Qualifications Of People Using This NG
Rabbo
know how professional this NG is.
Just put a few details about yourself, your qualifications and your
fields of experience.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1.Rabbo - OZ, qualified physicist, 45 yrs experience in applied
physics, also psych. degree. No research experience in relativity.
Ian Freely
2. I P Freely - Physics Professor at Scunthorpe University, UK, 62
years experience in ether physics. No research experience in
relativity, but some recent research experience in Doppler Relativity
Theory (DRT).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
jddescr...@my-deja.com
rr...@Xbatemansbay.com wrote:
> Please add your name to this perpetual list if you wish. Then we will
> know how professional this NG is.
> Just put a few details about yourself, your qualifications and your
> fields of experience.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1.Rabbo - OZ, qualified physicist, 45 yrs experience in applied
> physics, also psych. degree. No research experience in relativity.
> corporate and 20 years independent business experience
> physical modeling and predicting/validating the behavior of complex
> dynamic systems. No background in relativity except study of
> Silberstein,Somerfeld,and Bohm. A business freind told me, as Feynman
> said about quantum mechanics, no one understands relativity.
Hope this is the type of response you were looking for.
DE WITTE Roland
jddescr...@my-deja.com a écrit dans le message
<7l6m71$4f9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>A business freind told me, as Feynman
>> said about quantum mechanics, no one understands relativity.
More exactly, no one will never understand relativity, like Einstein has not
understood it.
Why ? Because this is impossible to understand a theory built on logically
not compatible principles.
But Feynman has unfortunately been trapped also by the unjustified notoriety
of Einstein. For him, everything is logical in relativity.
DE WITTE Roland
http://www.ping.be/electron
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>In article <37776351...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>,
> rr...@Xbatemansbay.com wrote:
>> Please add your name to this perpetual list if you wish. Then we will
>> know how professional this NG is.
>> Just put a few details about yourself, your qualifications and your
>> fields of experience.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 1.Rabbo - OZ, qualified physicist, 45 yrs experience in applied
>> physics, also psych. degree. No research experience in relativity.
>>
>
>2. I P Freely - Physics Professor at Scunthorpe University, UK, 62
>years experience in ether physics. No research experience in
>relativity, but some recent research experience in Doppler Relativity
>Theory (DRT).
On Sat, 26 Jun 1999 12:11:42 GMT, Simon Clark <cla...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
Simon Clark is a low-life stupid jerk. He doesn't know anything about
real PHYSICS. He live in a fantasy world of mathematical constructs
such as: space-time, properties for space-time, tensors, wave
functions, collapse of wave functions, time dilation, length
contraction, fields, virtual particles, duality, probability
waves...........etc. He is inviting everybody to visit him in his
fantasy world. But we don't have time for his nonsenses. Perhaps
someday he will ask Disney to make a cartoon about himself in this
fantasy land so that we can review it at our leisure.
>> A new theory of relativity based on the existence of absolute time is
>> formulated and it is called Doppler Relativity Theory (DRT). DRT
>> includes STR as a subset and gives the same predictions as GTR without
>> the problematic predictions of GTR.
>
>It gives the "-->same<-- predictions" with out the "problematic
>predictions"? ;-)
>
>Except, of course, your theory DOESN'T even predict ANYTHING.
You must be pretty fucking stupid. If a theory have equations it can
predict something. The predictions can be wrong but nevertheless it is
predicting something.
Ken Seto
Simon Clark
my bestest friend Ken Seto spammed:
Strangely this is a reply to a post in ANOTHER thread. Ken seems to
have lost touch with reality. Again...
> On Sat, 26 Jun 1999 12:11:42 GMT, Simon Clark <cla...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> Simon Clark is a low-life stupid jerk. blah blah blah.
See: http://www.lancs.ac.uk/postgrad/clarksj/temp/crazy.htm
Ken, I really DON'T mind that you spam! It acts as a warning to others
that you are a crank, and they shouldn't waste time responding to you.
Your silly little attempt to defame me actually works AGAINST you! :-)
Don't you even realise that your little spammed rant actually makes YOU
look insane? To find out if you are really insane or not, click here:
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/postgrad/clarksj/verdict.htm
HTH. HAND.
--
Simon "Literally Driving Ken Crazy" Clark
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/postgrad/clarksj/usenet/drip/mercury.htm
"Yeah I will always be ignorant and glad to be so." -- Ken H. Seto
ICQ: 41011046
DJMenCk
>In article <37776351...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>,
> rr...@Xbatemansbay.com wrote:
>> Please add your name to this perpetual list if you wish. Then we will
>> know how professional this NG is.
>> Just put a few details about yourself, your qualifications and your
>> fields of experience.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 1.Rabbo - OZ, qualified physicist, 45 yrs experience in applied
>> physics, also psych. degree. No research experience in relativity.
>> corporate and 20 years independent business experience
>> physical modeling and predicting/validating the behavior of complex
>> dynamic systems. No background in relativity except study of
>> Silberstein,Somerfeld,and Bohm.
3) Failed in elemantary school--and I dropped out of high school. I did go
back to a university for a while but was never too successful there and could
never get an academic job. Presently, I'm a civil servant --working at a Swiss
Patent office, but maybe, if you listen to what I say, instead of trying to
determine what my credentials are, then maybe I might say something of interest
or even profound.
--A.E.
4) I must admit my credentials are wanting. In fact, I have no formal
education past the eighth grade at all. I know absolutely no math. But I have
been hired as a lab assistant recently and do a lot of grunt work. Still, I
think if you listen to what I have to say, instead of trying to figure out who
I am or what my background is, you may find that I have something interesting
to say about electricity and magnetism.
--Michael Faraday..
5) I don't know much about physics--or for that matter biology either. I'm a
med school drop out and routinely like to state that all but two years of my
formal education have been useless. My family comes from money, though, so I
can study on my own. Still, perhaps, I might have something interesting to
say--if you listen to my words and don't worry about my credentials...
--Charles Darwin.
6) I'm a college dropout as well, but I think I may have some interesting
software ideas.
--Bill Gates.
7) I never went to law school, but perhaps I can provide you with a nice
defense..
--Clarence Darrow.
8) "A whaling ship was my Harvard and my Yale"
--Melville
Dissidents often argue that the reason relativists are so amenable to the
current fashionable theories is because they are overly enamored of credentials
and authority figures. Hmmmmm
--Dennis McCarthy
Chris Hillman
On 28 Jun 1999, DJMenCk wrote:
> 3) Failed in elemantary school--and I dropped out of high school. I did go
> back to a university for a while but was never too successful there and could
> never get an academic job. Presently, I'm a civil servant --working at a Swiss
> Patent office, but maybe, if you listen to what I say, instead of trying to
> determine what my credentials are, then maybe I might say something of interest
> or even profound.
> --A.E.
This story has comforted generations of scholastically inept
schoolchildren, but anyone who is curious about the historical Einstein
should consult the excellent and uniquely authoritative biography by Pais.
[snip, snip]
> 8) "A whaling ship was my Harvard and my Yale"
> --Melville
A sounding phrase. Unlike the others you listed, I suspect the person you
attributed it to might actually have written it.
Chris "Which Might Suggest That Dennis is All Wet" Hillman
Home Page: http://www.math.washington.edu/~hillman/personal.html
Daryl McCullough
>3) Failed in elemantary school--and I dropped out of high school. I did go
>back to a university for a while but was never too successful there and could
>never get an academic job. Presently, I'm a civil servant --working at a Swiss
>Patent office, but maybe, if you listen to what I say, instead of trying to
>determine what my credentials are, then maybe I might say something of interest
>or even profound.
> --A.E.
>
>4) I must admit my credentials are wanting. In fact, I have no formal
>education past the eighth grade at all. I know absolutely no math. But I have
>been hired as a lab assistant recently and do a lot of grunt work. Still, I
>think if you listen to what I have to say, instead of trying to figure out who
>I am or what my background is, you may find that I have something interesting
>to say about electricity and magnetism.
