why Einstein turned the tables on Newtonian ideas
>
> Please do not make a participant the subject
> matter of an article, please follow Usenet guidelines
> and post on topic.
>
Normally I wouldn't. But with some people ..... well they seem to ache for trouble.
Pmb
Perfectly Innocent
> The bilge character is a joke.
> Apparently bilge can't figure out that this was a relativity newsgroup?
> Well at least he has the PERFECT name -
> From Webster's Dictionary
> bilge - stale or worthless remarks or ideas
> Yup! bilge is the perfect name for this supremely arrogonant child
>
> Pmb
I, for one, like Bilge's kookiness. He has brought me plenty of
laughs. The humor is that he sincerely believes what he sometimes
says:
Bilge isn't always enjoyable to communicate with. The supreme
arrogance you mentioned about him is true. It's the ugly side of his
character.
I once caught Bilge uttering some nonsense about the impossibility of
metric spaces existing without physical measure devices. I asked for
confirmation to his unusual belief in the form of a quote from any
mathematician or a prominent physicist. Instead of supplying evidence
or admitting that he spoke ignorantly, he chose to maintain his
delusion and pretense of authority with a continuous barrage of
insults and false accusations interspersed with colorful gibes like
"nutcase" and "crackpot." It's obvious to me that Bilge is a very
educated troll who is more concerned with asserting his superiority
and ego than scientific argument.
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm
Pmb
"Perfectly Innocent" <perfectl...@as-if.com> wrote in message
news:c45b45b3.03063...@posting.google.com...
> "Pmb" <som...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:<_LMLa.8271$oF....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>...
>
> > The bilge character is a joke.
>
> > Apparently bilge can't figure out that this was a relativity newsgroup?
>
> > Well at least he has the PERFECT name -
>
> > From Webster's Dictionary
>
> > bilge - stale or worthless remarks or ideas
>
> > Yup! bilge is the perfect name for this supremely arrogonant child
> >
> > Pmb
>
> I, for one, like Bilge's kookiness. He has brought me plenty of
> laughs. The humor is that he sincerely believes what he sometimes
> says:
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=d10bac4f.0303020854.1208885b%40posting.google.com
>
> Bilge isn't always enjoyable to communicate with. The supreme
> arrogance you mentioned about him is true. It's the ugly side of his
> character.
It's a shame too. He *seems* to know areas of physics that I've put off
learning. Had he not been like this he might actually have been useful. But
he's proven that he can't amdit when he makes an error (we all make
mistakes) and that can be the worst thing when discussing things one's never
come accross - so one assumes he's like this in his own area of expertise
.... it he has one.
>
> I once caught Bilge uttering some nonsense about the impossibility of
> metric spaces existing without physical measure devices. I asked for
> confirmation to his unusual belief in the form of a quote from any
> mathematician or a prominent physicist.
Heaven forbid! I can't picture him quoting anyone. Eventually he'll say
somerthing which contradicts the source where he learned it from and he'd
have a hard time explaining that.
> Instead of supplying evidence
> or admitting that he spoke ignorantly, he chose to maintain his
> delusion and pretense of authority with a continuous barrage of
> insults and false accusations interspersed with colorful gibes like
> "nutcase" and "crackpot."
You've got him pegged.
> It's obvious to me that Bilge is a very
> educated troll who is more concerned with asserting his superiority
> and ego than scientific argument.
Yep. That rather sums it up quite nicely. One of the first times I
discussed something with him was with wave guides = he had an incorrect
notion regarding them since he loves to define things so that his
conclusions are correct. But he kept referance J.D. Jackson's text. But
Jackson's text didn't agree with him. And you know bilge - ":Well that's
because I'm so superior that I know what Jackon says and what he means and
you don't so how dare you disagree." Just for kicks I e-mailed Jackson -
seems that Jackson doesn't agree with bilge's opinion of what Jackson means.
So! That given - Who is one to believe - Jackson or bilge who's interpreting
Jackson? LOL
Thanks Eugene
> Eugene Shubert
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/generalized.htm
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm
I did look at your website during a discussion we had with Ken Tucker - you
were right all along on that falling observer thing
Pmb
Gauge
> Still obssessed with me?
Obssesed? Hardly. That implies I think about you when I'm not reading
the incredible bogus crap you write.
