On approaching quantizing G_uv=T_uv.
Ken S. Tucker
> Thus spake Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca>
>
> >Right now, I treat Einsteins Law G_uv=T_uv as a Physical Law, and
> >concilliate that with quantum theory, although the LHS is based on
> >derivatives of an assumed continuum, which is impossible to measure.
>
> There is no way to write a quantum version of this law. Certainly there
> is no way to treat G as an observable operator on Hilbert space.
> Fundamentally I don't consider G as derivatives on a quantum continuum,
> but rather as an idealisation giving relationships between physical
> measurements. Measurements are always relationships between matter and
> matter, and that is how I view geometry. In order to experimentally
> determine G within any region, we need not just one measurement, but a
> whole set of measurements. Each of those measurements individually
> causes a collapse of the wave function for any measured quantum state,
> and the concept of G only applies to relationships between collapsed
> states.
I may be exceeding your mathematical experience (you do that to
me quite often), so let me know how to detail better.
Abbreviating to G=T, then doing a covariant derivative, produces,
G;u = T;u = 0 , (I thinks that's a fair postulate).
However, we know G and T do vary, and we can quantize that change
using incrementals (expressed as Delta's) such as,
G' = G + Delta G = T' = T + Delta T
I'd perfer the term 'wave function compromise' (instead of collapse),
where the Delta's convert a relating wave function (in the G=T) by
input or output of photons, if the relational curvature G that is also
equal to (with constants) T varies, incrementally.
The simplest example I can convey about G=T is,
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
I find the same features explain the electrostic field strength.
> Charles Francis
> moderator sci.physics.foundations.
> charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
> braces)
> http://www.rqgravity.net
Cheers
Ken S. Tucker
eric gisse
Spewing jackass. Nothing you wrote is a solution to the field equations, as
amply demonstrated by your years of inability to actually prove it.
Ken S. Tucker
>
> I find the same features explain the electrostic field strength.
>
> > Charles Francis
> > moderator sci.physics.foundations.
> > charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
> > braces)
> >http://www.rqgravity.net
>
> Cheers
> Ken S. Tucker
To Charles and Tom and all.
Let me point out that sitting on a cushion is the experience of a
seating on a continuum, but, sitting on a cactus is a quantized
experience, though the cushion is smaller increments.
On Mar 11, 7:33 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > Abbreviating to G=T, then doing a covariant derivative, produces,
> > G;u = T;u = 0 , (I thinks that's a fair postulate).
>
> But it's wrong. It basically says that G and T are both constant.
No Tom it does not, it was specified by this incremental variation,
G' = G + Delta G = T' = T + Delta T
We can take the covariant derivative of that to consider,
(G' = G + Delta G = T' = T + Delta T ) ; u = 0
for all terms.
> There are some
> manifolds of GR that satisfy this (e.g. Minkowski spacetime), but it is
> certainly not general, and does not hold for Schwarzschild spacetime or most
> other manifolds that are solutions of the field equation (G=T).
>
> What does hold is this:
>
> div G = 0 = div T [both are covariant divergences]
>
> You should recognize the first equals as the contracted Bianchi identities, and
> the second equals as the local conservation of energy. After all, these are
> equations of fundamental importance in differential geometry and physics,
> respectively.
Agreed,
> Avoiding your "abbreviation" and mixed notation, it's clear what the difference
> is -- in standard component notation, you wrote:
>
> G^ij_;u = T^ij_;u = 0
>
> But I wrote:
>
> G^ij_;j = 0 = T^ik_;k
Yes Charles expresses that as T^ib;b , in his ref, I'd call that the
*DIVergence of the
Energy density*, correct me if I'm wrong please, or IOW's energy
conservation.
> The individual terms in those contractions need not be zero (as your equation
> claims), but the totals necessarily are. Indeed, much of the richness of both
> differential geometry and physics occurs when it is different terms canceling.
Of course I respect what you wrote.
Let's for a moment ref to experimental physics and the example I'll
use will be
a 60 Watt light bulb, that outputs a flow of photons from a flow of
electrons.
The Power (W) is quantized (I think that's agreeable, using photons),
and
W is a flux of energy like,
Delta (energy) / Delta (Time)
The QT specifies we **cannot** take the limit
LIMIT of Delta (energy) / Delta (Time)
as Delta (Time) =>0
Instead we use,
LIMIT of Delta (energy) / Delta (Time)
as Delta (Time) => (dt >0).
Allow me to describe T^ib;0 as Power density (Energy Flux),
(not a DIV), that is experimentally determined to be quantized,
to be,
T^ib;0 = 0 but T''^ib = T^ib + Delta T^ib
enables a quantizes variation using Delta T^ib.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
PS: I will go away now and drop a coin in a box, for the poor people.
Ken S. Tucker
Hi Charles, Tom and all.
On Mar 11, 2:23 pm, Oh No <N...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Thus spake Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca>
>
> >On Mar 11, 7:33 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >> > Abbreviating to G=T, then doing a covariant derivative, produces,
> >> > G;u = T;u = 0 , (I thinks that's a fair postulate).
>
> >> But it's wrong. It basically says that G and T are both constant.
>
> >No Tom it does not, it was specified by this incremental variation,
>
> If I may arbitrate, Tom is correct.
Sure can!
> >Let's for a moment ref to experimental physics and the example I'll
> >use will be
> >a 60 Watt light bulb, that outputs a flow of photons from a flow of
> >electrons.
> >The Power (W) is quantized (I think that's agreeable, using photons),
> >and
> >W is a flux of energy like,
>
> > Delta (energy) / Delta (Time)
>
> >The QT specifies we **cannot** take the limit
>
> >LIMIT of Delta (energy) / Delta (Time)
> >as Delta (Time) =>0
>
> >Instead we use,
>
> >LIMIT of Delta (energy) / Delta (Time)
> >as Delta (Time) => (dt >0).
>
> >Allow me to describe T^ib;0 as Power density (Energy Flux),
> >(not a DIV), that is experimentally determined to be quantized,
> >to be,
>
> >T^ib;0 = 0 but T''^ib = T^ib + Delta T^ib
>
> >enables a quantizes variation using Delta T^ib.
>
> This does not actually have anything to do with quantisation. You may be
> confusing quantisation with discretisation.
What swayed me was a discussion with W.W. Sawyer,
http://www.marco-learningsystems.com/pages/sawyer/sawyer.htm
back when I was in in High School, (we studied together).
He got me with this argument...
Allow a paraphrase, I'll donate to the Salvation Army. I have a coin
in my
hand and I drop it into a cup. Between the time I release the coin and
before the coin hit's the cup it is 'virtual'.
The coin 'increments' the amount of money in the cup, IOW's, it is NOT
a differential, it is a quantized variation mathematically described
by a
Delta, hence I cannot use a derivative. The derivative is zero because
it's a square wave, like a pulse, but the increment in true.
The Money density in the volume of the cup can only be varied by
increments.
In math we can ask what is the derivative of me donating $1, i.e.
d($10 +$1) = 0 , was our agreement.
At that time (1960's) I thought that was a good agreement, but math
does advance, so I suppose I should consider the coin bouncing in
the cup to include Wave Mechanics.
Tom Roberts
> On Mar 11, 7:33 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>> Abbreviating to G=T, then doing a covariant derivative, produces,
>>> G;u = T;u = 0 , (I thinks that's a fair postulate).
>> But it's wrong. It basically says that G and T are both constant.
>
> No Tom it does not, it was specified by this incremental variation,
> G' = G + Delta G = T' = T + Delta T
Don't you read what you write?????
All that means is (in your bastard notation) that there is a possibility that:
G';u !=0 and T';u != 0
In particular, if your first equation holds (G;u=T;u=0), G and T are still constant.
Tom Roberts
Ken S. Tucker
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Mar 11, 7:33 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >>> Abbreviating to G=T, then doing a covariant derivative, produces,
> >>> G;u = T;u = 0 , (I thinks that's a fair postulate).
> >> But it's wrong. It basically says that G and T are both constant.
>
> > No Tom it does not, it was specified by this incremental variation,
> > G' = G + Delta G = T' = T + Delta T
>
> Don't you read what you write?????
I think you shouldn't blame others for your lack of understanding.
You're a good poet Tom, but I seriously consider advice on
mathematical
physics from experts that I find to be qualified, and I'm afraid you
aren't one.
Prof W.W. Sawyer explained the disablity you have, and published it,
I provided the ref.
Ken
eric gisse
Pathetic.
Ken S. Tucker
Well Prof. Sawyer (and myself) became experts on recognizing
the problems Tom and Eric have, for examplem I prefer the term
"disability", or perhaps "mathematically challenged" to
the term "pathetic". Sawyer was an optimist and held out hope
that students 'might' be able to learn math in his statement,
"The essential quality for a mathematician is the habit of thinking
things out for oneself. That habit is usually acquired in childhood.
It is hard to acquire it later. (Ibid.)"
Found here,
http://www.marco-learningsystems.com/pages/sawyer/work.htm
He had 80 years of experience and I have 50, totals to 150.
I was proclaimed, "Worlds Greatest Mathematician" back in
in 1970, I think it was because I was able to simplify
apparently intractable problems, into an obvious sequential
logic train.
One key for me was making maps when I was 4 yrs old, cuz
that's a birds-eye view of a surface.
I was fascinated by railroad yards, and sputnik.
Ken
Simple Simon
> He had 80 years of experience and I have 50, totals to 150.
>
> I was proclaimed, "Worlds Greatest Mathematician" back in
> in 1970, ...
.
> Ken
:-)
eric gisse
Ken, you still don't even understand the difference between gravitational
and electromagnetic radiation.