> --Michael Faraday..
>
>5) I don't know much about physics--or for that matter biology either. I'm a
>med school drop out and routinely like to state that all but two years of my
>formal education have been useless. My family comes from money, though, so I
>can study on my own. Still, perhaps, I might have something interesting to
>say--if you listen to my words and don't worry about my credentials...
> --Charles Darwin.
>
>6) I'm a college dropout as well, but I think I may have some interesting
>software ideas.
> --Bill Gates.
>
>7) I never went to law school, but perhaps I can provide you with a nice
>defense..
> --Clarence Darrow.
>
>8) "A whaling ship was my Harvard and my Yale"
> --Melville
>
>Dissidents often argue that the reason relativists are so amenable to the
>current fashionable theories is because they are overly enamored of credentials
>and authority figures. Hmmmmm
It seems to me that your quotes prove otherwise. The dissidents are obviously
wrong on this point.
Daryl McCullough
CoGenTex, Inc.
Ithaca, NY
Gerry Quinn
>
>
>On 28 Jun 1999, DJMenCk wrote:
>
>> back to a university for a while but was never too successful there and could
>> never get an academic job. Presently, I'm a civil servant --working at a
> Swiss
>> Patent office, but maybe, if you listen to what I say, instead of trying to
>> determine what my credentials are, then maybe I might say something of
> interest
>> or even profound.
>> --A.E.
>
>schoolchildren, but anyone who is curious about the historical Einstein
>should consult the excellent and uniquely authoritative biography by Pais.
>
Einstein was fascinated by science from an early age, and reports of his
academic failures are exaggerated. Nonetheless, David Hilbert observed:
"Do you know why Einstein said the most original and profound things
about space and time that have been said in our generation? Because he
had learned nothing about all the philosophy and mathematics of time and
space."
- Gerry Quinn
DJMenCk
>
>On 28 Jun 1999, DJMenCk wrote:
>
>> 3) Failed in elemantary school--and I dropped out of high school. I did go
>> back to a university for a while but was never too successful there and
>could
>> never get an academic job. Presently, I'm a civil servant --working at a
>Swiss
>> Patent office, but maybe, if you listen to what I say, instead of trying to
>> determine what my credentials are, then maybe I might say something of
>interest
>> or even profound.
>> --A.E.
>
>schoolchildren, but anyone who is curious about the historical Einstein
>should consult the excellent and uniquely authoritative biography by Pais.
Dennis: I think the "failed 5th grade math" was a myth, but are you contending
(or did Pais contend) that Einstein was a great academic student? Also, I've
never heard any of the other facts challenged, ie, dropped out of secondary
school, went back to university, couldn't get an academic job after degrees,
began working in a patent office. Are you saying these are untrue?
>[snip, snip]
Dennis; So you're not challenging the Faraday, Gates, Darrow facts, correct?
>> 8) "A whaling ship was my Harvard and my Yale"
>> --Melville
>
>A sounding phrase. Unlike the others you listed, I suspect the person you
>attributed it to might actually have written it.
Dennis: That's why it is in quotes, while the others were obviously based on
the same fictional quote that incorporated historical facts....
>Chris "Which Might Suggest That Dennis is All Wet" Hillman
Dennis: Oh, no argument there...There's no question about my personal faults.
But the facts that I write, I'm always willing to stand by.
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
Simon Clark is a low-life stupid jerk. He doesn't know anything about
real PHYSICS. He live in a fantasy world of mathematical constructs
such as: space-time, properties for space-time, tensors, wave
functions, collapse of wave functions, time dilation, length
contraction, fields, virtual particles, duality, probability
waves...........etc. He is inviting everybody to visit him in his
fantasy world. But we don't have time for his nonsenses. Perhaps
someday he will ask Disney to make a cartoon about himself in this
fantasy land so that we can review it at our leisure.
Ken Seto
Erik Max Francis
> More exactly, no one will never understand relativity, like Einstein
> has not
> understood it.
> Why ? Because this is impossible to understand a theory built on
> logically
> not compatible principles.
Spoken like a true (semi-illiterate) crank.
--
Erik Max Francis / email m...@alcyone.com / whois mf303 / icq 16063900
Alcyone Systems / irc maxxon@efnet / finger m...@members.alcyone.com
San Jose, CA / languages En, Eo / web http://www.alcyone.com/max/
USA / icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W / &tSftDotIotE
\
/ All men think all men mortal, save themselves.
/ Edmund Young
Simon Clark
my bestest friend Tinky Winky repeated:
> Simon Clark is a low-life stupid jerk. blah blah blah.
Dipsy: AGAIN!
La La: AGAIN AGAIN!
Po: AGAIN! AGAIN! AGAIN!
All: AGAIN! AGAIN! AGAIN! AGAIN! AGAIN! AGAIN!...
--
Simon Clark
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/postgrad/clarksj
Chris Hillman
On 28 Jun 1999, DJMenCk wrote:
> Dennis: I think the "failed 5th grade math" was a myth, but are you contending
> (or did Pais contend) that Einstein was a great academic student?
Yes.
Einstein was an exceptional student who got top marks, not only in grade
school but also later at the ETH. He did have some trouble in grade
school with foreign languages (French), and he had trouble in a lab course
at the ETH, apparently because of a personality conflict with the
instructor. His PhD dissertation was one of the most brilliant in the
history of physics. Many of his instructors commented upon his remarkable
abilities, including Minkowksi.
> Also, I've never heard any of the other facts challenged, ie, dropped
> out of secondary school, went back to university, couldn't get an
> academic job after degrees, began working in a patent office. Are you
> saying these are untrue?
More or less. To take just one: "couldn't get an academic job". Like
many brilliant physics PhD's today, in a very tight job market, the young
Einstein did not immediately find an academic job, although he was on the
"short list" for one which went to someone else. He did take a job in the
Swiss Patent Office. But the really important point which your caricature
overlooks is that Einstein's 1905 papers were published in leading
journals, and within a few months of the publication of the
electrodynamics paper, the leading physicist in Europe, Max Planck, wrote
the young patent clerk congragulating him on his solution to the problem
of electrodynamics. Planck was soon proclaiming Einstein the new leader
in physics, and new superstar was soon offered a professorship via the
recommendation of Lorentz. Increasingly lucrative offers from other
institutions in Germany and elsewhere followed within a few years.
Your caricature suggests that Einstein's ideas were not quickly
recognized, and that is completely untrue. They were recognized very
quickly as being of the first importance, even by those of his
contemporaries who long thereafter maintained resistance to a complete
acceptance of his ideas. Indeed, as I have said, several leading
physicists (and mathematicians, such as Minkowski) almost immediately
embraced str heart and soul.
We've discussed these points many times in this group. See Pais's
biography for details.
> Dennis; So you're not challenging the Faraday, Gates, Darrow facts, correct?
Not correct; I think those caricatures are also misleading. But you can
go argue about the personal history of Bill Gates and the others someplace
else, with someone else (don't forget that this is a relativity group).
Chris Hillman
Home Page: http://www.math.washington.edu/~hillman/personal.html
Tom Roberts
> [quotes from well-known people proclaiming their own lack of credentials,
> including a grotesquely-misleading quote attributed to "A.E."]
Sure, credentials don't make one smart, or knowledgable, or ....
But in a related vein, describe any person who has successfully created
a new theory of physics without being an expert in the previously-
accepted theory which it replaced, and/or without being extremely
knowledgable about the experimental record relevant to the theory.
Then ask yourself what this means for the myriad of people around
here who claim to have some new revolutionary theory of physics,
while simultaneously exhibiting complete ignorance of relativity
and its experimental foundations.
