sci.physics logic losers; fail to think straight and clearly
Archimedes Plutonium
regular posters to sci.physics.
None of them can pass a simple test of giving their own rendition of a
math proof. One of the simplest of math proofs, which indicates that
none of these people can *think straight* or, *think clearly*. Should
you read, or save or respond to any one of these logic loopers, then
you are the worse for it. Whenever you see their posts, words for the
wise, ignore them or do not take them seriously.
This author often advises
that the reader should read the real
and true physicists directly from their works
such as the FEYNMAN LECTURES ON PHYSICS, or
DIRAC'S DIRECTIONS IN PHYSICS, or Debroglie's MATTER & LIGHT.
As Abel was once asked how he progressed so far and so fast
He replied he read from the real
and true mathematicians from their works
As for Galois, he read directly from the great
mathematicians before him so he progressed far and fast
THIS AUTHOR, will delete any names from this guideline list when these
persons can post a valid proof of Euclid's Infinitude of Primes,
reductio ad absurdum.
Not a one of these logic failures can even give you a valid proof of
Euclid's Infinitude of Primes. A math proof is the test, because
everything in physics is debatable. I say a neutrino has no rest mass
but many in physics say it does.
And it is known that Mathematics is physics without doing experiments,
and physics is permeated by math. In math there is no debate or
argument, it is those who can think clearly and straight.
This author is versatile in both math and physics and all the
sciences.
This author has seen enough of these regular posters of sci.physics or
the physics hierarchy to know their logic is shot through with holes.
This list will contain those regular posters who are logic loopers, who
frequently post and who have schmuck arrogance about themselves.
Do yourself a favor if you have a question about physics, read from
the pages from the great physicists like Feynman, Debroglie, Dirac,
Schroedinger instead of wasting your time with these logic loopers.
SHODDY-LOGIC-PHYSICS-POSTERS
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Baez, John Baez &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
> John Baez (ba...@math.ucr.edu, ba...@guitar.ucr.edu)
> N: LOOP QUANTUM GRAVITY, CONSTRUCTIVE QUANTUM FIELD THEORY
> P: OTOG. Has PhD in math.
> C: A professor in the math department of University of California, at
> Riverside, USA, John Baez is the cousin of the folk singer Joan Baez,
> who is his father's brother's daughter. Used to post from the account
> of his girlfriend Dr. L.A. Raphals (Lisa Raphals) with a signature
> "Really John Baez". Has written several books including one he often
> tries to promote on sci.physics called "Gauge fields, Knots, and
> Gravity". Notable for excessive use of exclamation marks, it is easy
> to spot in his books which parts he wrote and which parts his
> co-authors wrote by Baez's exclamation mark overdose. Irregularly
> posts a series called "This week's finds in mathematical physics" to
> sci.physics, sci.math and sci.physics.research. Baez is also a
> moderator of sci.physics.research.
> URL: ftp://ucrmath.ucr.edu/baez/
Baez posted that Wiles gap filled proof had no gaps in autumn of 1993
and placed money bets on it. A few months later Mr. Wiles posted to the
Internet that yes indeed it was flawed with a huge gap. A year later
Mr. Wiles claimed he bridged his gap but most math people realize that
Mr. Wiles gap is still there.
The above quote illustrates Baez's conflicts with logic and ethics,
morals.
Is it proper to moderate a news group just to pander some pollution
book, or use it as a lever to sell his book?
Is it proper for a professor to "chase skirt" and make a bad
impression on our young people?
Is it proper to post under false identities to sci.physics, especially
a moderator?
This author has asked Baez to post his version of Euclid's Infinitude
of Primes, reductio ad absurdum, over 2 years ago. Still no reply. It
is this author's opinion that Baez cannot even do one of the simpliest
of math proofs.
&&&&&&&&&&&&& Bullock, Ben Bullock &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
In article <41u74s$p...@keknews.kek.jp>
b...@theory1.kek.jp (Ben Bullock) writes:
> That "the particle is spin 1/2" is extremely
> wrong should be clear, the problem here is that "is" implies that spin
> 1/2 is the nature of the particle rather than one of its properties.
Bullock does not understand that IF spin 1/2 were a property then it
can change and thus you can have electrons or other spin 1/2 particles
come in different spins other than value 1/2. And also the Pauli
principle would be a property of electrons and subject to change. If
the Pauli Principle was not the "character or nature" of atoms or
subatomic particles then the other quantum principles are subject to
change also, thereby all of science collapses.
Bullock does not understand that the "electron is spin 1/2 and is the
Pauli Principle".