Ken S. Tucker
wrote:
I think we farted around for 20 years, check out this guy,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stegosaurus_size.png
Ken
Ken S. Tucker
Do you?
John Park
>
> Well Prof. Sawyer (and myself) became experts on recognizing
> the problems Tom and Eric have, for examplem I prefer the term
> "disability", or perhaps "mathematically challenged" to
> the term "pathetic". Sawyer was an optimist and held out hope
> that students 'might' be able to learn math in his statement,
>
> "The essential quality for a mathematician is the habit of thinking
> things out for oneself. That habit is usually acquired in childhood.
> It is hard to acquire it later. (Ibid.)"
>
> Found here,
> http://www.marco-learningsystems.com/pages/sawyer/work.htm
>
> He had 80 years of experience and I have 50, totals to 150.
>
> I was proclaimed, "Worlds Greatest Mathematician" back in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Too good to pass up.
--John Park
Ken S. Tucker
> "Ken S. Tucker" (dynam...@vianet.on.ca) writes:
>
> > Well Prof. Sawyer (and myself) became experts on recognizing
> > the problems Tom and Eric have, for examplem I prefer the term
> > "disability", or perhaps "mathematically challenged" to
> > the term "pathetic". Sawyer was an optimist and held out hope
> > that students 'might' be able to learn math in his statement,
>
> > "The essential quality for a mathematician is the habit of thinking
> > things out for oneself. That habit is usually acquired in childhood.
> > It is hard to acquire it later. (Ibid.)"
>
> > Found here,
> >http://www.marco-learningsystems.com/pages/sawyer/work.htm
>
> > He had 80 years of experience and I have 50, totals to 150.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>
> > I was proclaimed, "Worlds Greatest Mathematician" back in
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Too good to pass up.
> --John Park
John, the reason I was proclaimed "Worlds Greatest Mathematician"
is because I discovered a need for a battery check button on a
calculator, I just forgot to use it.
Ken
Sue...
> Ken, you still don't even understand the difference between gravitational
> and electromagnetic radiation.
Should we expect any *difference* ?
<< A second problem which at present is the subject of
lively interest is the identity between the gravitational field
and the electromagnetic field. The mind striving after
unification of the theory cannot be satisfied that two fields
should exist which, by their nature, are quite independent.
A mathematically unified field theory is sought in which the
gravitational field and the electromagnetic field are interpreted
only as different components or manifestations of the same uniform
field, the field equations where possible no longer consisting of
logically mutually independent summands. >>
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25.html#x34-720006.3
Sue...
Ken S. Tucker
> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25....
> Sue...
Hi Sue.
As you know, we currently have numerous 'LIGO' type detectors
on our planet, Dr. Baez informs me that computing the source
of g-waves is difficult as they operate as sort of phase array
system.
We should be able to use this ultra fast binary system as a test,
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/fastest-orbiting-stars-100309.html
Knowing where to look solves the issue of heavy computation to
a phase arrayed input. (I understand there is an ongoing upgrade
of the LIGO to LIGO advanced).
I find (in opposition to the standard GR community) the orbital
decay will appear as EMR using this GR solution to gravitation,
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
Up to this time I haven't pushed that, but if the LIGO remains
silent we may have an improved insight into GR and how the
universe actually functions using EMR unified with gravity,
that is why the work of the LIGO technicians is so important,
and we wish them success in making honest and accurate measures.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Sue...
Leptons don't grow to be that big without drinking lots of
Molson. But as a pseudo particle calculating trick it could work.
Real leptons can't live in each other's space but pretend
leptons can if it makes the wavelength right, ( About the same
spectra as CMBR)
Have you tried it with PSR B1913+16 ?
>
> Up to this time I haven't pushed that, but if the LIGO remains
> silent we may have an improved insight into GR and how the
> universe actually functions using EMR unified with gravity,
> that is why the work of the LIGO technicians is so important,
> and we wish them success in making honest and accurate measures.
Your detractors are assuming EM dipoles comparable in size to
the orbits. Of course that would run down very quicky from
the EM radiatied. But impossible particles with molecular sized
orbits might squirt out the correct losses even if they
can not really exist. "The most successful theory ever" employs
particles that can't exist.
Personally I favour the notion of C. P. Kouropoulos that
Doppler shift of the cohering signal plays a role but that
doesn't seem essential to explain radiative losses like
PSR B1913+16 .
Sue...
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
eric gisse
[...]
>
> Hi Sue.
> As you know,
Sue knows about as much as you: absolutely nothing.
> we currently have numerous 'LIGO' type detectors
> on our planet, Dr. Baez informs me that computing the source
> of g-waves is difficult as they operate as sort of phase array
> system.
Ten bucks says that's not what Baez said and that you are mischaracterizing
it.
Phase array is a kind of radar, gravitational wave detectors are
interferometers. You do not know the difference. Hell, you don't even
understand the basic theory.
> We should be able to use this ultra fast binary system as a test,
>
> http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/fastest-orbiting-stars-100309.html
Hey STOOOOOPID, LIGO is sensitive to ~10 Hz to ~10Khz.
Elementary question for STOOOOPID: What's the frequency of an object if it
has a period of 5.7 minutes? Does it fall in the above range?
>
> Knowing where to look solves the issue of heavy computation to
> a phase arrayed input. (I understand there is an ongoing upgrade
> of the LIGO to LIGO advanced).
Goddamn more babble about phased array. Like you have the faintest fucking
clue what you are talking about.
>
> I find (in opposition to the standard GR community)
Translation: You know you are wrong.
> the orbital
> decay will appear as EMR using this GR solution to gravitation,
STOOOOPID.
Steve Carlip already had this discussion with you. Gravitational radiation
couples to changes in mass quadrupole moments, electromagnetic radiation
couples to charge dipole moments.
Do you not know the difference between quadrupole and dipole moments,
STOOOOPID? Evidence says not only "no", but "hell no".
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/b736862ddfa4b218
Classic demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
>
> http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
Hey STOOOOPID, you didn't solve the Einstein-Maxwell equations. You write
one component of the Einstein tensor down, and call it a day.
>
> Up to this time I haven't pushed that, but if the LIGO remains
> silent we may have an improved insight into GR and how the
> universe actually functions using EMR unified with gravity,
What's the expected detection rate for {black hole, neutron star, white
dwarf} mergers even within the advanced LIGO detection volume? Hint: Less
than 10/year.
> that is why the work of the LIGO technicians is so important,
> and we wish them success in making honest and accurate measures.
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
You wouldn't know honesty if it bit you on the sphincter.
Still think frame dragging doesn't exist? Even though you can be handed 3
separate experiments and a handful more astrophysical observations that say
it does?
Sue...
Zero poles does not equal four poles.
Zeor does not equal four.
The desperate constructors of a non polar radiator seem
incompetent with primary school arithmetic.
Sue...
>
> Do you not know the difference between quadrupole and dipole moments,
> STOOOOPID? Evidence says not only "no", but "hell no".
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
Juan R.
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
(...)
>> the orbital
>> decay will appear as EMR using this GR solution to gravitation,
>
> STOOOOPID.
Could you stop from naming yourself?
> Steve Carlip already had this discussion with you. Gravitational
> radiation couples to changes in mass quadrupole moments, electromagnetic
> radiation couples to charge dipole moments.
>
> Do you not know the difference between quadrupole and dipole moments,
> STOOOOPID? Evidence says not only "no", but "hell no".
I recall both Steve Carlip and Tom Roberts correcting your silly mistakes
about dipoles and gravitational radiation
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/83a724f8f6e5849c
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/68646acd90f74275
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
eric gisse
> eric gisse wrote on Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:59:16 -0700:
>
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> (...)
>
>>> the orbital
>>> decay will appear as EMR using this GR solution to gravitation,
>>
>> STOOOOPID.
>
> Could you stop from naming yourself?
>
>> Steve Carlip already had this discussion with you. Gravitational
>> radiation couples to changes in mass quadrupole moments, electromagnetic
>> radiation couples to charge dipole moments.
>>
>> Do you not know the difference between quadrupole and dipole moments,
>> STOOOOPID? Evidence says not only "no", but "hell no".
>
> I recall both Steve Carlip and Tom Roberts correcting your silly mistakes
> about dipoles and gravitational radiation
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/83a724f8f6e5849c
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/68646acd90f74275
>
>
Yeah, you aren't obsessed. Not at all.
Fucking lunatic.
Ken S. Tucker
> On Mar 14, 4:19 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
...
> > Hi Sue.
> > As you know, we currently have numerous 'LIGO' type detectors
> > on our planet, Dr. Baez informs me that computing the source
> > of g-waves is difficult as they operate as sort of phase array
> > system.
> > We should be able to use this ultra fast binary system as a test,
>
> >http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/fastest-orbiting-stars-100309.html
>
> > Knowing where to look solves the issue of heavy computation to
> > a phase arrayed input. (I understand there is an ongoing upgrade
> > of the LIGO to LIGO advanced).
>
> > I find (in opposition to the standard GR community) the orbital
> > decay will appear as EMR using this GR solution to gravitation,
>
> >http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
>
> Leptons don't grow to be that big without drinking lots of
> Molson. But as a pseudo particle calculating trick it could work.
>
> Real leptons can't live in each other's space but pretend
> leptons can if it makes the wavelength right, ( About the same
> spectra as CMBR)
Not sure what that means (?).
> Have you tried it with PSR B1913+16 ?
Not specifically yet, though in theory they should be
quite the same. An out standing weakness in physics and
GR is there is no precise definition of mass, so I use
http://physics.trak4.com/MST_Mass-Definition.pdf
in the absence of standards.
> > Up to this time I haven't pushed that, but if the LIGO remains
> > silent we may have an improved insight into GR and how the
> > universe actually functions using EMR unified with gravity,
> > that is why the work of the LIGO technicians is so important,
> > and we wish them success in making honest and accurate measures.