Pmb
Bilge
Then why do dedicate threads to me?
Gauge
Because after I read a streams of your dumb shit for a few minutes is
worth pointing out to newcomers what an incredible moron you are. I
don't think the world sees somone who's as arrogant and egotistical as
you are.
But when coupled with a total lack of understanding of relativistic
electrodynanmics - AND the love of flaming people who explain the
physics to you -- well it's only fair to warn poor unsuspecting
visitors what a dumb prick you are
Later chump.
Pmb
Minor Crank
> regarding why Einstein turned the tables on Newtonian ideas
Pete,
Instead of insulting Bilge all the time, why not do something useful like
pound on Peter K, who is currently vying for the title of
"sci.physics.relativity's most abusive idiot."
This entire thread that you started and are maintaining is devoid of
content, consisting of nothing but insult posts.
Minor Crank
Pmb
"Minor Crank" <blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:PyfMa.725$3h3.1882@rwcrnsc53...
> "Pmb" <som...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:_LMLa.8271$oF....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
> > The bilge character is a joke. After everything has been explained to
him
> > regarding why Einstein turned the tables on Newtonian ideas
>
> Pete,
>
I see that you're not reading bilge's post or that you enjoy watching him
flame me constantly. If not then please learn first - then you can have a
shot of telling me what to do.
Pmb
Gauge
> gau...@hotmail.com (Gauge) wrote in message news:<e7203033.03063...@posting.google.com>...
> expedition, but in the middle of the night pmb nudges Bilge awake and
> questions him.
>
> pmb: Bilge, look up at the stars and tell me what you deduce.
>
> Bilge: I see millions of stars, and if there are millions of stars,
> and if even a few of those have planets, it is quite likely there are
> some planets like earth, and if there are a few planets like earth out
> there might also be life.
>
> pmb: Bilge, you idiot! Somebody stole our tent...
>
> -Abhi.
ROTFL!!! That was a good one!! :-D
Pmb
galathaea
"Joe Fischer" <grav...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote in message
news:3effc...@news.iglou.com...
> Pmb <som...@somewhere.com> wrote:
My reading of the passage is that Einstein was elucidating a piece of his
theory that he found extremely interesting and wrote about several times:
that an "ostensibly non-rotating" body placed in a spacetime where objects
"rotated" about it picked up Coriolis-type terms in his theory which were
not present in Galilean-frame physics (and thus not the same thing as the
prerelativistic explanation of forces on the earth's surface). This was a
major distinction to him which pointed more to the Mach-type interpretations
of rotation and spacetime relativity in general that so influenced him
(despite his abhorrance of the rest of Mach's philosophy). Now, the notion
of "ostensibly non-rotating" is a vague one which attempts to map
pre-relativistic notions to the relativistic formalism and general
covariance, and the resolution of the idea is not necessarily that
fundamental or even, I would hazard, that interesting of a result to most
modern physicists. However, Einstein was quite pleased at the result and
tried to popularize it often.
--
/////////////////////////////////////////////
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
John Anderson
Bilge wrote:
I'll respond to you since I refuse to respond to pmb or gauge or whateverhe's
going to call himself next.
It should be pretty obvious to anyone going back through the history
pmb/gauge postings that this person is a troll who posts caricatures
of relativity theory and then, when someone points out his errors,
goes on to abuse at a massive level (including multiple replies
to the same posting, a trademark of trolls).
Bilge, why do you keep responding to this asshole? I understand
the motivation to correct the crap that he posts, but I don't
think that he really cares about that. He just wants to dump
on people. Remember Louis Savain/nemesis?
John Anderson
Pmb
Minor Crank
Bilge is -responding- to your abuse.
Minor Crank
and...@attglobal.net
Not at all. I'm just making some observations
about the way you post to this newsgroup.
By the way, this posting of yours doesn't quote
or address my observation that you post multiple
responses to a single posting that you make.
You keep trying to find a valid response to your
misinterpretations, so you post over and over again.
John Anderson
PS.
Bilge has forgotten more physics that you are ever going
to understand.
John Anderson
and...@attglobal.net
Bilge is pointing out that you don'r understand physics
as well as you think that you do.
That's not flaming. That's an honest opinion.
John Anderson
Bilge
>I'll respond to you since I refuse to respond to pmb or gauge or whateverhe's
>going to call himself next.