To give the many readers who are not knowledgeable of Quantum
Mechanics an analogy of Bullock's brand of logic. IF life were a
property and not a
"characteristic or nature" of atoms, then, to a Bullock thinker, given
time and technology one should be able to --- breathe the property of
life into these lifeless chemicals. Bullock's logic is a la phlogiston,
a la cholic.
I am still waiting for Bullock to post his version of Euclid's
Infinitude of Primes to check out whether Mr. Bullock can really think
clearly and think straight.
&&&&&&&&&&&& Esch, Patrick P. E. Esch &&&&&&&&&&&&
Patrick has an account with DESY and his posts come off as arrogant,
note below.
In article <41s5gm$l...@dscomsa.desy.de>
van...@dice2.desy.de (Patrick P. E. Esch) writes:
> This then provokes me to make a bit fun of you.
> Not because *I* am such a clever guy, but because
> the rather basic "objections" you have are sooo
> terribly obvious that you must have a very funny
> view on all those smart people doing cosmology,
> that they all would have overlooked those items.
> It is a bit like seeing an airplane on the ground,
> and when someone says that it can fly, you say:
> haha, can't be, it's made of steel, that's heavier
> than air, didn't you think of that, silly ?
Mr. Esch has called this author a "Crazy Weasel" and was angered by
anyone responding to me because Mr. Esch wanted to totally killfile me.
This is fine but the newsgroups should not have self-appointed mother
superior types advertising who should be killfiled. Each reader should
make their own decision.
This author has seen enough of Patrick's replies to surmise a pattern
of arrogance. When a poster from a well known institute,eg, KEK makes
mistakes he is not jumped on by Patrick. But when a person from a
non-prestigious organization or academy makes a physics post then he is
attacked by Patrick. And this is a character weakness of many persons
in science, because what seems more important to them is not the ideas
or whether the ideas can lead to something important, but rather the
background of the person giving the idea. There are many instances in
science where a genius sprung up from a poor background and was a
complete stranger to the academic circles,eg, Faraday, Ramanujan. This
is sort of a caste system in physics or science and many regulars of
Internet are guilty of this type of responding to others. Alot of
people have this notion that a great idea can only come from those who
are insiders in that field. This is a very warped notion because the
many instances in science history indicates that a genius of science is
better off by being an outsider rather than have been grinded to a pulp
or as the picture shows where his brain contents are let free and then
refilled with what the professor wants that brain to be filled.
Conformism is the enemy of genius.
This author has requested that Patrick post his own version of
Euclid's Infinitude of Primes proof, reduction ad absurdum to see if
Mr. Esch has logic and reason behind his posts of haughtiness and
correcting of others.
Mr. Esch has attempted a proof of IP and it is very garbled. He talks
about two kinds of primes, (1) trivial primes and (2) nontrivial primes
and tries to coax a proof out of the fact that a new number P-1 which
he calls Q and then takes the relationship of P-1 = Q, where P-Q = 1.
Whereby P contains all primes and Q nontrivial primes?? At that point
I just throw-up my hands. Perhaps being around the particle physics zoo
for such a long time causes this type of "rambling imagination?"
&&&&&&&&&&&& Francis, Erik Max Francis &&&&&&&&&&&&&&
One poster wrote:
> Yes, very good. Erika Maxine should ponder it. :-)
A different poster wrote:
> You not only can't think straight, you can't even read straight.
John Baez/Erik wrote:
> Of course I have other secret identities too, but I won't
> say who they are!
>
> Really John Baez
It is easy to spot a Erika post. The signature block is usually much
longer
than the text of the post. His signature block is depressing with
encryptions and intimations of "darkside" and other pretentious
childish nonsense so as to hide the real person behind it.
One poster on 3Sep95 posted a statistic of the most number of posts to
sci.physics recently. And Erika was number 1 by a large margin with 76
posts. This is easy when the text of your posts are meaningless one
liner sentences. And if Erika's tally was added to Baez's tally of 36
reminds you of Miss Piggy and Kermit the Frog trying to steal the
Broadway limelight show.
Erika is Baez's Artificial Intelligence computer. Anyone responding
to Erika --- the laugh is all on the responder. In fact the world over
tunes in to sci.physics every day and every night to see what "sucker"
out there is actually responding to Erika. This is not unlike a person
talking to a fence post. Laughs go up all around the world, hilarity,
whenever someone is having a dialogue with Erika, especially if the
responder is a professor from some university. Sci.physics regulars who
know Erika try to veer away from the thread for the humor is just so
enjoyable. And this author realizes that I am spoiling alot of fun by
giving this warning. But hey, John can give a new name to his AI; John
has nothing better to do with his time.