>
> Your detractors are assuming EM dipoles comparable in size to
> the orbits. Of course that would run down very quicky from
> the EM radiatied. But impossible particles with molecular sized
> orbits might squirt out the correct losses even if they
> can not really exist. "The most successful theory ever" employs
> particles that can't exist.
I don't have "detractors".
eric gisse
[...]
>
> Not specifically yet, though in theory they should be
> quite the same. An out standing weakness in physics and
> GR is there is no precise definition of mass, so I use
Komar integral, stooopid.
[snip rest]
Ken S. Tucker
<nowh...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/83a724f8f6e...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/68646acd90f...
Well I write the cheques for LIGO, as a taxpayer,
to be honest, as a caring theoretician, my two page
brief blew away the notion of g-waves (apart from EMR).
It costs about 1/100 th to look for the effect in EMR.
Last I read the US was ranked near the 20th in math and
science, and is running a $trillion debt, so we can't
really afford LIGO. Like Gravity Probe-b frame dragging
search, that was null, LIGO has proved the non-existance
of g-waves, hence it did have a use, in that it confirmed
GR requires improvement, along the lines I suggest using
a Unified Field Theory, embracing electical energy,
and Quantum Field Theory in one package.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Juan R.
Yeah Eric you are a fucking lunatic who is still obsessed with being a
smart and knowledeable poster [#] who correct others mistakes.
But the reality is that you are the one who is corrected, as in the above pair
of links.
If it was the first time that you claim smartnees in a topic for just
next to write some nonsense... If it was only the first time Eric...
[#] In your own words: "By such a wide margin it boggles the mind"
Inertial
"Juan R.González-Álvarez" <now...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2010.03...@canonicalscience.com...
This was back in August last year .. why are you dredging it back up again.
You do seem a tad obsessed here.
Juan R.
See, your same double standard and personal obssesion
*Your same double standard*
You care a lot of, when it is showed that Eric was corrected by both Steve
Carlip and Tom Roberts. But you do not care when Eric omitted that in his
usual personal attacks to other poster :-D
You find a BIG problem with me citing a pair of past year links. You find no
problem with Eric "dredging it back up" to arguments done many years ago.
In this same thread Eric wrote to Ken:
"as amply demonstrated by your years of inability to actually prove it."
*Years* in plural.
As is well-known Eric always remind us arguments and discussions
done many years ago. But you do not care with him at that point, of course.
In this thread Eric wrote to Ken:
"STOOOOPID.
Steve Carlip already had this discussion with you. Gravitational radiation
couples to changes in mass quadrupole moments, electromagnetic radiation
couples to charge dipole moments."
You do not care with Eric insulting. You do not care with him citing a discussion
with Carlip done the last year.
However, you CARE A LOT OF when the links to messages are posted here.
You CARE A LOT OF because in that link Carlip (and Tom Roberts) is
correcting Eric mistakes.
Thanks by your dishonesty Inertial. Thanks you very much :-D
*See, your same obssesion*
You have clearly followed me from the other thread just to reply me and to
nobody else.
If you were interested in this thread, in the discussion or inthe facts about
gravitational radiation you had posted here time ago when started.
But you only replied to me and now, after your recent post in the other
thread :-D
Inertial
No double standard at all. Are you going to obsess about me now as well?
> *Your same double standard*
No double standard at all. Are you going to obsess about me now as well?
> You care a lot of, when it is showed that Eric was corrected by both Steve
> Carlip and Tom Roberts.
Not particularly
> But you do not care when Eric omitted that in his
> usual personal attacks to other poster :-D
Eh?
> You find a BIG problem with me citing a pair of past year links.
Did you see me mention a BIG problem? No. Don't lie.
> You find no
> problem with Eric "dredging it back up" to arguments done many years ago.
>
> In this same thread Eric wrote to Ken:
>
> "as amply demonstrated by your years of inability to actually prove it."
>
> *Years* in plural.
Yeup .. Ken has been a crackpot for years and continues to demonstrate it.
But Eric didn't go dredging up old posts to show it (that I saw).
> As is well-known Eric always remind us arguments and discussions
> done many years ago. But you do not care with him at that point, of
> course.
Not when relevant to the discussion. You appear only interested in making
attacks on Eric.
> In this thread Eric wrote to Ken:
>
> "STOOOOPID.
>
> Steve Carlip already had this discussion with you. Gravitational
> radiation
> couples to changes in mass quadrupole moments, electromagnetic radiation
> couples to charge dipole moments."
>
> You do not care with Eric insulting.
Not really, no.
> You do not care with him citing a discussion
> with Carlip done the last year.
Not really, no.
> However, you CARE A LOT OF when the links to messages are posted here.
Nope, not a lot. But your posts are just the same attacks on eric over and
over.
> You CARE A LOT OF because in that link Carlip (and Tom Roberts) is
> correcting Eric mistakes.
Nope .. I've corrected Eric myself in the past
> Thanks by your dishonesty Inertial. Thanks you very much :-D
I am never dishonest.
> *See, your same obssesion*
I have no obsession with you
> You have clearly followed me from the other thread just to reply me and to
> nobody else.
Nope. You just happen to be posting lots of attacks on eric, and it is
annoying.
> If you were interested in this thread, in the discussion or inthe facts
> about
> gravitational radiation you had posted here time ago when started.
>
> But you only replied to me and now, after your recent post in the other
> thread :-D
You are obsessed. Don't flatter yourself, you aren't important enough to be
obsessed over. Just rather irritating at the moment.
Sue...
> On Mar 14, 2:55 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 14, 4:19 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> ...
> > > Hi Sue.
> > > As you know, we currently have numerous 'LIGO' type detectors
> > > on our planet, Dr. Baez informs me that computing the source
> > > of g-waves is difficult as they operate as sort of phase array
> > > system.
> > > We should be able to use this ultra fast binary system as a test,
>
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/fastest-orbiting-stars-100309.html
>
> > > Knowing where to look solves the issue of heavy computation to
> > > a phase arrayed input. (I understand there is an ongoing upgrade
> > > of the LIGO to LIGO advanced).
>
> > > I find (in opposition to the standard GR community) the orbital
> > > decay will appear as EMR using this GR solution to gravitation,
>
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
>
> > Leptons don't grow to be that big without drinking lots of
> > Molson. But as a pseudo particle calculating trick it could work.
>
> > Real leptons can't live in each other's space but pretend
> > leptons can if it makes the wavelength right, ( About the same
> > spectra as CMBR)
>
> Not sure what that means (?).
Your technique alludes to electric charges the same size as
the orbiting bodies. The enormous radiation EM radiation that
would produce doesn't show up in your result but you don't show how it
vanished.
Neither do you explain what would counter the enormous Coulomb
force trying to join the bodies.
I can assume pseudo particles and some superposition maths
that you don't include but others are completely justified
to assume you mean exactly what you wrote and reject it
due to the absence of EM signals such a system would radiate.
>
> > Have you tried it with PSR B1913+16 ?
>
> Not specifically yet, though in theory they should be
> quite the same. An out standing weakness in physics and
> GR is there is no precise definition of mass, so I use
>
http://physics.trak4.com/MST_Mass-Definition.pdf
"Here, I’d like to proceed to show P0 = rest mass, is
consistent with ElectroMagnetically stored energy."
That appears consistent with a 1905 pov where "relativistic mass"
contributes a lot more heat than light to the definition.
The modern pov isn't so ambiguous but it is far from complete.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node126.html
>
> in the absence of standards.
>
> > > Up to this time I haven't pushed that, but if the LIGO remains
> > > silent we may have an improved insight into GR and how the
> > > universe actually functions using EMR unified with gravity,
> > > that is why the work of the LIGO technicians is so important,
> > > and we wish them success in making honest and accurate measures.
>
> > Your detractors are assuming EM dipoles comparable in size to
> > the orbits. Of course that would run down very quicky from
> > the EM radiatied. But impossible particles with molecular sized
> > orbits might squirt out the correct losses even if they
> > can not really exist. "The most successful theory ever" employs
> > particles that can't exist.
>
> I don't have "detractors".
I'll have to try the same spam filter you are using. ;-)
Sue...
Juan R.
You have an incurable need to repeat "obsessive posts", "obsessed person",
"obsessions", "obsess" not just here but in other thread :-D
>> You care a lot of, when it is showed that Eric was corrected by both
>> Steve Carlip and Tom Roberts.
>
> Not particularly
Particularly your wrote about their links:
"This was back in August last year .. why are you dredging it back up
again. You do seem a tad obsessed here."
>> But you do not care when Eric omitted that in his usual personal
>> attacks to other poster :-D
>
> Eh?
Or better "Oooops".
You worried a LOT OF when the corrections of Tom and Steve *to Eric*
were posted here, but you did not worried when Eric lied about the
subject for attacking to other poster.
You 'impartiality' was already noticed before.
>> You find a BIG problem with me citing a pair of past year links.
>
> Did you see me mention a BIG problem? No. Don't lie.
If were to read before reply, you would understand what I said sometinhg
different. Try again.
>> You find no
>> problem with Eric "dredging it back up" to arguments done many years
>> ago.
>>
>> In this same thread Eric wrote to Ken:
>>
>> "as amply demonstrated by your years of inability to actually prove
>> it."
>>
>> *Years* in plural.
>
> Yeup .. Ken has been a crackpot for years and continues to demonstrate
> it. But Eric didn't go dredging up old posts to show it (that I saw).
And this is another instance of your 'impartiality'.
If Eric appeals to discussions maintained years ago, as he did, you
say nothing, even when he is lying about...