>It should be pretty obvious to anyone going back through the history
>pmb/gauge postings that this person is a troll who posts caricatures
>of relativity theory and then, when someone points out his errors,
>goes on to abuse at a massive level (including multiple replies
>to the same posting, a trademark of trolls).
Yeah, you're right, john. Thanks for the reality check.
>Bilge, why do you keep responding to this asshole? I understand
>the motivation to correct the crap that he posts, but I don't
>think that he really cares about that. He just wants to dump
>on people. Remember Louis Savain/nemesis?
I guess I let myself get caught up in his bullshit since I
have a real antipathy for people who manipulate and misconstrue
text to further some agenda. He reminds me of jerry falwell.
Different text, same game.
Gauge
That's the furthest thing from honest that could be.
bilge started off by asserting something which is not true - bilge is
a moron
And he's not honest by any means whatsoever. He takes the simplest of
physics - gets it wrong - and then when he realizes the he screwed up
he keeps flamming - honest my ass
Gauge
That's an interesting way of leaving a discussion to avoid having to
admit your mistake. Please do it more often and quicker
Perfectly Innocent
> > > Instead of insulting Bilge all the time, ...
> >
> > I see that you're not reading bilge's post or that you enjoy watching him
> > flame me constantly. If not then please learn first - then you can have a
> > shot of telling me what to do.
> >
> > Pmb
>
> Bilge is pointing out that you don'r understand physics
> as well as you think that you do.
>
> That's not flaming. That's an honest opinion.
>
> John Anderson
I reckon all empty-headed subjectivity to be flaming and that includes
your opinion. Why not debate physics instead and try to persuade Bilge
to give up his irrational beliefs? Or do you agree with Bilge's
assertion that metric spaces can't exist without physical measuring
devices?
Gauge
> and...@attglobal.net wrote in message news:<3F026D...@attglobal.net>...
> > Pmb wrote:
> > >
> > > "Minor Crank" wrote in message
>
> > > > Instead of insulting Bilge all the time, ...
> > >
> > > I see that you're not reading bilge's post or that you enjoy watching him
> > > flame me constantly. If not then please learn first - then you can have a
> > > shot of telling me what to do.
> > >
> > > Pmb
> >
> > Bilge is pointing out that you don'r understand physics
> > as well as you think that you do.
> >
> > That's not flaming. That's an honest opinion.
> >
> > John Anderson
>
> I reckon all empty-headed subjectivity to be flaming and that includes
> your opinion. Why not debate physics instead and try to persuade Bilge
> to give up his irrational beliefs? Or do you agree with Bilge's
> assertion that metric spaces can't exist without physical measuring
> devices?
Perhaps anderson doesn't understand physics as well as *he* thinks. :-)
Pmb
Perfectly Innocent
Perfectly Innocent wrote in message news:<c45b45b3.03070...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Bilge is pointing out that you don'r understand physics
> > > as well as you think that you do.
> > >
> > > That's not flaming. That's an honest opinion.
> > >
> > > John Anderson
> >
> > I reckon all empty-headed subjectivity to be flaming and that includes
> > your opinion. Why not debate physics instead and try to persuade Bilge
> > to give up his irrational beliefs? Or do you agree with Bilge's
> > assertion that metric spaces can't exist without physical measuring
> > devices?
>
> Perhaps anderson doesn't understand physics as well as *he* thinks. :-)
>
> Pmb
I'm certain that John Anderson misinterprets freshman level physics.
He has revealed elsewhere that he's totally confused by my elementary
derivation of SR: http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
Eugene Shubert
Pmb
"Perfectly Innocent" <perfectl...@as-if.com> wrote
> I'm certain that John Anderson misinterprets freshman level physics.
> He has revealed elsewhere that he's totally confused by my elementary
> derivation of SR: http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
Personally I've never really cared about who knows what. What really ticks
me of is he level of flaming the dish out when they think you're wrong. It's
enormous. Not to mention that they love to either ignore facts or create
them to fit their needs. Disgusting!
One of these days I'll have to sit my butt down and take a very close look
at your web site Eugene. I ignored it at first but later saw that the result
you gave right off the bat on a question Ken asked was correct. It took me
sevaeral shots to get it right. But we live and we learn right? :-)
I'm making a new web page this week. In discussing the physics of this
charge density thing it became very clear to me that one can get predict a
Lorentz contraction for slows speed motion using the Lorentz force and
Guass's law - Cool!