And you can tell when you have Baez/Erika rattled, because the Erika
robot barking dog proliferates its inane posts throughout sci.physics.
Erika was a creation for sci.physics like a homeowner who gets a dog
to defend territory. A loud barking dog that is Erika, only Erika is
more like a nervous chihauhua. Erika spends time "barking" at newcomers
or frequent posters whose arguments have become old, and so the Erika
robot dog is released from its leish and does its barking routine.
This author asks Erik Max Francis to post a Euclid Infinitude of
Primes proof. This author knows that Erika has encyclopedia information
on astronomy to the Web and other newsgroups. Computer robots of AI are
good at regurgitating the encyclopedia. Does anyone out there know what
source (was it encyclopedia Britannica?) Baez-Erika used to copy their
definitions from and change a few words or grammar to make it "appear"
as original?
If Erika manages to post a proof of Euclid's IP that would be most
interesting for then a computer will have attempted a "logical reasoned
argument."
Do not make yourself a laughing stock in sci.physics and the world
public, just ignore and bypass Erik Max Francis posts.
&&&&&&&&& Oz &&&&&&&&&&&&&
This author asks of anyone to post the true identity of this poster.
A typical Oz post is given below.
Oz is a psychology-physics poster. He dabbles and babbles with mind
games. When asked by a mature math poster to cease and desist with his
childish behavior of wanting to further a crackpot list, Oz payed no
attention.
From: Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: SCI.PHYSICS CRACKPOTS FAQ 2ND REVISION
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 1995 09:05:51 GMT
Organization: None
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <840886...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
References: <abian.8...@pv3449.vincent.iastate.edu>
Oh dear.
I have decided to review my view of AA (but still keep him on my kill
file of
course).
I think he views Physicists as either stupid, or he is seriously taking
the
p*ss. I veer towards the latter. I don't think he believes ANY of his
postings here. He is just enjoying himself.
Or maybe he has another devious reason. Perhaps he is/was married to a
Physicist?
--
-------------------------------
'Oz "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"
This author asks Oz to demonstrate his own proof of Euclid's
Infinitude of Primes, reductio ad absurdum. It should really be a
surprize to this newsgroup if Oz can muster up enough reasoning to be
able to do that, because psychology and thinking straight and clear
usually do not mix.
His posts are usually inane and harmless provided none of his
writings on physics is paid attention to. As this author continually
echoes -- if you want the true physics just look through the pages of
the
Feynman Lectures, Dirac's books, Bell's writings, Debroglie's books,
etc.
&&&&&&&&&& Potts, Anthony Potts &&&&&&&&&&&&&&
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950824104636.25310D-100000@cms4>
Anthony Potts <po...@cern.ch> writes on Thu, 24 Aug 1995 09:00:19 GMT:
> When I was replying to posts initially, Mr. Pu was quite polite. As soon
> as I post a good argument in favour of what I believe to be right, one
> that Pu can not, apparently, argue against, he starts with this kind of
> rubbish. I sincerely hope that I never said that all of physics will be
> wrong if the higgs isn't seen. What is true is that the Standard Model is
> wrong if we don't see the Higgs. Whilst this is not "All Science", it is
> a bloody big and important piece of it.
---- post sometime before 17 Aug 1995 01:54:19 GMT ----
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950816120025.16504I-100000@cms1>
Anthony Potts <po...@cern.ch> writes:
> Wrong, LHC will see the Higgs, if it exists as predicted by current physics.
>
> If it does not, current physics is wrong.
--- end of quote in part of Mr. Potts post ---------
Failed logic? Failed memory? These are not the personality traits one
expects from someone employed to search for the Higgs Particle. Their
bias, their prejudices, their subjectivity makes them stumble and fall
all over themselves.
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950817160317.18837G-100000@cms3>
> Anthony Potts <po...@cern.ch> writes:
>
> > When I do the analysis (yes, I will be doing the analysis if I haven't
> > packed in physics and taken a job in the city), I will treat it correctly.
Note the abundance of arrogance. Mr. Potts wrote that there will be
a stampede to publish concerning the Higgs. This author asks that if
the data can go either way, what is to stop that stampede from fousting
upon the world a fakery, a sham. This author has seen a science sham in
the case of the cold fusion reporting of 1989. If the Higgs is another
Cold Fusion, and considering that there is only one machine in the
world to carry out this data, it is not impossible for a science sham
to be perpetrated upon the world and to last of a hundred years.