However, when two links to past year discussion showing that Eric is
an incompetent regarding gravitational radiation then you attack me,
just because I posted two links here where Eric was corrected.
I recall me correcting both Ken and Eric. Ken does mistakes of course,
but whereas you only cite Ken mistakes, you never worried when Eric, for
weeks, was saying us that the units of c and dc are different or
saying that the units of the speed c(t) are not units of speed but
adimensional (sic) as a(t)!!!
But of course, you are not using double standard. Ken is a crackpot for you
but Eric is not for you :-D
>> As is well-known Eric always remind us arguments and discussions done
>> many years ago. But you do not care with him at that point, of course.
>
> Not when relevant to the discussion. You appear only interested in
> making attacks on Eric.
>
>> In this thread Eric wrote to Ken:
>>
>> "STOOOOPID.
>>
>> Steve Carlip already had this discussion with you. Gravitational
>> radiation
>> couples to changes in mass quadrupole moments, electromagnetic
>> radiation couples to charge dipole moments."
>>
>> You do not care with Eric insulting.
>
> Not really, no.
Evidently
>> You do not care with him citing a discussion with Carlip done the last
>> year.
>
> Not really, no.
Evidently
>> However, you CARE A LOT OF when the links to messages are posted here.
>
> Nope, not a lot. But your posts are just the same attacks on eric over
> and over.
I am only reporting the mistakes and lies that Eric insist on repeating
over and over. If he was not arrogantly citing to Steve Carlip about
gravitational radiation I had not posted the links where Steve Carlip
(and latter Tom roberts) corrected Eric nonsensical claims about
gravitational radiation.
I had not posted the links if Eric original message was not written in
that characteristic arrogant tone full of insults, and if he was not
lying...
Life is that hard :-D
>> If you were interested in this thread, in the discussion or inthe facts
>> about
>> gravitational radiation you had posted here time ago when started.
>>
>> But you only replied to me and now, after your recent post in the other
>> thread :-D
>
> You are obsessed. Don't flatter yourself, you aren't important enough
> to be obsessed over. Just rather irritating at the moment.
See, you have an incurable need to repeat "obsessive posts", "obsessed person",
"obsessions", "obsessed", "obsessed over" "obsess about me" not just here
but in other thread too :-D
Inertial
Only because you are obsessive
>>> You care a lot of, when it is showed that Eric was corrected by both
>>> Steve Carlip and Tom Roberts.
>>
>> Not particularly
>
> Particularly
Nope. Don't lie
> your wrote about their links:
>
> "This was back in August last year ..
A fact
> why are you dredging it back up
> again.
A question
> You do seem a tad obsessed here."
An observation.
I don't see that as 'caring a lot'
>>> But you do not care when Eric omitted that in his usual personal
>>> attacks to other poster :-D
>>
>> Eh?
>
> Or better "Oooops".
No .. eh? I don't know what you mean. Why should I care if Eric does NOT
'attack' other posters'?
> You worried a LOT OF when the corrections of Tom and Steve *to Eric*
> were posted here,
Nope. Don't lie
> but you did not worried when Eric lied about the
> subject for attacking to other poster.
Eh?
> You 'impartiality' was already noticed before.
I am always impartial
>>> You find a BIG problem with me citing a pair of past year links.
>>
>> Did you see me mention a BIG problem? No. Don't lie.
>
> If were to read before reply,
I did
> you would understand what I said sometinhg
> different. Try again.
You lied. Simple as that. There was no BIG problem at all.
>>> You find no
>>> problem with Eric "dredging it back up" to arguments done many years
>>> ago.
>>>
>>> In this same thread Eric wrote to Ken:
>>>
>>> "as amply demonstrated by your years of inability to actually prove
>>> it."
>>>
>>> *Years* in plural.
>>
>> Yeup .. Ken has been a crackpot for years and continues to demonstrate
>> it. But Eric didn't go dredging up old posts to show it (that I saw).
>
> And this is another instance of your 'impartiality'.
Yes .. I am impartial
> If Eric appeals to discussions maintained years ago, as he did, you
> say nothing, even when he is lying about...
I've not seen him lie. And *he* did not go dredging up links to old posts
and trot out example after example of where you have issues with him. You
seem not to see a difference in proportion there
> However, when two links to past year discussion showing that Eric is
> an incompetent regarding gravitational radiation then you attack me,
I didn't attack you.
> just because I posted two links here where Eric was corrected.
That is not ALL you have been psoting
> I recall me correcting both Ken and Eric.
As have I
> Ken does mistakes of course,
that's almost ALL he does
> but whereas you only cite Ken mistakes,
Don'e lie. I also said I correct his mistakes.
> you never worried when Eric, for
> weeks, was saying us that the units of c and dc are different
I didn't see that thread, so cannot comment
> or
> saying that the units of the speed c(t) are not units of speed but
> adimensional (sic) as a(t)!!!
I didn't see that thread, so cannot comment
> But of course, you are not using double standard.
Nope
> Ken is a crackpot for you
> but Eric is not for you :-D
Yes. There is a difference between them.
>>> As is well-known Eric always remind us arguments and discussions done
>>> many years ago. But you do not care with him at that point, of course.
>>
>> Not when relevant to the discussion. You appear only interested in
>> making attacks on Eric.
>>
>>> In this thread Eric wrote to Ken:
>>>
>>> "STOOOOPID.
>>>
>>> Steve Carlip already had this discussion with you. Gravitational
>>> radiation
>>> couples to changes in mass quadrupole moments, electromagnetic
>>> radiation couples to charge dipole moments."
>>>
>>> You do not care with Eric insulting.
>>
>> Not really, no.
>
> Evidently
>
>>> You do not care with him citing a discussion with Carlip done the last
>>> year.
>>
>> Not really, no.
>
> Evidently
>
>>> However, you CARE A LOT OF when the links to messages are posted here.
>>
>> Nope, not a lot. But your posts are just the same attacks on eric over
>> and over.
>
> I am only reporting the mistakes and lies that Eric insist on repeating
> over and over.
You are posting them over and over. How about you worry about what he is
saying NOW. A passing reference to him making some similar mistakes in hte
past is fine .. but it is the scope of these attacks on him that are ...
obsessive.
> If he was not arrogantly citing to Steve Carlip about
> gravitational radiation
What is arrogant about that?
> I had not posted the links where Steve Carlip
> (and latter Tom roberts) corrected Eric nonsensical claims about
> gravitational radiation.
>
> I had not posted the links if Eric original message was not written in
> that characteristic arrogant tone full of insults, and if he was not
> lying...
>
> Life is that hard :-D
I'm not sure why you think it is hard
>>> If you were interested in this thread, in the discussion or inthe facts
>>> about
>>> gravitational radiation you had posted here time ago when started.
>>>
>>> But you only replied to me and now, after your recent post in the other
>>> thread :-D
>>
>> You are obsessed. Don't flatter yourself, you aren't important enough
>> to be obsessed over. Just rather irritating at the moment.
>
> See, you have an incurable need to repeat "obsessive posts", "obsessed
> person",
> "obsessions", "obsessed", "obsessed over" "obsess about me" not just here
> but in other thread too :-D
An incurable need to be truthful. Because that is what you are doing ..
obsessing .. and now you're dragging me into it. Stop obsessing. It is
irritating and pointless. And your continual posts on the subject are
simply proving me right.
Ken S. Tucker
No, the calculation is a summation of all relating charge
couples have a glance at Eq.(5) and see a residual attractive
force, the result of that is a force in proportion to the
potential energy of the charge, i.e it's energy (mass),
f = - M*M/x^2
When summed over all charge couples, in a neutral body system
such as Earth and Moon, the attractive residual is gravity.
> The enormous radiation EM radiation that
> would produce doesn't show up in your result but you don't show how it
> vanished.
> Neither do you explain what would counter the enormous Coulomb
> force trying to join the bodies.
I hope I did so above, I'll stress the effect of gravity is
between neutral bodies.
> I can assume pseudo particles and some superposition maths
> that you don't include but others are completely justified
> to assume you mean exactly what you wrote and reject it
> due to the absence of EM signals such a system would radiate.
It radiates when a partial diff wrt time is taken to Eq.(2).
> > > Have you tried it with PSR B1913+16 ?
>
> > Not specifically yet, though in theory they should be
> > quite the same. An out standing weakness in physics and
> > GR is there is no precise definition of mass, so I use
>
> http://physics.trak4.com/MST_Mass-Definition.pdf
> "Here, I’d like to proceed to show P0 = rest mass, is
> consistent with ElectroMagnetically stored energy."
>
> That appears consistent with a 1905 pov where "relativistic mass"
> contributes a lot more heat than light to the definition.
>
> The modern pov isn't so ambiguous but it is far from complete.
>
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node126.html
Actually there is no "definition" of mass in that link, that you
Sue provided.
> > > > Up to this time I haven't pushed that, but if the LIGO remains
> > > > silent we may have an improved insight into GR and how the
> > > > universe actually functions using EMR unified with gravity,
> > > > that is why the work of the LIGO technicians is so important,
> > > > and we wish them success in making honest and accurate measures.
>
> > > Your detractors are assuming EM dipoles comparable in size to
> > > the orbits. Of course that would run down very quicky from
> > > the EM radiatied. But impossible particles with molecular sized
> > > orbits might squirt out the correct losses even if they
> > > can not really exist. "The most successful theory ever" employs
> > > particles that can't exist.
>
> > I don't have "detractors".
>
> I'll have to try the same spam filter you are using. ;-)
Sometimes I walk out the door and neighbors dog barks at
me, and I throw it a weiner, is the dog a detractor?
A true detractor is a brilliant asset, able to find a fault
and then maybe point in the direction of improvement.