None of the physicists you quoted were ignorant of then-current
theories of physics. None of the physicists you quoted were ignorant
of the exprimental record of their day. A person who truly wanted
to revolutionize physics would probably take note of their methods
and study every bit of modern physics he could....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
DJMenCk
>
>>3) Failed in elemantary school--and I dropped out of high school. I did go
>>back to a university for a while but was never too successful there and
>could
>>never get an academic job. Presently, I'm a civil servant --working at a
>Swiss
>>Patent office, but maybe, if you listen to what I say, instead of trying to
>>determine what my credentials are, then maybe I might say something of
>interest
>>or even profound.
>> --A.E.
>>
>>education past the eighth grade at all. I know absolutely no math. But I
>have
>>been hired as a lab assistant recently and do a lot of grunt work. Still, I
>>think if you listen to what I have to say, instead of trying to figure out
>who
>>I am or what my background is, you may find that I have something
>interesting
>>to say about electricity and magnetism.
>> --Michael Faraday..
>>
>>5) I don't know much about physics--or for that matter biology either. I'm
>a
>>med school drop out and routinely like to state that all but two years of my
>>formal education have been useless. My family comes from money, though, so I
>>can study on my own. Still, perhaps, I might have something interesting to
>>say--if you listen to my words and don't worry about my credentials...
>> --Charles Darwin.
>>
>>6) I'm a college dropout as well, but I think I may have some interesting
>>software ideas.
>> --Bill Gates.
>>
>>7) I never went to law school, but perhaps I can provide you with a nice
>>defense..
>> --Clarence Darrow.
>>
>> --Melville
>>
>>current fashionable theories is because they are overly enamored of
>credentials
>>and authority figures. Hmmmmm
>
obviously
>wrong on this point.
Dennis: I'm not sure what you mean. Relativists are often accused by
dissidents of checking the letters after a person's name to see if he's right.
The very subject of this newsgroup suggests that.
My quotes above (and I hope everyone realizes that all the quotes are
obviously fictional--except for Melville's--but the facts are accurate) show
that it's probably wiser to look at what people say and not the person (or his
background) saying it.
--Dennis
Leong Chung Wei Bernard
> Please add your name to this perpetual list if you wish. Then we will
> know how professional this NG is.
> Just put a few details about yourself, your qualifications and your
> fields of experience.
Here is mine :
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/3841/personal.html
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/3841/acad.html
Do take care.
Yours sincerely,
Bernard Leong
DJMenCk
>
>> Dennis: I think the "failed 5th grade math" was a myth, but are you
>contending
>> (or did Pais contend) that Einstein was a great academic student?
>
>
>Einstein was an exceptional student who got top marks, not only in grade
>school but also later at the ETH.
Dennis: Usually, when someone reads 9 biographies that say something he
doesn't like, and one that says what he does, he tends to believe the one that
says what he likes. And then he will argue that this biography "corrected the
myth" of all the others. So while Einstein's sub-par academic career
(pre-1905) has been greatly exaggerated, please verify with quotes and
references that he was considered an "excellent student" (pre-1905). In the
meantime, I'll show quotes that directly contradict that:
"At one point in his life, Einstein was what we would today call a high-school
'drop-out.' His remarkable abilities went unrecognized in the
university....Einstein on the other hand seems to have impressed no one (in the
university.) He was not offered an appointment even as an assistant--the
lowest rung on the academic ladder." ...
Boorse, Henry A. and Motz, Lloyd. "Einstein's Legacy," The World of the
Atom, Edited by Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, New York, London (1966)
"He passed his examinations and graduated in 1900 by studying the notes of a
classmate. His professors did not think highly of him and would not recommend
him for a university position...."
Einstein, Albert," Samuel Glasstone, Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. ©
1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Ironically, Glasstone
used Pais biography as a reference.
"One of his instructors advised him he would never amount to anything and that
he ought to leave school because his indifference was demoralizing both to his
teachers and to other students.
Boorse, Henry A. and Motz, Lloyd. "Einstein's Legacy," The World of the
Atom, Edited by Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, New York, London (1966)
Hillman? Many of his instructors commented upon his remarkable
>abilities, including Minkowski.
Dennis: I always thought Minkowski taught at Gotingen. Could you show me the
reference as to when and where Minkowski was Einstein's professor, and what is
the explanation for why he wouldn't hire him (pre-1905)?
Dennis: >> Also, I've never heard any of the other facts challenged, ie,
dropped
>> out of secondary school, went back to university, couldn't get an
>> academic job after degrees, began working in a patent office. Are you
>> saying these are untrue?
>
Hillman: More or less. To take just one: "couldn't get an academic job". Like
>many brilliant physics PhD's today, in a very tight job market, the young
>Einstein did not immediately find an academic job, although he was on the
>"short list" for one which went to someone else.
Dennis: Ahhh, it's not that he "couldn't get an academic job", it's just that
the jobs he wanted went to other people. Hmmm. So what part of the phrase
"couldn't get an academic job" do you disagree with? It was hard to tell in
the above paragraph where you explain why Einstein couldn't get an academic
job.
Hillman: He did take a job in the
>Swiss Patent Office.
Dennis: Ahh, okay. So two for two. Now, let's repeat what I wrote: "dropped
out of secondary school, went back to university, couldn't get an academic job
after degrees, began working in a patent office. " Hmm. So when you write these
are "more or less" untrue, I think you may want to underscore the "less" in
that phrase. Indeed, I think what you meant was, "Okay, those are standard and
well-known facts, but I'm irritated that you have written them down so I'm
going to quibble."
Hillman: But the really important point which your caricature
>overlooks is that Einstein's 1905 papers were published ...
Dennis; Yes, and the point is they were published when he was a patent clerk
without an academic job (due one supposes to a glut of turn of the century EM
physicists.) So the point is: Einstein's mediocre credentials did not preclude
him from revolutionizing physics, right?
Hillman: ....in leading
>journals,
Dennis: I take it that Annalen der Physik was a "leading" journal in 1905 in
the same sense that Einstein was an "excellent" student?
Hillman: and within a few months of the publication of the
>electrodynamics paper, the leading physicist in Europe, Max Planck, wrote
>the young patent clerk congragulating him on his solution to the problem
>of electrodynamics. Planck was soon proclaiming Einstein the new leader
>in physics, and new superstar was soon offered a professorship via the
>recommendation of Lorentz. Increasingly lucrative offers from other
>institutions in Germany and elsewhere followed within a few years.
>Your caricature suggests that Einstein's ideas were not quickly
>recognized, and that is completely untrue.
Dennis: Where did you get that from? My caricature suggests that when he
penned the theory, his credentials were somewhat wanting. Really hard to
argue with that. But sometimes when people are irritated at what someone
believes, they will quibble about *anything.*
>> Dennis; So you're not challenging the Faraday, Gates, Darrow facts,
>correct?
>
>Not correct; I think those caricatures are also misleading.
Dennis: Probably as misleading as my statement that Einstein couldn't get an
academic job, right?
Nathan Urban
> Einstein was an exceptional student who got top marks, not only in grade
> school but also later at the ETH.
It is true, though, that many of his professors thought poorly of him,
including some big names. The reason, though, was because of his
attitude rather than any lack of talent. He simply didn't care about
quite a few branches of physics, and didn't put much effort into them.
Some of the things he was most interested in (like the new theory of
electromagnetism) weren't even being taught at his level.
Anyway, Pais is pretty much the last word on this matter, so anybody
concerned should read him.
and...@ibm.net
>
> Please add your name to this perpetual list if you wish. Then we will
> know how professional this NG is.
> Just put a few details about yourself, your qualifications and your
> fields of experience.
> 1.Rabbo - OZ, qualified physicist, 45 yrs experience in applied
> physics, also psych. degree. No research experience in relativity.
I don't think that qualifications matter much in a discussion
group.
But just stating that you're a qualified physicist isn't
saying much. I am willing to describe myself as a qualified
physicist also, without violating my own guidelines on not
using academic qualifications to try to browbeat posters here.