I say there is this tremendous pressure to garner fame surrounding
the Higgs particle. That this fame seeking destroys the maintenance of
good logic and reasoning and objective science.
This author has yet to see any Euclid proof of the Infinitude of
Primes, reductio ad absurdum to attest to whether Mr. Potts can really
think straight and clearly, or whether Mr. Potts is unfit for the job
of searching for the Higgs particle.
And, it is this author's opinion that anyone in science or math who
cannot give a valid proof of Euclid Infinitude of Primes, should not be
in science, math or engineering but look to another career.
--
Note, this author should have this list ready in time for the new
college students coming back and seeing the Internet sci.physics for
the first time.
Michael Varney
<Massive amount of crap clipped...>
Stop posting, P. (Sung to the tune of "What's Up Doc?" Bugs Bunny)
Stop posting, P! You heard us, stop posting P!
We all know that your post is really stupid,
we have to pooper-scoop it, and throw it in the kill-file bin,
but then you post them all again!
OOH.. you.. dunder head, low IQ, dunder head,
all you do is, waste band-width space, with posts that have no taste,
and theories that make no sense, and furthermore have no defense!
SO... Stop... posting P! You heard us, stop posting P.
STOP...POSTING P.!!!
(The audience goes nuts! They chant for an encore, and it might be
needed.)
--
Michael Varney
Department of Physics
Colorado State University
*************************************************************************
If as*holes could fly, it would be perpetually dark!
Of course, one kind person will lift the darkness.
*************************************************************************
mcva...@holly.colostate.edu
MRichar353
> And, it is this author's opinion that anyone in science or math who
>cannot give a valid proof of Euclid Infinitude of Primes, should not be
>in science, math or engineering but look to another career.
Like washing dishes, I presume?
Mark Richardson
Anthony Potts
also said that I failed to post a proof for the infinitude of primes.
Actually, I posted two proofs of this, he obviously chooses to ignore
posts which go against his beliefs. I will be posting a letter to his
sysadmin next, pointing out his lies, I would be grateful if others he
has libelled could do similarly.
Anthony Potts.
Johan Wevers
>This is a list of logic, or math logic losers and failures and who are
>regular posters to sci.physics.
ARRRRG! I unsubscribed from sci.physics to be lost of this crap and now this
IQ-less braindead idiot is posting his nonsens in sci.physics.particle too.
It's about time for a really BIG mailbomb from my other account.
--
ir. J.C.A. Wevers || The only nature of reality is physics.
joh...@vulcan.xs4all.nl || http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/index.html
Finger joh...@xs4all.nl for my PGP public key. PGP-KeyID: 0xD42F80B1
Oz
Frankly I wouldn't bother. Meron (sp) has a sig that says (I hope) "Those
that argue with fools <Oh bother I've forgotten it>" AP is not worth any
effort at all. He is a nobody. Just kill-file him, or ignore him
altogether. Nobody worth their salt will think any the worse of you for
NOT answering his gibberish. BB got vastly worse (seriously libellous in
my view) than you and he's still alive and ironing AP instead.
Dartmouth is just a poor deluded college, that's all.
Personally I kill-filed him, he's a jerk (and that's being polite).
Archimedes Plutonium
thread but are separate on the newsread?
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950905163614.1956E-100000@cms1>
Anthony Potts <po...@cern.ch> writes on 5 Sep '95:
> Archimedes has posted again questioning my integrity as a physicist. He
> also said that I failed to post a proof for the infinitude of primes.
> Actually, I posted two proofs of this, he obviously chooses to ignore
> posts which go against his beliefs. I will be posting a letter to his
> sysadmin next, pointing out his lies, I would be grateful if others he
> has libelled could do similarly.
>
> Anthony Potts.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: Anthony Potts <po...@cern.ch>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950727104311.11329B-100000@cms1>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 08:50:11 GMT
Mr. Potts writes:
>It is probably not a mental illness, just a general lack of intelligence. It >has been said that he is a dishwasher at his institution, not a student or >academic, so it is a fair guess that he is not too clever, and is merely >rambling about subjects
of which he has no knowledge. I have never actually >read one of his
posts to the end, but I doubt if the end makes any more >sense than the
beginning. If he wants to put across a theory, then I would >suggest
that he presents it in a way that will allow mainstream scientists >to
judge it on its merits. I am not against new theories, many scientists
>are very unhappy with the standard model, and feel that there must be >something more to the universe (and I am NOT talking about God here), and so >are more than willing to look at anything new. It must, however be realised >that there are many new
ideas around,
>and I for one am not going to waste my time trying to understand pseudo >scientific babble when I could be finding out answers for myself.