In High School I presented a means to trisect an angle,
the Prof thought about for a minute and disproved it, it
was absolutely excellent how he did it.
The method I used was considered to be good by other
students, but it was not perfect.
That kind of detractor puts a smile on my face.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Ken S. Tucker
<nowh...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
...
> >> In this same thread Eric wrote to Ken:
> >> "as amply demonstrated by your years of inability to actually prove
> >> it."
I missed that comment, gee whiz...
In the 70's I was recommended to be an assistant Prof,
so I looked about at who I'd be obligated to teach and
9/10 were dough-heads like Eric and the ding-bat that
calls itself Inertial (true fat-head, that ding-bat can't
remember his own name).
So 90% of them is useless baby sitting.
I was interviewed by a number of Prof's and made mistakes,
quite a few I think, but there is something called a
respectable mistake, such as, a Prof thinking, 'If I had
thought of that, I would have made the same mistake'.
Honest mistakes must happen in theoretics, unless one
knows it all, and thinking can be terminated, some guy
writes 'the end of science'.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Sue...
Yes... I understand that. It is the induction-gravity
mechanism. The brevity of your paper might be faulted
but not the concept.
> ...the result of that is a force in proportion to the
> potential energy of the charge, i.e it's energy (mass),
> f = - M*M/x^2
> When summed over all charge couples, in a neutral body system
> such as Earth and Moon, the attractive residual is gravity.
Whether this is the best way to quantify the residual is surely
debatable. It might be the best because it is mathematically
simple where more appropriate methods like Ewald sums have
difficulty finding enough computation power for even small
simulations.
>
> > The enormous radiation EM radiation that
> > would produce doesn't show up in your result but you don't show how it
> > vanished.
> > Neither do you explain what would counter the enormous Coulomb
> > force trying to join the bodies.
>
> I hope I did so above, I'll stress the effect of gravity is
> between neutral bodies.
Yes... I hope so too but I have a hunch some of the detractors you
claim don't exist :-) are actually defending competing theories. What
they
falsely think is a soft-spot subject to easy attack is quantitativly
the same as General Relativity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
>
> > I can assume pseudo particles and some superposition maths
> > that you don't include but others are completely justified
> > to assume you mean exactly what you wrote and reject it
> > due to the absence of EM signals such a system would radiate.
>
> It radiates when a partial diff wrt time is taken to Eq.(2).
Reader don't have to take our word for that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennard-Jones_potential
>
>
>
> > > > Have you tried it with PSR B1913+16 ?
>
> > > Not specifically yet, though in theory they should be
> > > quite the same. An out standing weakness in physics and
> > > GR is there is no precise definition of mass, so I use
>
http://physics.trak4.com/MST_Mass-Definition.pdf
> > "Here, I’d like to proceed to show P0 = rest mass, is
> > consistent with ElectroMagnetically stored energy."
>
> > That appears consistent with a 1905 pov where "relativistic mass"
> > contributes a lot more heat than light to the definition.
>
> > The modern pov isn't so ambiguous but it is far from complete.
>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node126.html
>
> Actually there is no "definition" of mass in that link, that you
> Sue provided.
True... but the statements about inertial mass differ enough
from your chosen definition that you might want to reconsider
your choice.
No reason to use a square wheel more than once.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9807044
>
>
>
> > > > > Up to this time I haven't pushed that, but if the LIGO remains
> > > > > silent we may have an improved insight into GR and how the
> > > > > universe actually functions using EMR unified with gravity,
> > > > > that is why the work of the LIGO technicians is so important,
> > > > > and we wish them success in making honest and accurate measures.
>
> > > > Your detractors are assuming EM dipoles comparable in size to
> > > > the orbits. Of course that would run down very quicky from
> > > > the EM radiatied. But impossible particles with molecular sized
> > > > orbits might squirt out the correct losses even if they
> > > > can not really exist. "The most successful theory ever" employs
> > > > particles that can't exist.
>
> > > I don't have "detractors".
>
> > I'll have to try the same spam filter you are using. ;-)
>
> Sometimes I walk out the door and neighbors dog barks at
> me, and I throw it a weiner, is the dog a detractor?
The dog is a teacher. When the dog throws you weiners
then you have mastered your lessons.
>
> A true detractor is a brilliant asset, able to find a fault
> and then maybe point in the direction of improvement.
>
> In High School I presented a means to trisect an angle,
> the Prof thought about for a minute and disproved it, it
> was absolutely excellent how he did it.
> The method I used was considered to be good by other
> students, but it was not perfect.
> That kind of detractor puts a smile on my face.
That doesn't sound like a knee-jerk defence of his own
notions. I hope your participation in this forum isn't
the only thing that makes you smile. ;-)
Juan R.
And you continue suffering from your incurable need to repeat the word
and derivatives "obsessive posts", "obsessed person", "obsessions",
"obsessed", "obsessed over", "obsess about me", "obsessive.morons",
"you are obsessive" :-D
Just curious, what will happen when you exhaust that word, will you change
to some synonim or you restart again the series?
>>>> You care a lot of, when it is showed that Eric was corrected by both
>>>> Steve Carlip and Tom Roberts.
>>>
>>> Not particularly
>>
>> Particularly
>
> Nope. Don't lie
"Not particularly" or "Particularly" or what?
>> your wrote about their links:
>>
>> "This was back in August last year ..
>
> A fact
>
>> why are you dredging it back up
>> again.
>
> A question
>
>> You do seem a tad obsessed here."
>
> An observation.
>
> I don't see that as 'caring a lot'
Not alone, but when it is taken in context.
>>>> But you do not care when Eric omitted that in his usual personal
>>>> attacks to other poster :-D
>>>
>>> Eh?
>>
>> Or better "Oooops".
>
> No .. eh? I don't know what you mean. Why should I care if Eric does
> NOT 'attack' other posters'?
Or still "Oooops" Try to read again.
>> You worried a LOT OF when the corrections of Tom and Steve *to Eric*
>> were posted here,
>
> Nope. Don't lie
Read what you wrote. And notice the absence of any posting from you
when Eric cited Steve.
>> but you did not worried when Eric lied about the subject for attacking
>> to other poster.
>
> Eh?
>
>> You 'impartiality' was already noticed before.
>
> I am always impartial
And you have proved that already. Maybe you would change your nick
from inertial to 'impartial' :-D
>>>> You find a BIG problem with me citing a pair of past year links.
>>>
>>> Did you see me mention a BIG problem? No. Don't lie.
>>
>> If were to read before reply,
>
> I did
Then you may be lying.
>> you would understand what I said sometinhg different. Try again.
>
> You lied. Simple as that. There was no BIG problem at all.
Now you wrote something different than in above. Just an advice, when you
want to lie about that you write, wait several posts before doing it.
Otherwise different phrases are separated only by some few lines. At least
this is that Eric Gisse does (he usually wait months)
>>>> You find no
>>>> problem with Eric "dredging it back up" to arguments done many years
>>>> ago.
>>>>
>>>> In this same thread Eric wrote to Ken:
>>>>
>>>> "as amply demonstrated by your years of inability to actually prove
>>>> it."
>>>>
>>>> *Years* in plural.
>>>
>>> Yeup .. Ken has been a crackpot for years and continues to demonstrate
>>> it. But Eric didn't go dredging up old posts to show it (that I saw).
>>
>> And this is another instance of your 'impartiality'.
>
> Yes .. I am impartial
But you were not inertial? :-D
>> If Eric appeals to discussions maintained years ago, as he did, you say
>> nothing, even when he is lying about...
>
> I've not seen him lie.
Your already noticed us, before, your partial blindness.
> And *he* did not go dredging up links to old
> posts
I recall him giving links to 2006, 2009 posts from him in other threads.
Here he could not do it because if Eric was to do that, everybody would
see that the messages say something different.
For example the links given above prove that Eric does not understand gravitational
radiation. I recall other examples with Eric saying nonsense about binary pulsars...
> and trot out example after example of where you have issues with
> him. You seem not to see a difference in proportion there
And you care a lot of when links to messages are given.
But you say *nothing* about Eric nonsenses, lies, and insults... this is
impartially of the first kind.
>> However, when two links to past year discussion showing that Eric is an
>> incompetent regarding gravitational radiation then you attack me,
>
> I didn't attack you.
You did and do.
>> just because I posted two links here where Eric was corrected.
>
> That is not ALL you have been psoting
That was when you started to post here.
>> I recall me correcting both Ken and Eric.
>
> As have I
>
>> Ken does mistakes of course,
>
> that's almost ALL he does
Another impartial remark from "Mr I am impartial".
I *never* saw Ken doing one of the nonsenses that did Eric
famous.
>> but whereas you only cite Ken mistakes,
>
> Don'e lie. I also said I correct his mistakes.
>
>> you never worried when Eric, for
>> weeks, was saying us that the units of c and dc are different
>
> I didn't see that thread, so cannot comment
That was three threads. One in sci.physics.research. When Eric mistakes,
at the physics 101 level, were first noticed, and the by sanity, the
discussion was redirected to this nws.
Here for weeks hundred of messages were posted explaining to Eric physics
101 and calculus 101. There was also a parallel thread in sci.physics.
Curious that you did not see any of that.
If Ken or any other was posted only *one* (repeat only *one*) of the
authentic idiocies that Eric wrote (as what the units of c and dc
are different), you and a dozen of self-proclaimed impartial people as
you would be ready to attack him...
>> or
>> saying that the units of the speed c(t) are not units of speed but
>> adimensional (sic) as a(t)!!!
>
> I didn't see that thread, so cannot comment
Curious that you did not see any of that.
>> But of course, you are not using double standard.
>
> Nope
You have only selective vision...
>> Ken is a crackpot for you
>> but Eric is not for you :-D
>
> Yes. There is a difference between them.