John Anderson
fart
DJMenCk
>> [quotes from well-known people proclaiming their own lack of credentials,
>> including a grotesquely-misleading quote attributed to "A.E."]
1) "Grotesquely misleading"? Are you kidding me? What about it did you find
incorrect?
2) I hope you don't think that was seriously "attributed" to A.E. in any
serious sort of manner....
--D
Chris Hillman
On 28 Jun 1999, DJMenCk wrote:
> >Einstein was an exceptional student who got top marks, not only in grade
> >school but also later at the ETH.
>
> Dennis: Usually, when someone reads 9 biographies that say something
> he doesn't like, and one that says what he does, he tends to believe
> the one that says what he likes. And then he will argue that this
> biography "corrected the myth" of all the others. So while Einstein's
> sub-par academic career (pre-1905) has been greatly exaggerated,
> please verify with quotes and references that he was considered an
> "excellent student" (pre-1905). In the meantime, I'll show quotes
> that directly contradict that:
I repeat: Pais had Einstein's original academic records at hand; the
authors you quote evidently did not.
Dennis, this thread is not entirely without interest, but my copy of
Pais's biography is packed away, and my time is limited right now, so I'll
have to leave it to others to debate the question of Einstein's academic
aptitude with you. I'll just say this: anyone curious about this question
should consult the "scientific biography" by Pais.
Nathan: IMHO there should be a FAQ entry "Was Einstein a Poor Student in
School?".
> Dennis; Yes, and the point is they were published when he was a patent
> clerk without an academic job (due one supposes to a glut of turn of
> the century EM physicists.) So the point is: Einstein's mediocre
> credentials did not preclude him from revolutionizing physics, right?
IMO, this is the only point really worth discussing. One point on which
we can all agree, I think, is that the relevant "credentials" involve a
supreme mastery of the fundamental physical theories of our time, not
having a PhD. in physics. Einstein's early papers are too remote from our
time in terms of notation and emphasis to be suitable as -literal- models
nowadays, I think, although his career can and should be taken as a
"spiritual" model.
I think the principal historical lesson of Einstein's experience in 1905
is that this young man had not merely an masterful command of the
fundamental physics (electrodynamics, thermodynamics, Brownian motion and
the nascent theory of the atom) of his own day, but had already gone far
beyond his contemporaries in each area. His command of these subjects is
still plain to see in his early papers, despite significant changes in
notation and terminology; as for the originality of his ideas, well, some
ignoramuses have claimed he got it all from Mileva or Poincare or his
landlady's talking spider plant, but these claims have about as much merit
as the claim that Snoopy the Dog wrote the collected works of Shakespeare.
What are the implications of Einstein's extraordinarily productive life
for amateurs wishing to follow his model and to effect a similar
revolution in the physics of our own time? I would list these:
0. Be born gifted with a true genius for physical insight, and with very
considerable talent for mathematical thought, as well as the ability
to express yourself clearly both in writing and in speech. Be
possessed of a supreme self-confidence, but be prepared to work
very hard in order to prove in no uncertain terms that this
self-assurance is not misplaced. Be born further with a stable
personality free of any neurosis or tendency towards alcohol or drug
addiction. Be born with an excellent sense of humor and with an
uncanny ability to concentrate absolutely regardless of any internal
or external distractions (such as hunger pangs, or the activity of
small children).
1. Next, achieve a supreme -mastery- of -all- contemporary theories of
-fundamental- physics. Become, that is, someone with knowledge of
these topics equal or superior to the best professionals of your
time. (To get some idea of what this entails in the area of
contemporary gravitation physics, see for instance
http://www.math.washington.edu/~hillman/PUB/debate
Then see, oh, say, the papers of Hawking and Witten.) It is not
necessary to attend any class on a regular basis, if you have
excellent textbooks and loyal and capable friends who keep
superlative notes and who will study with you, but it is advisable to
earn a PhD. in physics. Expect this process to take at least ten
years of concentrated effort.
2. Above all, master the arts of idealization and perturbative expansion,
and achieve a solid understanding of the levels of mathematical
structure in the theories of the day, and of how these relate to
specific physical idealizations.
3. Focus your attention on those unexplained mysteries which indicate
deep conceptual flaws in the current understanding of fundamental
physics.
4. Devise thought experiments which penetrate to the heart of these
questions, with careful attention to the idealizations involved.
State these experiments clearly and concisely, in language familiar
to any good physics student of your time.
5. For relaxation, discuss intellectual topics or philosophy with
congenial students who appreciate your unique abilities. Avoid
tennis, water polo, mountain climbing, or other strenuous physical
activity. (Sex, of course, is your own business.)
6. Be guided by considerations of mathematical beauty and conceptual
simplicity or elegance, as much as by key unexplained experimental
results or astronomical observations. If you must choose between
beauty and experiment, choose beauty in the serene confidence
that follow-up work will show that the original observations were
erroneous. Accept the most outrageous predictions of your developing
theory, even if they conflict with your own most cherished belief of
how the physical world -ought- to behave.
7. As soon as you understand how to decisively explain one of these
mysteries, write a clear and concise paper, using notation and
terminology familiar to leading experts of our time, describing the
mystery, the relevant thought experiments, the idealizations, and the
solution. It must be clearly apparent to an expert why your solution
is not merely mathematically correct and self-consistent, but also
that it introduces a -revolutionary- new conceptual basis for
understanding a previously entirely inexplicable mystery which
strikes at the heart of contemporary fundamental physics.
8. If you have truly succeeded in your goal, unexpected "mathematical
miracles" should pop out of your theory. Explain these clearly
and concisely. (Such miracles are an almost infallible indication
that a completely new viewpoint holds great promise, a point which
will not be lost upon experts of the day.) If your theory is
complex and mathematically sophisticated, then if it is worth
anything, you will be able to discuss concisely and clearly several
simple but nontrivial examples which illustrate the astonishing power
and beauty of your intellectual creation, including physical
phenomena which all preceeding theories have utterly failed to
explain.
9. Send your paper off to one of the -leading- journals of the day,
where your referees will be -masters- of the fundamental physics
of your time. Wait for Herr Witten to write to you, proclaiming you
the new Philosopher-God-King who will lead the Righteous into the
Promised Land, where ordinary mortals who follow your path will find
a deep and far-reaching new understanding of the mysteries of our
universe.
10. Avail yourself of the first opportunity to attend a major scientific
conference with leading physicists and mathematicians of the day,
where you may establish personal contact and discuss ideas freely
with your peers. Do not fail to learn from them, even as they learn
from you.
11. You will in all likelihood have committed some fundamental conceptual
errors of your own. When these are clearly explained to you,
perhaps by an unknown graduate student from a technologically and
politically backward nation, promptly and graciously acknowledge the
error and try to fix things up in your next paper. Live in
expectation that this process will continue until the moment
when you draw your last breath and leave the stage set for the next
Einstein. If one of your papers is rejected, pay close attention
to the referees' comments, revise accordingly, and send it back to
the same journal.
12. Abandon any practice of organized religion as a young child, but
retain your unshakeable belief in the notion that beneath the chaos
of our daily experience there lies a supremely beautiful hidden
order. Avoid "human complications" of any kind. Take on no
PhD. students of your own, but talk frequently with the students of
others. Don't be tempted by any promises of political office. Accept
a job in a think tank as soon as possible and live quietly,
entertaining friends and students in the privacy of your own home.
Eat plenty of ice cream and ignore warnings about your cholesterol.
Be courteous to animals, children, and to newspaper reporters who
ask you truly idiotic questions; if you feel exasperated, defuse the
situation by making a joke at your own expense. Don't marry a fellow
graduate student; marry a sympathetic cousin, or better yet, never
fall in love in the first place. Whatever else you do, don't have
children. Let your ideas be your heritage to the world, not your
remarkable genes, your pickled brain, or some bronze bedecked with
pigeon poop.