>
>Anthony Potts
----------------------------
From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Date: 28 Jul 1995 22:42:03 GMT
Message-ID: <3vbp3r$j...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
And I wrote in reply to Mr. Potts above this:
>Here is a short enough one for you to read to the end.
>PU, PLuto, condemn the genetic soul and photon soul of Anthony Potts to
>Acheron. Atom
----------------------------
Now I feel sorry for you Mr. Potts for you have shown how illogical
of a person you are. You have recorded and published for the whole
world to see that you cannot even think straight or clearly through a
math argument that every math person and physicist should be able to
do. Maybe you do these things in a rush? Or you just cannot see it?
I was generous on my criticism. But here at Dartmouth I know a
student who can even see that N! would have nothing to do whatsoever
with a proof of the Infinitude of primes for you cannot even use Unique
Prime Factorization when you use the factorial. Even physics students
would know that.
And as regards to your second failed attempt of 4 Sept '95:
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950904130008.7223E-100000@cms3>
Anthony Potts <po...@cern.ch> writes:
> If this one falls down (it might, I am not a mathematician) try this.
>
> If P is the largest known prime, then form the product of all primes upto
> and including P. Subtract one from this. Again, if this number is
> composite, then none of its prime factors can be P or below, as all these
> factor into the new number with remainder one. Therefore there are primes
> of greater value than P.
>
> This is true for any P, and so if we assume that P is the largest prime,
> then we find that our premise is wrong, and so there are in infinity of
> prime numbers.
>
> In fact, there are the same number of primes as rationals, and as
> rational points on the complex plane, although there are fewer primes
> than reals. It is my opinion that the number of reals is two to the power
> of the number of integers. There is evidence for this, but it is far from
> conclusive.
>
> So, Mr, P. You asked for this proof, and here it is. Please tell me what
> is wrong with it. I hope that this will satisfy you.
> Anthony Potts.
Here is how you should have written it using your own words and
outline.
If Primes are finite then there is a prime P is the largest known
prime. then form the product of all primes up to
and including P.
Add (don't subtract because of a mess with 2 and 2-1) one to this. Call
it Q. Now look at Q, and it is not prime because it is larger than P
it is prime because it leaves a remainder of 1
when divided by all the primes that exist
Contradiction, thus Primes is finite is wrong, hence Primes infinite
----- end of proof modelled after your wording.
A math proof is great in exercising peoples mind to see how to think
clearly and straight, there is no excess baggage or loops of logic,
unlike alot of stupidity that abounds in physics books and especially
in these newsgroups.
I am confident that most every person in the world who is a
professor of math and or physics and who does not know a valid Euclid
IP can memorize the above and if I met them on a street corner and
asked them to give a valid IP they would collapse and the proof would
melt right in front of them, and they would fail. To think clearly and
straight is a gift which is not able to be learned or trained.
As I stated before, I have a collection going of all IP proofs
published in the world and out of those 100 published proofs I can
remember only 3 valid ones. Not even G.H. Hardy gave a valid IP in his
book A MATHEMATICIANS APOLOGY.
I think you are a very sincere and want to learn kind of a person
Mr. Potts. I have not attacked your character other than what you
attacked me in your July 27 post. However I think who you make as
friends here on Internet has debilitated your better judgements. I see
some posters "pretentiously rallying around you just to throw barbs at
me." Let me tell you Mr. Potts, they are not your friends, for they not
only have a weak mind but are so full of hate and spite that they will
go to hell in a hand basket.
If you feel I have libeled you, go ahead and proceed with whatever
your plans are. Remember, you flung the first rocks at me, not I at
you. And, although you failed to give a valid proof of IP, since you
had the courage to post your own two, which is more than I can say for
Mr. Oz or Mr. Bullock or Mr. Baez / Erika. I am deleting you Mr. Potts
from all further such posts or lists of logic. It is my opinion that
you learned something from this and I admire your courage in posting
two IP attempts. It can be said that courage even though wrong is far,
far better than cowards who hide and remain in their stifling "village
idiocy".
It is not the aim of the Plutonium Foundation to curse people and
tell them to go to hell. This is done only when all reason, all
rationality seem to disappear and a huge time-waste ensues, and only
raw hatred and spite remain.
Pu, PLuto send Mr. Anthony Potts back to point neutral, away from
hell and Acheron, for he means well but has just been misguided as of
recent by the people who he has associates with. Make done, Atom.