Ok, for you a non-crackpot is Eric who says
c(t), a speed, has not units of speed
"No. The special relativistic Hamiltonian is H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/ c^2 ]
as c(t) is the same than a(t)
acceleration is given by d[x]^2 /dt^2
dx is a derivative not a differential
the units of x and dx are different
g_ab g^cd = delta^c_a delta^d_b
p=mv holds in relativity
proper time is not invariant
pc - (\sqrt (m^2c^4 + p^2c^2) ) = pc when m=0
and hundred more about electrodynamics, cosmology,
thermodynamics, kinetic theory...
And a crackpot for you is Ken who never said the above.
Other people has a different definition of crackpot and consider
that Eric is also a crackpot.
Can you live with that?
And the passing reference was done in the first place, but then you did
not like it and started this to save Eric campaign.
And how to forget your incurable need to repeat "obsessive posts",
"obsessed person", "obsessions", "obsessed", "obsessed over",
"obsess about me", obsessive...
>> If he was not arrogantly citing to Steve Carlip about gravitational
>> radiation
>
> What is arrogant about that?
His omision of what said to him. Eric well-known attitude to present himself
as an expert. Nothing news there is hundred of examples where Eric presents
himself as expert and then just do elementary mistakes proving the contrary.
This is a post by Rock that fizes the point:
"In fact, do me a favor: get your sorry, ignorant, USENET-addicted ass
the HELL out of my group. And take your damned testosterone-OD'ed sock
puppets Androcles, Pentecho or whatever other names you post under
along with you. And stop WASTING my time with this bullshit of yours.
Acting like you're some kind of expert when you don't even know basic
terms in algebra, like "signature". Get an education Eric and stop
wasting others time on here too.""
>> I had not posted the links where Steve Carlip (and latter Tom roberts)
>> corrected Eric nonsensical claims about gravitational radiation.
>>
>> I had not posted the links if Eric original message was not written in
>> that characteristic arrogant tone full of insults, and if he was not
>> lying...
>>
>> Life is that hard :-D
>
> I'm not sure why you think it is hard
It is hard for people as Eric who pretend to insult/lie/write nonsense
waiting others to remain silent without noticing his mistakes and lies.
>>>> If you were interested in this thread, in the discussion or inthe
>>>> facts about
>>>> gravitational radiation you had posted here time ago when started.
>>>>
>>>> But you only replied to me and now, after your recent post in the
>>>> other thread :-D
>>>
>>> You are obsessed. Don't flatter yourself, you aren't important enough
>>> to be obsessed over. Just rather irritating at the moment.
>>
>> See, you have an incurable need to repeat "obsessive posts", "obsessed
>> person",
>> "obsessions", "obsessed", "obsessed over" "obsess about me" not just
>> here but in other thread too :-D
>
> An incurable need to be truthful. Because that is what you are doing ..
> obsessing .. and now you're dragging me into it. Stop obsessing. It is
> irritating and pointless. And your continual posts on the subject are
> simply proving me right.
Evidently you have an incurable need to repeat "obsessive posts",
"obsessed person", "obsessions", "obsessed", "obsessed over",
"obsess about me"... Are you ready to start with a new family of words
"irritating nonsense", "irritating for", "irritating.morons",
"irritation"... :-D
eric gisse
> On Mar 15, 9:06 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <nowh...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> ...
>> >> In this same thread Eric wrote to Ken:
>> >> "as amply demonstrated by your years of inability to actually prove
>> >> it."
>
> I missed that comment, gee whiz...
> In the 70's I was recommended to be an assistant Prof,
Ah, the glory days. 40 years ago.
> so I looked about at who I'd be obligated to teach and
> 9/10 were dough-heads like Eric and the ding-bat that
> calls itself Inertial (true fat-head, that ding-bat can't
> remember his own name).
> So 90% of them is useless baby sitting.
>
> I was interviewed by a number of Prof's and made mistakes,
> quite a few I think, but there is something called a
> respectable mistake, such as, a Prof thinking, 'If I had
> thought of that, I would have made the same mistake'.
> Honest mistakes must happen in theoretics, unless one
> knows it all, and thinking can be terminated, some guy
> writes 'the end of science'.
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
So Ken, when you continue to assert that frame dragging does not exist with
more than 5 years of people showing you literature references that prove
otherwise is that an honest mistake? Or are you just that fucking stupid?
eric gisse
> On Mar 14, 4:19 pm, "Juan R." Gonz�lez-�lvarez
> <nowh...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/83a724f8f6e...
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/68646acd90f...
>
> Well I write the cheques for LIGO, as a taxpayer,
> to be honest, as a caring theoretician, my two page
> brief blew away the notion of g-waves (apart from EMR).
Since you still can't compute the power radiated by a binary system, or
address even one of the arguments Steve Carlip and myself have put towards
you over the years, it is clear that you couldn't blow your way out of a wet
paper bag.
> It costs about 1/100 th to look for the effect in EMR.
You STILLLLL don't know the difference between gravitational quadrupole
moments and electromagnetic dipole moments. USENET is a monument to your
idiocy.
>
> Last I read the US was ranked near the 20th in math and
> science, and is running a $trillion debt, so we can't
> really afford LIGO.
LIGO is already built, stupid.
> Like Gravity Probe-b frame dragging
> search, that was null,
Liar liar moron on fire.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html
> LIGO has proved the non-existance
> of g-waves,
No, moron, that's not what it has proved.
> hence it did have a use, in that it confirmed
> GR requires improvement, along the lines I suggest using
> a Unified Field Theory, embracing electical energy,
> and Quantum Field Theory in one package.
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
eric gisse
[...]
Nothing says you are a bedrock of sanity like going through each and every
one of my old posts looking for times I've been incorrect.
While I don't enjoy the stalking and outright insanity, I do enjoy how I am
"wrong" when corrected by Tom Roberts/Steve Carlip but when Juan is
corrected the same standard does not apply. I'm sure this will get a long
whining copy-pasted rant from Juan R. again but I won't see it because he's
back into the killfile.
That much bad attitude is poor fung shui. It also gives cancer and ulcers.
>> You find no
>> problem with Eric "dredging it back up" to arguments done many years ago.
>>
>> In this same thread Eric wrote to Ken:
>>
>> "as amply demonstrated by your years of inability to actually prove it."
>>
>> *Years* in plural.
>
> Yeup .. Ken has been a crackpot for years and continues to demonstrate it.
> But Eric didn't go dredging up old posts to show it (that I saw).
I routinely drag up old posts when it serves to prove a point. Like how Ken
has been making the same lies for years, for example.
[...]
Inertial
[snip more obsession .. its not even irritating now, just boring .. yawn]
Inertial
"eric gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hnmeau$1cp$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Inertial wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Nothing says you are a bedrock of sanity like going through each and every
> one of my old posts looking for times I've been incorrect.
Indeed .. and (this latest time) all because you posted that someone had
written a bad article.
> While I don't enjoy the stalking and outright insanity, I do enjoy how I
> am
> "wrong" when corrected by Tom Roberts/Steve Carlip but when Juan is
> corrected the same standard does not apply.
Funny that.
> I'm sure this will get a long
> whining copy-pasted rant from Juan R. again but I won't see it because
> he's
> back into the killfile.
:):)
> That much bad attitude is poor fung shui. It also gives cancer and ulcers.
>
>>> You find no
>>> problem with Eric "dredging it back up" to arguments done many years
>>> ago.
>>>
>>> In this same thread Eric wrote to Ken:
>>>
>>> "as amply demonstrated by your years of inability to actually prove
>>> it."
>>>
>>> *Years* in plural.
>>
>> Yeup .. Ken has been a crackpot for years and continues to demonstrate
>> it.
>> But Eric didn't go dredging up old posts to show it (that I saw).
>
> I routinely drag up old posts when it serves to prove a point. Like how
> Ken
> has been making the same lies for years, for example.
Yes indeed he does .. all I've seen if you mention that he has been wrong
for years .. BUT I've not seen you provide long and extensive lists of links
to old threads, and quotes from them, that you've kept archived away so you
can produce as evidence.
One doesn't need to .. as Ken conveniently makes the same mistakes over and
over.
Anyway .. this is all getting rather boring. Yawn.
Ken S. Tucker
Frankly I rather expected in 2005 the LIGO scopes would be
booming in a signal by 2010 and the GP-b would have measured
'frame-dragging' confirming conventional GR, so the calculations
I presented would have been unecessary but of pedantic interest.
I guess we should update it with more detail.
> > ...the result of that is a force in proportion to the
> > potential energy of the charge, i.e it's energy (mass),
> > f = - M*M/x^2
> > When summed over all charge couples, in a neutral body system
> > such as Earth and Moon, the attractive residual is gravity.
>
> Whether this is the best way to quantify the residual is surely
> debatable. It might be the best because it is mathematically
> simple where more appropriate methods like Ewald sums have
> difficulty finding enough computation power for even small
> simulations.
It really is quite simple, convert the Earth into a gazillion
charge couples to get the appropriate stored mass (electrically
stored potential energy), do the same for the moon to get about
a bazillion charges, then sum each of the gazillion with all
the bazillions and sum the residual attraction, to find how
much the Earth and Moon attract.
I could put that in writing if you want.
> > > The enormous radiation EM radiation that
> > > would produce doesn't show up in your result but you don't show how it
> > > vanished.
> > > Neither do you explain what would counter the enormous Coulomb
> > > force trying to join the bodies.
>
> > I hope I did so above, I'll stress the effect of gravity is
> > between neutral bodies.
>
> Yes... I hope so too but I have a hunch some of the detractors you
> claim don't exist :-) are actually defending competing theories. What
> they
> falsely think is a soft-spot subject to easy attack is quantitativly
> the same as General Relativity.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
Well there's always more than one way to skin a cat.