13. Be lucky, be very, very lucky. Trust in your Muse and all will turn
out for the best.
There, I've said -all- I have to say about this. Feel free to argue with
other posters about the merits of my assessment.
DJMenCk
>> clerk without an academic job (due one supposes to a glut of turn of
>> the century EM physicists.) So the point is: Einstein's mediocre
>> credentials did not preclude him from revolutionizing physics, right?
>
Dennis: And this was the only point I was really making...
Hillman: One point on which
>we can all agree, I think, is that the relevant "credentials" involve a
>supreme mastery of the fundamental physical theories of our time, not
>having a PhD. in physics.
Dennis: Agreed. You have to understand what has been observed to happen, ie,
you have to know the results of all experiments.
And you have to have a profound ability to recognize patterns.
But you don't necessarily have to be aware of the incorrect theories of your
day--what people say or have memorized as the explanation as to what is
happening. Faraday knew little of other physics theories--and no math. What
Darwin learned in school often misled him.
However, today, in predicting precisely what will occur during certain
experiments would require a highly defined, descriptive shorthand--which is to
say, some type of mathematics. And if you want others to read your work, it
would be useful to learn the mathematical language that is common to everyone.
Snip the rest of Hillman's excellent and entertaining post, most of which I
agree with....
Joe Fischer
: >> Dennis; Yes, and the point is they were published when he was a patent
: >> clerk without an academic job (due one supposes to a glut of turn of
: >> the century EM physicists.) So the point is: Einstein's mediocre
: >> credentials did not preclude him from revolutionizing physics, right?
: > Hillman: >IMO, this is the only point really worth discussing.
:
: Dennis: And this was the only point I was really making...
This all appears to be void of fact, Einstein was
not a "patent clerk", he was a "technical expert",
he was so busy writing for journal publication and
doing reviews of other papers for the journals that
it delayed his Phd, which he was awarded in 1905.
Now, what is the point?
Joe Fischer
Daryl McCullough
>Dennis: I'm not sure what you mean. Relativists are often accused by
>dissidents of checking the letters after a person's name to see if he's right.
>The very subject of this newsgroup suggests that.
Yes, I know that dissidents make those accusations, but the accusations
are *false*. Nobody in this group is judging people based on their
credentials, only on the quality of the reasoning in their posts.
I would bet that a fair number of the relativity experts who post
in this group do not have PhDs in physics, but are instead just
bright people who are able to think on their own.
DE WITTE Roland
Erik Max Francis a écrit dans le message <3777B267...@alcyone.com>...
>DE WITTE Roland wrote:
>
>> More exactly, no one will never understand relativity, like Einstein has
not
>> understood it.
>> Why ? Because this is impossible to understand a theory built on
>> logically not compatible principles.
>
>Spoken like a true (semi-illiterate) crank.
Semi-illiterate certainly.
I learn English from this newsgroup. It would be intesting sometimes to know
where the mistakes are. In order to become better.
But to be a crank (eccentric) is a compliment. It is clear for me
philosophically, that there is no chance to make a theoretical discovery if
we don't try to exit from the current ideas, especially out of one century
of endless discussions (dialog of the death) about the logical problems of
SR.
It is like that, that I have seen that time dilation has a classical origin
(Doppler effect), together with the discovery of the electron structure.
See: http://www.ping.be/electron/clock1.htm
Paul Alan Cardinale
Keep up the good work!
Paul Cardinale
Ken H. Seto
Not at all. I just regard you and simon as D class citizen----D means
dumb:-). In fact at time I found you two rather amusing.
Ken Seto
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>In article <3777ac3b...@news.erinet.com>,
Simon Clark
my bestest friend Ken Seto crayoned:
Did you find us more or less amusing than this:
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/postgrad/clarksj/usenet/drip/mercury.htm ?
BTW, I'll save you the trouble of spamming your response again:
Ken thinks that I am a low-life stupid jerk. And that I don't
know anything about what he calls "real PHYSICS". Apparantly
I live in a fantasy world of mathematical constructs such
as: space-time, properties for space-time, tensors, wave
functions, collapse of wave functions, time dilation, length
contraction, fields, virtual particles, duality, probability
waves...........etc. Ken has the delusion that I am inviting
everybody to visit me in my fantasy world. But Ken says he
doesn't have time for my nonsenses. And rather bizzarly he
thinks that someday I will ask Disney to make a cartoon about
myself in this fantasy land so that he can review it at his
leisure. Ken probably thinks these things because he is crazy.
HTH. HAND.
--
Simon "Can anyone hear the sound of boiling blood? " Clark
Simon Clark
Ken "bubble bubble bubble" Seto rewrote:
> Simon Clark is a low-life stupid jerk. blah blah blah
Having fun spamming are we Ken? You do realise if you keep spamming
people are entitled to complain to you internet service provider? (It
has already been posted more than enough times to be officially classed
as spam.) Do you like having internet access, Ken?
(I don't have to pay for my internet access, so your spamming doesn't
actually bother me -- however it may annoy people who DO have to pay.)
--
Simon Clark
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/postgrad/clarksj/usenet/drip/mercury.htm
(I'll think up something better when I get back from holiday.)
Nathan Urban
> I would bet that a fair number of the relativity experts who post
> in this group do not have PhDs in physics, but are instead just
> bright people who are able to think on their own.
Based on what I know of the regulars here, I think that's a true
statement.
(And I might add that I've known people without high school degrees who
have a better mastery of some of the issues discussed here than the vast
majority of the resident cranks.)
Nathan Urban
> But just stating that you're a qualified physicist isn't saying much.
Especially since I've seen people with Ph.D's in physics say really
some stupid things when speaking outside of their own subfield..
(Which isn't to say that's the norm, of course.)
Gerry Quinn
Some even have a mastery of netiquette.
- Gerry Quinn
Rabbo
>I don't think that qualifications matter much in a discussion
>group.
>
>But just stating that you're a qualified physicist isn't
>saying much. I am willing to describe myself as a qualified
>physicist also, without violating my own guidelines on not
>using academic qualifications to try to browbeat posters here.
>
>John Anderson
The point has been raised many times on this NG as to how many
practicing physicists actually read or contribute to it.
The aim of this thread was to try to get some idea of the type of
people we are communicating with and to determine if anything useful
can be achieved through our discussions.
Does anyone here have any influence within academic establishments or
are we all just a bunch of amateurs and interested outsiders?
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>In article <377916d...@news.erinet.com>,
> my bestest friend Ken Seto crayoned:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Jun 1999 11:04:21 -0700, Paul Alan Cardinale
>> <pcard...@mail.arc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>
>> >Seems like you're starting to make Ken's blood boil.
>> >Keep up the good work!
>> >
>> >Paul Cardinale
>>
>> Not at all. I just regard you and simon as D class citizen----D means
>> dumb:-). In fact at time I found you two rather amusing.
>
>Did you find us more or less amusing than this:
>
> http://www.lancs.ac.uk/postgrad/clarksj/usenet/drip/mercury.htm ?
I find this to be a sign of panic on your part. In a way I feel proud:
The reason is: of all those hundreds of aether theories, only my
theory was selected by you and Ilja to be attacked in a permanent
website. It must mean that I am on the right track. Keep them coming
---jerk face. :-)
Simon Clark is a low-life stupid jerk. He doesn't know anything about
real PHYSICS. He live in a fantasy world of mathematical constructs
such as: space-time, properties for space-time, tensors, wave
functions, collapse of wave functions, time dilation, length
contraction, fields, virtual particles, duality, probability
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>In article <37791873...@news.erinet.com>,
> Ken "bubble bubble bubble" Seto rewrote:
>
>> Simon Clark is a low-life stupid jerk. blah blah blah
>
>Having fun spamming are we Ken? You do realise if you keep spamming
>people are entitled to complain to you internet service provider? (It
>has already been posted more than enough times to be officially classed
>as spam.) Do you like having internet access, Ken?