Pmb
Perfectly Innocent
> > > as well as you think that you do.
> > >
> > > That's not flaming. That's an honest opinion.
> > >
> > > John Anderson
> >
> > I reckon all empty-headed subjectivity to be flaming and that includes
> > your opinion. Why not debate physics instead and try to persuade Bilge
> > to give up his irrational beliefs? Or do you agree with Bilge's
> > assertion that metric spaces can't exist without physical measuring
> > devices?
>
> Perhaps anderson doesn't understand physics as well as *he* thinks. :-)
>
> Pmb
If John Anderson doesn't misinterpret freshman level physics, then why
is he totally confused by what real physicists claim is elementary and
enjoyable?
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3e172937%40sys13.hou.wt.net
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
Pmb
> Gauge wrote in message
news:<e7203033.03070...@posting.google.com>...
> > Perfectly Innocent wrote in message
news:<c45b45b3.03070...@posting.google.com>...
> > > and...@attglobal.net wrote in message
news:<3F026D...@attglobal.net>...
> > > > Bilge is pointing out that you don'r understand physics
> > > > as well as you think that you do.
> > > >
> > > > That's not flaming. That's an honest opinion.
> > > >
> > > > John Anderson
> > >
> > > I reckon all empty-headed subjectivity to be flaming and that includes
> > > your opinion. Why not debate physics instead and try to persuade Bilge
> > > to give up his irrational beliefs? Or do you agree with Bilge's
> > > assertion that metric spaces can't exist without physical measuring
> > > devices?
> >
> > Perhaps anderson doesn't understand physics as well as *he* thinks. :-)
> >
> > Pmb
>
> If John Anderson doesn't misinterpret freshman level physics, then why
> is he totally confused by what real physicists claim is elementary and
> enjoyable?
Only God and his barber know for sure.
I've avoided conversations with him. He has a history of being a total
jerk - all one has to do is disagree with him. If he can't force you to
change your mind in a few posts (which he believes are sound logical
deductions) then he turns the flame thrower on. He has a greater tendancy to
butt out when nobody's talking to him. Bigle is much the same way but loves
to butt in and flame right off the bat.
I don't see much difference between these two - very closed mined sums them
up quite nicely
Pmb
Perfectly Innocent
> "Perfectly Innocent" wrote
>
> > I'm certain that John Anderson misinterprets freshman level physics.
> > He has revealed elsewhere that he's totally confused by my elementary
> > derivation of SR: http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
>
> Personally I've never really cared about who knows what. What really ticks
> me of is he level of flaming the dish out when they think you're wrong. It's
> enormous. Not to mention that they love to either ignore facts or create
> them to fit their needs. Disgusting!
I wholeheartedly agree.
> One of these days I'll have to sit my butt down and take a very close look
> at your web site Eugene. I ignored it at first but later saw that the result
> you gave right off the bat on a question Ken asked was correct. It took me
> sevaeral shots to get it right. But we live and we learn right? :-)
A wise man can admit that he changed his opinion sometimes but a fool,
never.
> I'm making a new web page this week. In discussing the physics of this
> charge density thing it became very clear to me that one can get predict a
> Lorentz contraction for slows speed motion using the Lorentz force and
> Guass's law - Cool!
>
> Pmb
I look forward to you posting the URL. I don't believe that I've seen
any of your web pages.
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
Bilge
>I reckon all empty-headed subjectivity to be flaming and that includes
>your opinion. Why not debate physics instead and try to persuade Bilge
>to give up his irrational beliefs? Or do you agree with Bilge's
>assertion that metric spaces can't exist without physical measuring
>devices?
A distance is meaningless without a means to measure it. Explain
how to relate any two of the axes without a physical device to make
a measurement. Have you ever heard the phrase, "a topologist is someone
who cannot tell the difference between a donut and a coffee cup"?
Perfectly Innocent
> Perfectly Innocent:
>
> >I reckon all empty-headed subjectivity to be flaming and that includes
> >your opinion. Why not debate physics instead and try to persuade Bilge
> >to give up his irrational beliefs? Or do you agree with Bilge's
> >assertion that metric spaces can't exist without physical measuring
> >devices?