Our competition is with Mother Nature.
> > > I can assume pseudo particles and some superposition maths
> > > that you don't include but others are completely justified
> > > to assume you mean exactly what you wrote and reject it
> > > due to the absence of EM signals such a system would radiate.
>
> > It radiates when a partial diff wrt time is taken to Eq.(2).
>
> Reader don't have to take our word for that.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennard-Jones_potential
> > > > > Have you tried it with PSR B1913+16 ?
>
> > > > Not specifically yet, though in theory they should be
> > > > quite the same. An out standing weakness in physics and
> > > > GR is there is no precise definition of mass, so I use
>
> http://physics.trak4.com/MST_Mass-Definition.pdf
>
> > > "Here, I’d like to proceed to show P0 = rest mass, is
> > > consistent with ElectroMagnetically stored energy."
>
> > > That appears consistent with a 1905 pov where "relativistic mass"
> > > contributes a lot more heat than light to the definition.
>
> > > The modern pov isn't so ambiguous but it is far from complete.
>
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node126.html
>
> > Actually there is no "definition" of mass in that link, that you
> > Sue provided.
>
> True... but the statements about inertial mass differ enough
> from your chosen definition that you might want to reconsider
> your choice.
The rest mass definition P_0 = a*b/ x^0 is dependent on time,
and the fundamental charge. It's ok for theoretics but an
improved definition for a lab standard, I think is needed,
what did you have in mind?
> No reason to use a square wheel more than once.
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9807044
>
> > > > > > Up to this time I haven't pushed that, but if the LIGO remains
> > > > > > silent we may have an improved insight into GR and how the
> > > > > > universe actually functions using EMR unified with gravity,
> > > > > > that is why the work of the LIGO technicians is so important,
> > > > > > and we wish them success in making honest and accurate measures.
>
> > > > > Your detractors are assuming EM dipoles comparable in size to
> > > > > the orbits. Of course that would run down very quicky from
> > > > > the EM radiatied. But impossible particles with molecular sized
> > > > > orbits might squirt out the correct losses even if they
> > > > > can not really exist. "The most successful theory ever" employs
> > > > > particles that can't exist.
>
> > > > I don't have "detractors".
>
> > > I'll have to try the same spam filter you are using. ;-)
>
> > Sometimes I walk out the door and neighbors dog barks at
> > me, and I throw it a weiner, is the dog a detractor?
>
> The dog is a teacher. When the dog throws you weiners
> then you have mastered your lessons.
I had a weiner dog when I was kid.
> > A true detractor is a brilliant asset, able to find a fault
> > and then maybe point in the direction of improvement.
>
> > In High School I presented a means to trisect an angle,
> > the Prof thought about for a minute and disproved it, it
> > was absolutely excellent how he did it.
> > The method I used was considered to be good by other
> > students, but it was not perfect.
> > That kind of detractor puts a smile on my face.
>
> That doesn't sound like a knee-jerk defence of his own
> notions. I hope your participation in this forum isn't
> the only thing that makes you smile. ;-)
LOL, maybe I'll catch you with you panties down and put
a smile on your face, complete with a blush.
John Park
>> <nowh...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/83a724f8f6e...
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/68646acd90f...
>>
>> Well I write the cheques for LIGO, as a taxpayer,
Forgot about this. Does it mean Tucker has finaly left Canada for good?
(Too much too hope, I suspect.)
>> to be honest, as a caring theoretician, my two
page >> brief blew away the notion of g-waves (apart from EMR).
>
> Since you still can't compute the power radiated by a binary system, or
> address even one of the arguments Steve Carlip and myself have put towards
> you over the years, it is clear that you couldn't blow your way out of a wet
> paper bag.
>
>> It costs about 1/100 th to look for the effect in EMR.
>
> You STILLLLL don't know the difference between gravitational quadrupole
> moments and electromagnetic dipole moments. USENET is a monument to your
> idiocy.
>
>>
>> Last I read the US was ranked near the 20th in math and
>> science, and is running a $trillion debt, so we can't
>> really afford LIGO.
We?
--John Park
eric gisse
[....]
> Frankly I rather expected in 2005 the LIGO scopes would be
> booming in a signal by 2010
Only if you think the expected signal numbers are wildly underestimating
things.
> and the GP-b would have measured
> 'frame-dragging' confirming conventional GR
It did, you fucking moron. How many times do you need to be corrected?
[snip rest, unread]
Sue...
The mention of a bizillion charge couples makes
it clearer that you are not assuming a net positive
charge on one body and a net negative charge on
the other body. I have seen several readers junp
to that conclusion.
That doesn't explain what happens if the moon
has too few charges to couple with every charge
on earth the way molecular dynamics does.
The special case of equal sized bodies might
be sufficient to show your substitution of
mass-energy equivalence is valid. Unequal
bodies might extrapolate from that.
We know the right answers from orbital
mechanics.
The induction mechanism is not dependent on time
but rather orientation so almost anything seems
more attractive (pun convenient) than relativistic
mass.
Since you are working with fundamental particles,
this might keep some useful terms close at hand:
<< Quantum mass manifests itself as a difference
between an object’s quantum frequency and its wave
number. The quantum mass of an electron, the Compton
wavelength, can be determined through various forms
of spectroscopy and is closely related to the Rydberg
constant, the Bohr radius, and the classical electron
radius. The quantum mass of larger objects can be
directly measured using a watt balance. >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass#Summary_of_mass_related_phenomena
Promises promises....
Sue...
Juan R.
And turning your own argument back into your face, when you continue to
assert that H=L with more than 2 years of people showing you literature
references that prove otherwise is that an honest mistake? Or are you
just that fucking stupid? Or do we need to wait other 3 years to ask this
to you? :-D
Or does your argument only apply to other posters but never to you.
I believe this is what "Mr. I am honest" think.
Juan R.
Evidently you have an incurable need to repeat "obsessive posts",
"obsessed person", "obsessions", "obsessed", "obsessed over", "obsess
about me", "are obsessive", "more obsession"...
Next you started with a new family of words "irritating nonsense",
"irritating for", "irritating.morons", "irritation",
"the.irritating.moron" "irritating now"...
Will you start a new series now starting with "boring"?
Juan R.
> Inertial wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Nothing says you are a bedrock of sanity like going through each and
> every one of my old posts looking for times I've been incorrect.
>
> While I don't enjoy the stalking and outright insanity, I do enjoy how I
> am "wrong" when corrected by Tom Roberts/Steve Carlip but when Juan is
> corrected the same standard does not apply.
It applies of course. Both have corrected me sometimes and I thank both of
them for corrections.
You are so worried here because *you* said that Ken does not understand
gravitational radiation (which is true) but *you* dishonestly omitted to
report the idiocies that *you* also said about gravitational radiation.
*You* worried a lot of, when I added the links to Tom Roberts and Steve
Carlip correcting *you*.
> I'm sure this will get a
> long whining copy-pasted rant from Juan R. again but I won't see it
> because he's back into the killfile.
Poor Eric... but there is not killfile for the links given above.
And no killfile will hide your mistakes, and not killfile will allow
you to post any nonsense that you want in this nws :-D
> That much bad attitude is poor fung shui. It also gives cancer and
> ulcers.
One of the reasons which you were asked to change your attitude!
You would not be *that* angry with rest of world becasue you were forced to abandon
your past fantasies about being a smart physicist and mathematician.
Recall that nobody else except you is responsible of your current status of
dropout. You are not "smart". Point.
>>> You find no
>>> problem with Eric "dredging it back up" to arguments done many years
>>> ago.
>>>
>>> In this same thread Eric wrote to Ken:
>>>
>>> "as amply demonstrated by your years of inability to actually prove
>>> it."
>>>
>>> *Years* in plural.
>>
>> Yeup .. Ken has been a crackpot for years and continues to demonstrate
>> it. But Eric didn't go dredging up old posts to show it (that I saw).
>
> I routinely drag up old posts when it serves to prove a point. Like how
> Ken has been making the same lies for years, for example.
Of course, and this fact was noticed to him, but "Mr. I am honest" already
proved he suffers from partial blindness :-D
Juan R.
> "eric gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hnmeau$1cp$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Inertial wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Nothing says you are a bedrock of sanity like going through each and
>> every one of my old posts looking for times I've been incorrect.
>
> Indeed .. and (this latest time) all because you posted that someone had
> written a bad article.
If it was only half true...
>> While I don't enjoy the stalking and outright insanity, I do enjoy how
>> I am
>> "wrong" when corrected by Tom Roberts/Steve Carlip but when Juan is
>> corrected the same standard does not apply.
>
> Funny that.
Yes, it was funny.
>> I'm sure this will get a long
>> whining copy-pasted rant from Juan R. again but I won't see it because
>> he's
>> back into the killfile.
>
> :):)
Ostrichs do something similar when see lions but lions still can see ostrichs :-D
>> That much bad attitude is poor fung shui. It also gives cancer and
>> ulcers.
>>
>>>> You find no
>>>> problem with Eric "dredging it back up" to arguments done many years
>>>> ago.
>>>>
>>>> In this same thread Eric wrote to Ken:
>>>>
>>>> "as amply demonstrated by your years of inability to actually prove
>>>> it."
>>>>
>>>> *Years* in plural.
>>>
>>> Yeup .. Ken has been a crackpot for years and continues to demonstrate
>>> it.
>>> But Eric didn't go dredging up old posts to show it (that I saw).
>>
>> I routinely drag up old posts when it serves to prove a point. Like how
>> Ken
>> has been making the same lies for years, for example.