What's matter simon? You can dish it out but you can't take it? Yeah
go ahead and complaint.
Ken Seto
Simon Clark
Sure I can take it. But apparently YOU can't -- hence your little
spamming fit. It's not ME you are annoying anyway -- I don't have to
pay to download your crap. But OTHERS do -- hence they might get fed
up and either just killfile you or complain to your ISP! In fact, if
there IS someone out there who actually ENJOYS reading your posts --
they are probably getting fed up reading the same one over and over.
You are not doing YOURSELF any favours by spamming. However you are
doing ME a favour -- it means that I don't have to work hard to make
you look crazy(er)!
--
Simon Clark
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/postgrad/clarksj
Simon Clark
Ken Seto rewrote for the twenty-second time:
> Simon Clark is a low-life stupid jerk. He doesn't know anything about
> real PHYSICS. He live in a fantasy world of mathematical constructs
> such as: space-time, properties for space-time, tensors, wave
> functions, collapse of wave functions, time dilation, length
> contraction, fields, virtual particles, duality, probability
> waves...........etc. He is inviting everybody to visit him in his
> fantasy world. But we don't have time for his nonsenses. Perhaps
> someday he will ask Disney to make a cartoon about himself in this
> fantasy land so that we can review it at our leisure.
Ken Seto has posted this spam 22 times now -- so it can certainly be
regarded as spam! I wouldn't mind quite so much if he only posted it
when I responded to HIS posts (however I'm not going to give in to his
childish bullying tactics -- Ken doesn't seem to be a big fan of free-
speech yer know) -- however on several occasions he has posted it in
reply to messages that had NOTHING to do with him.
I thought the simplest way to encourage him to stop would be if people
simply ASKED him to stop! Failing that you could try writing a
complaint to: ab...@erinet.com -- but wait and see what he does when
asked to stop.
I have no desire to stop Ken posting here in general (in fact I quite
enjoy reading some of his posts!) -- however when he spams this
newsgroup it affects everyone here, not just me. Perhaps if he
realised this he might stop.
Well it's worth a try at least!
Simon Clark
my beastest friend Ken Seto kooked:
> >Did you find us more or less amusing than this:
> >
> > http://www.lancs.ac.uk/postgrad/clarksj/usenet/drip/mercury.htm ?
>
> I find this to be a sign of panic on your part.
Then you are a very strange person...
> In a way I feel proud:
> The reason is: of all those hundreds of aether theories, only my
> theory was selected by you and Ilja to be attacked in a permanent
> website. It must mean that I am on the right track.
Either that or you are so badly wrong that it is funny...
> Keep them coming---jerk face. :-)
Clearly I don't annoy you at all! (<-- sarcasm)
Gerry Quinn
>>John Anderson
>The point has been raised many times on this NG as to how many
>practicing physicists actually read or contribute to it.
>The aim of this thread was to try to get some idea of the type of
>people we are communicating with and to determine if anything useful
>can be achieved through our discussions.
>Does anyone here have any influence within academic establishments or
>are we all just a bunch of amateurs and interested outsiders?
>
Though I currently write software to earn a crust, I'm a (chemical)
engineer by training - I suspect it is not too uncommon for 'etherists'.
Possibly the associated mental traits include a strong sense of
realism, and a distinct suspicion of (not to mention a limited capacity
for) mathematics...
As to the 'use' of these discussions, I am glad there are
representatives of the conventional viewpoint here - the only use I
expect from a newsgroup is criticism of my ideas. Sadly such criticism
tends to be mostly metaphysical, but nevertheless it is also useful to
get a feel for how physics is interpreted according to the current
paradigm.
In the end, peer-reviewed papers are the only things taken seriously by
the establishment. It is a problem, particularly in fields where a
certain 'language' has accreted which actively militates against new
ideas getting through. But it was always so, and truth will out (in the
end).
- Gerry Quinn
DJMenCk
>DJMenCk (djm...@aol.com) wrote:
>: >> Dennis; Yes, and the point is they were published when he was a patent
>: >> clerk without an academic job (due one supposes to a glut of turn of
>: >> the century EM physicists.) So the point is: Einstein's mediocre
>: >> credentials did not preclude him from revolutionizing physics, right?
>: >
>: > Hillman: >IMO, this is the only point really worth discussing.
>:
>: Dennis: And this was the only point I was really making...
>
> This all appears to be void of fact, Einstein was
>not a "patent clerk", he was a "technical expert",
Dennis: Yes, but his technical expertise was belied by his sub-par (or average)
academic record--and his lack of an academic position. He was a true genius in
1905, capable of either undestanding the true nature of the universe or at the
very least convincing most experts on the matter that he was correct--but his
credentials wouldn't have clued you into that fact, now would they have?
Fischer: >he was so busy writing for journal publication and
>doing reviews of other papers for the journals that
>it delayed his Phd, which he was awarded in 1905.
> Now, what is the point?
Dennis: One would think it is self-evident. Quite simply, one can be a
technical expert and have extremely relevant contributions to make to a
scientific field without impressive (or even with poor) academic credentials or
without much *formal* education in the subject. Faraday and Darwin especially
prove that last point.
DJMenCk
>On Mon, 28 Jun 1999 22:21:48 -0700, and...@ibm.net wrote:
>
>>Rabbo wrote:
>>>
>>> Please add your name to this perpetual list if you wish. Then we will
>>> know how professional this NG is.
>>> Just put a few details about yourself, your qualifications and your
>>> fields of experience.
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 1.Rabbo - OZ, qualified physicist, 45 yrs experience in applied
>>> physics, also psych. degree. No research experience in relativity.
>>
>>I don't think that qualifications matter much in a discussion
>>group.
>>
>>But just stating that you're a qualified physicist isn't
>>saying much. I am willing to describe myself as a qualified
>>physicist also, without violating my own guidelines on not
>>using academic qualifications to try to browbeat posters here.
>>
>The point has been raised many times on this NG as to how many
>practicing physicists actually read or contribute to it.
>The aim of this thread was to try to get some idea of the type of
>people we are communicating with and to determine if anything useful
>can be achieved through our discussions.
>Does anyone here have any influence within academic establishments or
>are we all just a bunch of amateurs and interested outsiders?
Dennis: I would think that many people who contribute here on both sides of
these debates have some sort of influence within academic establishments....
Also, there have been debates in this newsgoup (ie, the giant-radius paradox
(or Selleri paradox) of 96 or 97) which has been essentially discussed first
here, then in anti-establishment journals and then in mainstream journals all
*after* the debates here. This is not to suggest that anyone picked it up from
this newsgroup--but that some of these discussions are original and on the
leading edge of important debates....
--Dennis McCarthy
Erik Max Francis
> Ken Seto has posted this spam 22 times now -- so it can certainly be
> regarded as spam!
It's exceeded a BI of 20 in a 45-day sliding window, so it's
cancellable. Have fun.
> I have no desire to stop Ken posting here in general (in fact I quite
> enjoy reading some of his posts!) -- however when he spams this
> newsgroup it affects everyone here, not just me. Perhaps if he
> realised this he might stop.
>
> Well it's worth a try at least!
Complain to his news administrators. Spamming is considered a very
serious offense.
--
Erik Max Francis / email m...@alcyone.com / whois mf303 / icq 16063900
Alcyone Systems / irc maxxon@efnet / finger m...@members.alcyone.com
San Jose, CA / languages En, Eo / web http://www.alcyone.com/max/
USA / icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W / &tSftDotIotE
\
/ Exercise is wonderful. I could sit and watch it all day.
/ Louis Wu
Simon Clark
Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
> Simon Clark wrote:
>
> > Ken Seto has posted this spam 22 times now -- so it can certainly be
> > regarded as spam!