>
> A distance is meaningless without a means to measure it.
Your understanding of metric spaces is meaningless because you don't
understand mathematics. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_space
Eugene Shubert
Ken S. Tucker
>dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message news:<slrnbgagvv....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
It's impolite to create a post that flames a person at
the outset, and Pmb has lost some of my respect for doing
this. I got one from McAnally, that disrepected me, and
it's pure crap. Anyone who engages in outright flame,
in creating new posts, for the purpose of junk is nuts.
Bilge and I have been subject to stalking by Pmb and
McAnally, respectively, but I will admit Bilge deserved
it, while sweet me only sufferred an un-deserved abuse.
So let's gang-up on BAD GUY BILGE.
Humorous Regards
Ken S. Tucker
PS: A bit of physics....
>> Perfectly Innocent:
Bilge says,
>> A distance is meaningless without a means to measure it.
Ken: (remember you told me not too piss you off, so I'm
being more careful about attribution)
Ken agrees,
Absolutely correct, beyond a pubic doubt. All of relativity is
equvalent to the reality of measurement, using light.
Eugene interjects,
>Your understanding of metric spaces is meaningless because you don't
>understand mathematics. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_space
Ken replies,
Physics is a compromised application of mathematics. One can
import math into physics if many stringent conditions are imposed.
Somewhat like taking a devout catholic to an ogre. Math to me
is an orge of logic, but physical principles impose a near religious
like set of conditions for realistic applications. I use the term
*religious* because over the last few thousand years, the
boundaries defining physical reality, have been constantly
adjustable, as in a balance between the orge of math and
the discipiline imposed by experimental science.
To suggest Bilge's understanding of metric spaces is mean-
ingless, and to further suggest he doesn't understand math-
ematics, would require substantiation.
I have yet too succeed in doing that, any help would be
appreciated.
KST
Pmb
"Perfectly Innocent" <perfectl...@as-if.com> wrote in message
news:c45b45b3.03070...@posting.google.com...
news:<x%WMa.74$Ha...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>...
> > "Perfectly Innocent" wrote
> >
> > > I'm certain that John Anderson misinterprets freshman level physics.
> > > He has revealed elsewhere that he's totally confused by my elementary
> > > derivation of SR: http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
> >
> > Personally I've never really cared about who knows what. What really
ticks
> > me of is he level of flaming the dish out when they think you're wrong.
It's
> > enormous. Not to mention that they love to either ignore facts or create
> > them to fit their needs. Disgusting!
>
> I wholeheartedly agree.
Seems like roberts is the least irritating of them. But he can be very
condescending. For instace - As probably know, the meaning of coordinates
can be problematic as a general rule. For example: General relativity makse
no distinction between coordinate trasfrormations associated with the
observer and coordinate transformations like a change of variables. This
means it's difficult to give a wide sweeping definition of things like
inertial force unless your audience already knows what you are refering to.
E.g. Einstein defined the Christoffel symbols as the components of the
gravitational field. The context he described them it dictated the meaning,
E.g. if the 4-Force on a object is zero and one is using spatial coordinates
which are locally Cartesian and d^2x/dt^2 is not zero then there is a
gravitation force of the object. If you're using coodinates which don't
directly relate to distances then the definition does not apply.
I was explaing to someone why the Christoffel symbols don't vanish for all
points off origin. Then roberts chimes in and starts to try to tell me that
I don't have enough "experience" yadda yadda yadda and that's why my
comments were bogus - he seemed less interested on what I meant and more
interested in putting me down for whatever reason he could think of at that
time. He used co-moving coordinates as an example. But differences in
comoving coordinates do not represent spatial displacements. Had he simply
asked me what I meant it's very easy to explian - But to date I've never
seen him nor the others ask such things - or rarely and only then to try to
set you up for flaming. Oy!
>
> > One of these days I'll have to sit my butt down and take a very close
look
> > at your web site Eugene. I ignored it at first but later saw that the
result
> > you gave right off the bat on a question Ken asked was correct. It took
me
> > sevaeral shots to get it right. But we live and we learn right? :-)
>
> A wise man can admit that he changed his opinion sometimes but a fool,
> never.
>
> > I'm making a new web page this week. In discussing the physics of this
> > charge density thing it became very clear to me that one can get predict
a
> > Lorentz contraction for slows speed motion using the Lorentz force and
> > Guass's law - Cool!