>
> Yes indeed he does .. all I've seen if you mention that he has been
> wrong for years .. BUT I've not seen you provide long and extensive
> lists of links to old threads, and quotes from them, that you've kept
> archived away so you can produce as evidence.
Another instance of your partial blindness.
Ken S. Tucker
Yes, I'll see if we can generate a brief on that.
Actually Eq.(4) from
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
S^2 = X^2 + a*b Eq.(4)
is the most fundamental in that brief, and doesn't need
any orientation.
Well you're becoming such a 'smarty pants' you'll be catching
me with my panties around my ankles!
> Sue...
I see it's been 5 years since I upgraded that brief, and we've
learned more since then, good of you Sue to suggest that.
Thank you
Ken S. Tucker
Sue...
> S^2 = X^2 + a*b Eq.(4)
> is the most fundamental in that brief, and doesn't need
> any orientation.
>
<<The last term in Eq.(5) is always negative,
independent of the relative polarities of charges
"a" and "b", hence it is a residual attractive
force in the charge couple. >>
http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
The relevant orientation is illustrated at the
top of page 2.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
Suggesting work for others is never a problem.
I can do it all day without even breaking a sweat.
Sue...
eric gisse
[...]
> I see it's been 5 years since I upgraded that brief, and we've
> learned more since then, good of you Sue to suggest that.
> Thank you
> Ken S. Tucker
When are you going to update it to remove the greviously incorrect parts?
Inertial
[boring, snipped]
Inertial
news:pan.2010.03...@canonicalscience.com...
>
>> "eric gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hnmeau$1cp$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Inertial wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Nothing says you are a bedrock of sanity like going through each and
>>> every one of my old posts looking for times I've been incorrect.
>>
>> Indeed .. and (this latest time) all because you posted that someone had
>> written a bad article.
>
> If it was only half true...
It is completely true
BTW: I think I have been confusing you references to 'ken' as 'ken seto',
not 'ken tucker' .. I'm not sure.
[rest boring again .. snipped]
Juan R.
> "Juan R.González-Álvarez" <now...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
> message news:pan.2010.03...@canonicalscience.com...
>> Inertial wrote on Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:54:03 +1100:
>>
>>> "eric gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hnmeau$1cp$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Inertial wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Nothing says you are a bedrock of sanity like going through each and
>>>> every one of my old posts looking for times I've been incorrect.
>>>
>>> Indeed .. and (this latest time) all because you posted that someone
>>> had written a bad article.
>>
>> If it was only half true...
>
> It is completely true
In less than a 50% :-D
> BTW: I think I have been confusing you references to 'ken' as 'ken
> seto', not 'ken tucker' .. I'm not sure.
I think that I never wrote 'ken' in this thread, but if you are
not sure... maybe it is just another proof that you suffer some
kind of partial blindness.
> [rest boring again .. snipped]
Evidently you had an incurable need to repeat "obsessive posts",
"obsessed person", "obsessions", "obsessed", "obsessed over", "obsess
about me"...
Next you started with a new family of words that you need to repeat
"irritating nonsense", "irritating for", "irritating.morons", "irritation",
"the.irritating.moron" "irritating now"...
Now you follow with a new incurable need to repeat boring and
derivatives: "just boring", "boring ..", "rest boring"...
Juan R.
Evidently you had an incurable need to repeat "obsessive posts",
"obsessed person", "obsessions", "obsessed", "obsessed over", "obsess
about me"...
Next you started with a new family of words that you need to repeat
"irritating nonsense", "irritating for", "irritating.morons", "irritation",
"the.irritating.moron" "irritating now"...
Now you follow with a new incurable need to repeat boring and
derivatives: "just boring", "boring ..", "rest boring", "boring,"...
Inertial
news:pan.2010.03...@canonicalscience.com...
> Inertial wrote on Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:20:57 +1100:
>
>> "Juan R.González-Álvarez" <now...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
>> message news:pan.2010.03...@canonicalscience.com...
>>> Inertial wrote on Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:54:03 +1100:
>>>
>>>> "eric gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:hnmeau$1cp$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> Inertial wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing says you are a bedrock of sanity like going through each and
>>>>> every one of my old posts looking for times I've been incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed .. and (this latest time) all because you posted that someone
>>>> had written a bad article.
>>>
>>> If it was only half true...
>>
>> It is completely true
>
> In less than a 50% :-D
Wrong
[boring .. go away]
Inertial
[pathetic little stalkers like you are boring boring boring .. get a life]
Ken S. Tucker
Well there is a problem, by the means in which it is communicated.
The articles are written for a directed understanding to ~12 genious's
we know around the planet, then the briefs are placed on the 'net'
for those who might be capable of comprending the approach, and are
presented in a simplified fashion.
I spoke with the company, to get a ball park figure of what my effort
is worth, what is your effort worth?
What would you say to $60K for 2 hours a day?
But ya split copyright 50/50.
Ken
Juan R.
Evidently you had an incurable need to repeat "obsessive posts",
"obsessed person", "obsessions", "obsessed", "obsessed over", "obsess
about me"...
Next you started with a new family of words that you need to repeat
"irritating nonsense", "irritating for", "irritating.morons", "irritation",
"the.irritating.moron" "irritating now"...
Now you have a you have an incurable need to repeat "just boring",
"boring ..", "boring boring boring"... :-D
What about boring.moron and the like :-D
Juan R.
> "Juan R.González-Álvarez" <now...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
> message news:pan.2010.03...@canonicalscience.com...
>> Inertial wrote on Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:20:57 +1100:
>>
>>> "Juan R.González-Álvarez" <now...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
>>> message news:pan.2010.03...@canonicalscience.com...
>>>> Inertial wrote on Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:54:03 +1100:
>>>>
>>>>> "eric gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hnmeau$1cp$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>> Inertial wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing says you are a bedrock of sanity like going through each
>>>>>> and every one of my old posts looking for times I've been
>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed .. and (this latest time) all because you posted that someone
>>>>> had written a bad article.
>>>>
>>>> If it was only half true...
>>>
>>> It is completely true
>>
>> In less than a 50% :-D
>
> Wrong
If that was only half true... :-D
> [boring .. go away]
Evidently you had an incurable need to repeat "obsessive posts",
"obsessed person", "obsessions", "obsessed", "obsessed over", "obsess
about me"...
Next you started with a new family of words that you need to repeat
"irritating nonsense", "irritating for", "irritating.morons", "irritation",
"the.irritating.moron" "irritating now"...
Now you have a you have an incurable need to repeat "just boring",
"boring .. go"... :-D
Inertial
[ stop your obsessive trolling .. you are just boring ]
Inertial
"Juan R.González-Álvarez" <now...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2010.03...@canonicalscience.com...
> Inertial wrote on Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:18:15 +1100:
>
>> "Juan R.González-Álvarez" <now...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
>> message news:pan.2010.03...@canonicalscience.com...
>>> Inertial wrote on Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:20:57 +1100:
>>>
>>>> "Juan R.González-Álvarez" <now...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
>>>> message news:pan.2010.03...@canonicalscience.com...
>>>>> Inertial wrote on Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:54:03 +1100:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "eric gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:hnmeau$1cp$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>> Inertial wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing says you are a bedrock of sanity like going through each
>>>>>>> and every one of my old posts looking for times I've been
>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed .. and (this latest time) all because you posted that someone
>>>>>> had written a bad article.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it was only half true...
>>>>
>>>> It is completely true
>>>
>>> In less than a 50% :-D
>>
>> Wrong
>
> If that was only half true... :-D
>
>> [boring .. go away]
[ stop your obsessive trolling .. you are just boring ]
Juan R.
Evidently you had an incurable need to repeat "obsessive posts",
"obsessed person", "obsessions", "obsessed", "obsessed over", "obsess
about me"...
For a while you had an incurable need to repeat to repeat "irritating
nonsense", "irritating for", "irritating.morons", "irritation",
"the.irritating.moron" "irritating now"...
And recently you had an incurable need to repeat "just boring",
"boring ..", "boring boring boring"...
But now, you join your two incurable needs repeating "obsessive"
and "boring" :-D
Juan R.
Evidently you had an incurable need to repeat "obsessive posts",
"obsessed person", "obsessions", "obsessed", "obsessed over", "obsess
about me"...
For a while you had an incurable need to repeat to repeat "irritating
nonsense", "irritating for", "irritating.morons", "irritation",
"the.irritating.moron" "irritating now"...
And recently you had an incurable need to repeat "just boring",
"boring ..", "boring boring boring"...
But now, you join your two incurable needs repeating "obsessive"
and "boring" :-D
Inertial
[ you are an obsessed moron stalker .. no further replies to you trolling
from me .. so just FUCK OFF ]
Inertial
[ you are an obsessed moron stalker .. no further replies to you trolling
Juan R.
Evidently you had an incurable need to repeat "obsessive posts",
"obsessed person", "obsessions", "obsessed", "obsessed over", "obsess
about me"...
For a while you had an incurable need to repeat to repeat "irritating
nonsense", "irritating for", "irritating.morons", "irritation",
"the.irritating.moron" "irritating now"...
And recently you had an incurable need to repeat "just boring",
"boring ..", "boring boring boring"...
But now you join different incurable needs repeating in the same message
"obsessive" and "boring", "obsessed moron" :-D
Juan R.
Evidently you had an incurable need to repeat "obsessive posts",
"obsessed person", "obsessions", "obsessed", "obsessed over", "obsess
about me"...
For a while you had an incurable need to repeat to repeat "irritating
nonsense", "irritating for", "irritating.morons", "irritation",
"the.irritating.moron" "irritating now"...
And recently you had an incurable need to repeat "just boring",
"boring ..", "boring boring boring"...
But now you join different incurable needs repeating in the same message
"obsessive" and "boring", "obsessed moron" :-D