>
> It's exceeded a BI of 20 in a 45-day sliding window, so it's
> cancellable.
Not quite. He first started that spam back in February (IIRC), and he
only recently started again -- I was counting BOTH times, so it's out
of the 45 day window.
BTW, this is not the only Ken has spammed -- he regularly posts large
chucks of text (often the SAME text as he's posted before) from his
webpage. Any normal person would simply post the url of the relevant
page -- but Ken is hardly normal is he?
> Have fun.
I already am! ;-)
> Complain to his news administrators. Spamming is considered a very
> serious offense.
I thought if OTHER people told him that it was annoying he might stop.
--
Simon Clark
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/postgrad/clarksj/
Chris Hillman
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, someone (John Anderson?--- I haven't been following
this thread) wrote:
> >The point has been raised many times on this NG as to how many
> >practicing physicists actually read or contribute to it.
> >The aim of this thread was to try to get some idea of the type of
> >people we are communicating with and to determine if anything useful
> >can be achieved through our discussions.
> >Does anyone here have any influence within academic establishments or
> >are we all just a bunch of amateurs and interested outsiders?
There are quite a few well educated people who post here at least on
occasion, although few could be said to be "highly influential" in
graviation physics, I think. I'd describe myself as an amateur and an
outsider, although I think I know a lot more about relativity (in
particular, about current research trends) than most of the other amateurs
here.
Steve Carlip, who sometimes posts here, is a leading expert on
gravitation. Robert Low and Charles Torre have published a number of
papers on different (highly technical) aspects of gtr. There are a few
others (Peter Newman, IIRC) who sometimes post here who are practicing
research astronomers. Tom Roberts and a few others are physicists (Tom has
many years of experience as an experimental high energy physicist--- hope
I finally have that right, Tom!), and Nathan, Bernard, Aaron, and Simon
are all graduate students or soon to be graduate students of physics, all
"majoring" in gravitation physics or closely related fields. I am a
mathematician by training (specializing in dynamical systems), but I am
entirely self-taught in gtr. Terrence Tao is also a mathematician (and a
Sloan Fellow, if I recall correctly something I noticed in the most recent
Notices of the AMS). Pertti Lounesto is another mathematician, and the
author of several books discussing how Clifford algebras can handle
general Lorentz transformations (e.g. compositions of rotations and
boosts). I'm not sure I recall correctly the details of the educational
background of Michael Weiss, John Anderson, and Darryl McCullough but
IIRC, they have earned PhD's in math or physics.
I'd point out that people with advanced degrees tend to avoid mentioning
their past achievements, such as earning a PhD. or a prestigious award.
I myself have only very rarely mentioned my ;-) "terminal degree", but
I've been accused on several occasions of trying to "intimidate" less well
educated posters, and I think just about everyone else with a PhD has had
a similar experience.
I've said this many times, but I'll say it again: I feel (and I think that
on this issue at least I speak for all the other highly educated people
who post here) that the only qualification which matters in the end is
whether you know what you are talking about, have the facts of the matter
straight, in particular how well you understand the unavoidable technical
details of a theory like gtr (in particular), and deeply you have
penetrated into its many subtleties. People who have this knowledge can
easily recognize other people who have achieved a comparable depth of
insight, and we can also recognize when we encounter a post by someone who
knows even more than we do.
I'd also point out that people who have the knowledge to back up their
claims tend to post under their real names; there has been an unfortunate
trend in this group among the "doubters" toward posting under false names,
perhaps because certain individuals in this class recognize that they are
incapable of learning even as much as a knowledgeable amateur like myself,
much less a master of the trade like Steve Carlip. See again my comments
on the lessons of Einstein's life for those who wish to effect a
revolution in physics.
Be this is as it may, I commend people like Gerry Quinn who have enough
faith in their own opinions to express them by posting under their real
names. Speaking of which, Gerry Quinn commented:
> Though I currently write software to earn a crust, I'm a (chemical)
> engineer by training - I suspect it is not too uncommon for 'etherists'.
> Possibly the associated mental traits include a strong sense of
> realism, and a distinct suspicion of (not to mention a limited capacity
> for) mathematics...
I have noticed this too, but I have a somewhat different interpretation;
chemists and engineers tend to work with the sort of physics which is
still fairly close to our daily experience. Engineers in particular are
likely to work mainly with objects like bridges and cell phones which we
can touch and hold, or at worst with something we can see using a
microscope, like a computer chip. Physicists like Tom Roberts, on the
other hand, have experience working with objects (high energy particles)
which are much further from our daily experience. The same goes for the
astronomers who sometimes post here or on sci.astro or
sci.physics.research. Computer scientists and mathematicians have
considerable experience thinking about abstract concepts, i.e., thinking
mathematically. Finally, the mathematical physicists who post mainly on
sci.physics.research, e.g. Baez, Carlip, and some others, have very
impressive insight into the mathematical structure and physical meaning of
gtr, and how gtr relates to the rest of contemporary theoretical physics.
Re my posting the other day on the lessons of Einstein's career, amateurs
should note that to effect a -revolution- in gravitation physics, their
expertise must not only be equal or superior to that of Carlip and Baez,
but even equal or superior to the insight of a mathematical/physical
genius like Witten.
> As to the 'use' of these discussions, I am glad there are
> representatives of the conventional viewpoint here - the only use I
> expect from a newsgroup is criticism of my ideas. Sadly such criticism
> tends to be mostly metaphysical, but nevertheless it is also useful to
> get a feel for how physics is interpreted according to the current
> paradigm.
The only way to do that is not by reading this ng, but by reading the
current literature in gravitation physics, as I have been doing (but I
only read a small part, mostly papers focusing on classical gtr; Nathan in
particular has read much more widely than almost anyone, except of course
professionals like Carlip). My own posts reflect my reading, but do -not-
reflect the variety of thinking in contemporary gravitation physics, since
even my technical posts use "elementary methods" (truly! I am not kidding
here; "elementary" is a correct description of my favored method for
coming up with solutions to the Einstein or Einstein-Maxwell equations).
> In the end, peer-reviewed papers are the only things taken seriously by
> the establishment.
Agreed.
> It is a problem, particularly in fields where a certain 'language' has
> accreted which actively militates against new ideas getting through.
I disagree--- there is a very good reason for the highly mathematical
language of current theoretical physics, with all its exterior forms and
Lie algebras and Virasoro algebras and tensor products and spinors and
representations and what have you. These notions have all -greatly-
simplified (-simplified!-) vast areas of theoretical physics (and
mathematics).
I cannot emphasize too highly that sophisticated mathematics is the
theoretical physicist's best friend, because we achieve greater
generality, simplicity, and economy of thought, at the cost of ascending
to higher planes of mathematical sophistication. Three hundred years of
modern physics, and three thousand years of mathematics, amply bears out
this assessment.
Noone can do anything about the entirely unintenional side effect that
this sophisticated technical language shuts out the majority of interested
amateurs with backgrounds in fields other than pure math or physics.
> But it was always so, and truth will out (in the end).
Yes and yes.
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>In article <377995f0...@news.erinet.com>,
> Ken Seto rewrote for the twenty-second time:
>
>> Simon Clark is a low-life stupid jerk. He doesn't know anything about
>> real PHYSICS. He live in a fantasy world of mathematical constructs
>> such as: space-time, properties for space-time, tensors, wave
>> functions, collapse of wave functions, time dilation, length
>> contraction, fields, virtual particles, duality, probability
>> waves...........etc. He is inviting everybody to visit him in his
>> fantasy world. But we don't have time for his nonsenses. Perhaps
>> someday he will ask Disney to make a cartoon about himself in this
>> fantasy land so that we can review it at our leisure.