> >
> > Pmb
>
> I look forward to you posting the URL. I don't believe that I've seen
> any of your web pages.
The main page is -- http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/
I use it to discuss physics over the web rather than repeating very long
detailed calcluations in text! Yuk.
Pete
Pmb
"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:2202379a.03070...@posting.google.com...
> perfectl...@as-if.com (Perfectly Innocent) wrote in message
news:<c45b45b3.0307...@posting.google.com>...
> >dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message
news:<slrnbgagvv....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
>
> It's impolite to create a post that flames a person at
> the outset, and Pmb has lost some of my respect for doing
> this. I got one from McAnally, that disrepected me, and
> it's pure crap.
Then that's the way it will be - but when bigle designates himself as the
newsgroup asshole and goes off on flaming to the extent he has then it's
deserved
Anyone who engages in outright flame,
> in creating new posts, for the purpose of junk is nuts.
> Bilge and I have been subject to stalking by Pmb and
> McAnally,
Excuse me??? Since when did I ever stalk you???
never mind - I'm tired of this crap
Gauge
> Pmb wrote:
> >
> > "John Anderson" <and...@attglobal.net> wrote in [flames]
> >
> > Still have a need to flame I see.
> >
> > Pmb
>
> Not at all. I'm just making some observations
> about the way you post to this newsgroup.
That's the furthest thing from the truth that could be said.
> By the way, this posting of yours doesn't quote
> or address my observation that you post multiple
> responses to a single posting that you make.
Why should it? I don't give a shit if you like or dislike how many
posts I make. As far as I'm concerned it's just too damn bad for you.
If the number of comments is so bothering to you then you seriously
need to stay off the internet
>
> You keep trying to find a valid response to your
> misinterpretations, so you post over and over again.
That's a load of crap anderson. There's nothing I've ever said that
isn't either standard text book physics or right off the tip of
Einstein's pen.
You just lack the knowledge to understand i for all you've ever done
is just to claim somethings wrong - you and bilge have never been able
to back it up
>
> John Anderson
>
> PS.
>
> Bilge has forgotten more physics that you are ever going
> to understand.
In those topics that I've discussed something with bilge - he's proved
himself to be extremely ignorant as well as an asshole.
And you're not too far behind him
Jeff Krimmel
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:2202379a.03070...@posting.google.com...
[...]
>> Anyone who engages in outright flame,
>> in creating new posts, for the purpose of junk is nuts.
>> Bilge and I have been subject to stalking by Pmb and
>> McAnally,
>
> Excuse me??? Since when did I ever stalk you???
Haha! So, you do admit to stalking Bilge?
Jeff
Gauge
And you get that from what? From me not stating that I didn't?
Nope. Never stalked anyone - sorry to disappoint you
John Anderson
Gauge wrote:
Bilge knows a lot of physics.
You think that you know a lot of physics.
You post your misconceptions and Bilge
replies.
You then reply to Bilge with evasions
that try to cover up your ignorance.
You post several such evasions for each
posting of Bilge's hoping that one of them
will be missed or that Bilge will get tired
of trying to keep you honest.
Look at the posting record!
John Anderson
John Anderson
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
> and...@attglobal.net wrote in message news:<3F026D...@attglobal.net>...
> > Pmb wrote:
> > >
> > > "Minor Crank" wrote in message
>
> > > > Instead of insulting Bilge all the time, ...
> > >
> > > I see that you're not reading bilge's post or that you enjoy watching him
> > > flame me constantly. If not then please learn first - then you can have a
> > > shot of telling me what to do.
> > >
> > > Pmb
> >
> > Bilge is pointing out that you don'r understand physics
> > as well as you think that you do.
> >
> > That's not flaming. That's an honest opinion.
> >
> > John Anderson
>
> I reckon all empty-headed subjectivity to be flaming and that includes
> your opinion. Why not debate physics instead and try to persuade Bilge
> to give up his irrational beliefs?
Because pmb/gauge doesn't debate physics. He's a troll.
> Or do you agree with Bilge's
> assertion that metric spaces can't exist without physical measuring
> devices?
>
I don't know whether Bilge ever said that or not and, if he did, what
the context was.
John Anderson
John Anderson
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
> Gauge wrote in message news:<e7203033.03070...@posting.google.com>...
> Perfectly Innocent wrote in message news:<c45b45b3.03070...@posting.google.com>...
> > > and...@attglobal.net wrote in message news:<3F026D...@attglobal.net>...
>
> > > > Bilge is pointing out that you don'r understand physics
> > > > as well as you think that you do.
> > > >
> > > > That's not flaming. That's an honest opinion.
> > > >
> > > > John Anderson
> > >
> > > I reckon all empty-headed subjectivity to be flaming and that includes
> > > your opinion. Why not debate physics instead and try to persuade Bilge
> > > to give up his irrational beliefs? Or do you agree with Bilge's
> > > assertion that metric spaces can't exist without physical measuring
> > > devices?
> >
> > Perhaps anderson doesn't understand physics as well as *he* thinks. :-)
> >
> > Pmb
>
> I'm certain that John Anderson misinterprets freshman level physics.
Not likely.
> He has revealed elsewhere that he's totally confused by my elementary
> derivation of SR: http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
>
I'm confused by it because it doesn't make sense.
Please publish your pet theory in a peer reviewed journal
and that will demonstrate that
I ought to be concerned about thinking that it doesn't
make sense.
John Anderson
John Anderson
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
> Gauge wrote in message news:<e7203033.03070...@posting.google.com>...
> > Perfectly Innocent wrote in message news:<c45b45b3.03070...@posting.google.com>...
> > > and...@attglobal.net wrote in message news:<3F026D...@attglobal.net>...
> > > > Bilge is pointing out that you don'r understand physics
> > > > as well as you think that you do.
> > > >
> > > > That's not flaming. That's an honest opinion.
> > > >
> > > > John Anderson
> > >
> > > I reckon all empty-headed subjectivity to be flaming and that includes
> > > your opinion. Why not debate physics instead and try to persuade Bilge
> > > to give up his irrational beliefs? Or do you agree with Bilge's
> > > assertion that metric spaces can't exist without physical measuring
> > > devices?
> >
> > Perhaps anderson doesn't understand physics as well as *he* thinks. :-)
> >
> > Pmb
>
> If John Anderson doesn't misinterpret freshman level physics, then why
> is he totally confused by what real physicists claim is elementary and
> enjoyable?
>
See response to a previous posting of yours.
I hope that you ane gauge are enjoying this little discussion
of yours at my expense.
John Anderson
Gauge
Since when did you ever give a damn about anyone's expense? In fact
you've gone out of your way in the past to be a jerk
John Anderson
Gauge wrote:
What does that mean? I have posted responses to you thatindicate my belief that you don't understand
physics as well
as you claim.
Is that any reason for you and someone else to post a thread
that doesn't address my objections, but instead, speculates
about my personality, or questions my education?
I never did THAT to you. I just claimed that you are
not an authority on the interpretation of relativity.
And I stated why.
John Anderson
Gauge
It means that you start insulting someone for no just reason other
than you don't like them.
I started to respond the your childish crying below. Then I thought
better of it.
Grow up anderson
Pmb
Gauge
> Bilge knows a lot of physics.
So don't I. What I don't see is why he needs you to tell people that.
IT doesn't matter what you think of him. He's not be able to live up
to it in any thread I've posted in where he was crying about one thing
or another. In fact the level of mistakes he's make doesn't speak very
much.
Plain and simple - bilge is an idiot. He's proven it in writing time
and time again. He failed to show any understanding of the most basic
concepts - PERIOD.
[whinings snipped]
pmb
Gauge
> I never did THAT to you. I just claimed that you are
> not an authority on the interpretation of relativity.
Regarding this "poor anderson" remark - For whatever reason, someone,
joe fisher I think, you've given them the impression that you were
some sort of expert - and that's pretty far from the truth. Regarding
your snide "authority" crap - Get a life anderson - there are perhaps
a few individuals who ant people to think that they're authorities -
bigle would like people to think he's an authority. I also would say
that you'd like poeople to believe that as well. I've never in my life
claimed to be anything that I'm not. I never told anyone that I was an
authority or an expert or whatever.
This is a very sad look in your childlike mind anderson - no grow up -
or at least try to act like a big boy.
And regarding authorities - Big friggin deal! Since when did it ever
matter to anyone here regarding what an authority said on a point? You
and scum like bilge pretty much crap all over what authorities say. Or
when you find out that it was an authority that said it you weasle out
ofg your pathetic postion by claimed that everyone expect you don't
know how to interpret what was said.
Take this loser bilge's comment on the proof I gave him of the
cyclotron formula - I proved that F = q[E + vxB] worked for cyclotron
motion and even gave him a reference in French's text - He was
bullshitting his way out of his bogus claim and when I showed him
French the loser (bilge) claimed that I was misinterpreting the simple
simple simple statement - I see that bilge is a dumb prick - he must
think everyone else is too.
You're not that bright either - your crap about potentials being
inconsistent with relativity is all the proof anyone would need.
So why don't you just stick to physics - open your mind MAYBE you'll
learn something
Pmb
Gauge
I asked you a question? And you get that from what? From me not
stating that I didn't?
Pmb
Jeff Krimmel
Calm down, my friend. I just thought it was pretty funny, because I read
the conversation as:
{begin my paraphrase of the conversation}
Ken: You've been stalking Bilge and I, you nut!
PMB: What? Since when did I ever stalk _you_?
{end my paraphrase of the conversation}
I just thought that it was funny that you isolated Ken and said you never
stalked him, rather than just stating that you have never stalked anyone.
With some of the threads you start (sometimes just looking at the subject
line alone -- i.e., this thread), I would find it hard to believe your
argument of never having stalked anyone around here (or at least never
openly picking a fight with anyone).
Jeff
Gauge
No. Nuts like bilge will always claim that you're harassing them -
they can't see that it was they who brought it on themselves - and its
never worth trying to convince them otherwise - however ken has never
been like that so I had to ask
pmb
Ken S. Tucker
> Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.07.09....@hotmail.com>...
> > On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 07:53:49 -0700, Gauge wrote:
> >
> > > Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<pan.2003.07.05....@hotmail.com>...
> > >> On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 00:17:20 +0000, Pmb wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > "Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> > >> > news:2202379a.03070...@posting.google.com...
> > >>
> > >> [...]
> > >>
> > >> >> Anyone who engages in outright flame, in creating new posts, for the
> > >> >> purpose of junk is nuts. Bilge and I have been subject to stalking
> > >> >> by Pmb and McAnally,
> > >> >
> > >> > Excuse me??? Since when did I ever stalk you???
Pete, read this whole sentence all the way to respectively,
"Bilge and I have been subject to stalking by Pmb and
McAnally, respectively,"
This is what I posted, leaving out *respectively*
is a clear misquote. The post was humorous.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Perfectly Innocent
> Perfectly Innocent wrote:
> > I reckon all empty-headed subjectivity to be flaming and that includes
> > your opinion. Why not debate physics instead and try to persuade Bilge
> > to give up his irrational beliefs?
>
> Because pmb/gauge doesn't debate physics. He's a troll.
>
> > Or do you agree with Bilge's
> > assertion that metric spaces can't exist without physical measuring
> > devices?
>
> I don't know whether Bilge ever said that or not and, if he did, what
> the context was.
>
> John Anderson
Then please answer a direct question conjured up from modern physics,
if you know the subject. Can metric spaces exist without physical
measuring devices?
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
Gauge
> gau...@hotmail.com (Gauge) wrote in message news:<e7203033.03071...@posting.google.com>...
> > Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.07.09....@hotmail.com>...
> > > On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 07:53:49 -0700, Gauge wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:<pan.2003.07.05....@hotmail.com>...
> > > >> On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 00:17:20 +0000, Pmb wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > "Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> > > >> > news:2202379a.03070...@posting.google.com...
> > > >>
> > > >> [...]
> > > >>
> > > >> >> Anyone who engages in outright flame, in creating new posts, for the
> > > >> >> purpose of junk is nuts. Bilge and I have been subject to stalking
> > > >> >> by Pmb and McAnally,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Excuse me??? Since when did I ever stalk you???
>
> Pete, read this whole sentence all the way to respectively,
>
> "Bilge and I have been subject to stalking by Pmb and
> McAnally, respectively,"
>
> This is what I posted, leaving out *respectively*
> is a clear misquote. The post was humorous.
>
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
I see. Thanks. By the way - that was why I asked you - I assumed that
I read it wrong