>
>Ken Seto has posted this spam 22 times now -- so it can certainly be
>regarded as spam! I wouldn't mind quite so much if he only posted it
>when I responded to HIS posts (however I'm not going to give in to his
>childish bullying tactics -- Ken doesn't seem to be a big fan of free-
>speech yer know) -- however on several occasions he has posted it in
>reply to messages that had NOTHING to do with him.
>
>I thought the simplest way to encourage him to stop would be if people
>simply ASKED him to stop! Failing that you could try writing a
>complaint to: ab...@erinet.com -- but wait and see what he does when
>asked to stop.
>
>I have no desire to stop Ken posting here in general (in fact I quite
>enjoy reading some of his posts!) -- however when he spams this
>newsgroup it affects everyone here, not just me. Perhaps if he
>realised this he might stop.
>
>Well it's worth a try at least!
So you think that you have a permanent website ridiculing me and
invite everybody to visit it every chance you got is not spaming? Go
ahead and complaint, I am tire of the bull shit in this NG anyway so
it wont hurt me one bit by being kick out. Here's more ammunition:
Simon Clark is a low-life stupid jerk. He doesn't know anything about
real PHYSICS. He live in a fantasy world of mathematical constructs
such as: space-time, properties for space-time, tensors, wave
functions, collapse of wave functions, time dilation, length
contraction, fields, virtual particles, duality, probability
waves...........etc. He is inviting everybody to visit him in his
fantasy world. But we don't have time for his nonsenses. Perhaps
someday he will ask Disney to make a cartoon about himself in this
fantasy land so that we can review it at our leisure.
Ken Seto
>
>--
>Simon Clark
>http://www.lancs.ac.uk/postgrad/clarksj
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>Simon Clark wrote:
>
>> Ken Seto has posted this spam 22 times now -- so it can certainly be
>> regarded as spam!
>
>It's exceeded a BI of 20 in a 45-day sliding window, so it's
>cancellable. Have fun.
>
>> I have no desire to stop Ken posting here in general (in fact I quite
>> enjoy reading some of his posts!) -- however when he spams this
>> newsgroup it affects everyone here, not just me. Perhaps if he
>> realised this he might stop.
>>
>> Well it's worth a try at least!
>
>Complain to his news administrators. Spamming is considered a very
>serious offense.
Why don't you join in and complaint also?
Ken Seto
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>In article <37799a79...@news.erinet.com>,
> ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Jun 1999 21:02:41 GMT, Simon Clark <cla...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <37791873...@news.erinet.com>,
>> > Ken "bubble bubble bubble" Seto rewrote:
>> >
>> >> Simon Clark is a low-life stupid jerk. blah blah blah
>> >
>> >Having fun spamming are we Ken? You do realise if you keep spamming
>> >people are entitled to complain to you internet service provider?
>(It
>> >has already been posted more than enough times to be officially
>classed
>> >as spam.) Do you like having internet access, Ken?
>>
>> What's matter simon? You can dish it out but you can't take it? Yeah
>> go ahead and complaint.
>
>Sure I can take it. But apparently YOU can't -- hence your little
>spamming fit. It's not ME you are annoying anyway -- I don't have to
>pay to download your crap. But OTHERS do -- hence they might get fed
>up and either just killfile you or complain to your ISP! In fact, if
>there IS someone out there who actually ENJOYS reading your posts --
>they are probably getting fed up reading the same one over and over.
>You are not doing YOURSELF any favours by spamming. However you are
>doing ME a favour -- it means that I don't have to work hard to make
>you look crazy(er)!
So you think that you have a permanent website ridiculing me and
invite everybody to visit it every chance you got is not spaming? Go
ahead and complaint, I am tire of the bull shit in this NG anyway so
it wont hurt me one bit by being kick out. Here's more ammunition:
Simon Clark is a low-life stupid jerk. He doesn't know anything about
real PHYSICS. He live in a fantasy world of mathematical constructs
such as: space-time, properties for space-time, tensors, wave
functions, collapse of wave functions, time dilation, length
contraction, fields, virtual particles, duality, probability
waves...........etc. He is inviting everybody to visit him in his
fantasy world. But we don't have time for his nonsenses. Perhaps
someday he will ask Disney to make a cartoon about himself in this
fantasy land so that we can review it at our leisure.
It's working:-)
Ken Seto
S.T.L.
real PHYSICS. He live in a fantasy world of mathematical constructs
such as: space-time, properties for space-time, tensors, wave
functions, collapse of wave functions, time dilation, length
contraction, fields, virtual particles, duality, probability
waves...........etc.>>
If that's so, sign me up to become a low-life stupid jerk!
-*---*-------
S.T.L. ===> STL...@aol.com <=== BLOCK RELEASED! 2^3021377 - 1 is PRIME!
Quotations: http://quote.cjb.net Main website: http://137.tsx.org MOO!
"Xihribz! Peymwsiz xihribz! Qssetv cse bqy qiftrz!" e^(i*Pi)+1=0 F00FC7C8
E-mail block is gone. It will return if I'm bombed again. I don't care, it's
an easy fix. Address is correct as is. The courtesy of giving correct E-mail
addresses makes up for having to delete junk which gets through anyway. Join
the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search at http://entropia.com/ips/ Now my
.sig is shorter and contains 3379 bits of entropy up to the next line's end:
-*---*-------
Card-holding member of the Dark Legion of Cantorians, the Holy Order of the
Catenary, the Great SRian Conspiracy, the Triple-Sigma Club, the Union of
Quantum Mechanics, the Polycarbonate Syndicate, and People for the Ethical
Treatment of Digital Tierran Organisms
Avid watcher of "World's Most Terrifying Causality Violations", "When Kaons
Decay: World's Most Amazing CP Symmetry Breaking Caught On [Magnetic] Tape",
"World's Scariest Warp Accidents", "World's Most Energetic Cosmic Rays", and
"When Tidal Forces Attack: Caught on Tape"
Patiently awaiting the launch of Gravity Probe B and the discovery of M39
Physics Commandment #6: Thou Shalt Always Obey CPT Symmetry.
Chuck Stewart
Special Relativity Mind Control Rays... He can put a stop to the
madness!...)
Have I introduced you to the feral lemmings that dwell in the
cold, icy depths of my kill file?
I haven't?... here you go.
*plomk*
"Ken H. Seto" wrote:
Nevermore.
--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just lovable transgenic
chimerae?"
Chris Hillman
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, Gerry Quinn wrote (referring to the primacy of
peer-reviewed papers and, I think, the mathematical sophistication of
publishable papers dealing with the problems of gravitation):
> > It is a problem, particularly in fields where a certain 'language' has
> > accreted which actively militates against new ideas getting through.
and I commented:
> I disagree--- there is a very good reason for the highly mathematical
> language of current theoretical physics, with all its exterior forms and
> Lie algebras and Virasoro algebras and tensor products and spinors and
> representations and what have you. These notions have all -greatly-
> simplified (-simplified!-) vast areas of theoretical physics (and
> mathematics).
>
> I cannot emphasize too highly that sophisticated mathematics is the
> theoretical physicist's best friend, because we achieve greater
> generality, simplicity, and economy of thought, at the cost of ascending
> to higher planes of mathematical sophistication. Three hundred years of
> modern physics, and three thousand years of mathematics, amply bears out
> this assessment.
I forgot to add that Gerry's implication that "new ideas" are not "getting
through" in contemporary physics is decisively refuted by a glance at John
Baez's collected postings titled "This Week in Mathematical Physics",
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/TWF.html
or at the abstracts of preprints submitted to the LANL server over the
past five years*, or even better, in recent issues of leading journals
such as Classical & Quantum Gravity, Annals of Physics, etc.
* Until very recently, the quality of preprints submitted to this server
was uniformly quite good, and I think almost all of these preprints wound
up being published in peer reviewed journals in the field. This happy
situation was no doubt the result of "self-censorhip" in the sense that
until very recently, most authors resisted the temptation to submit poorly
thought out work, or work in areas in which they lacked the requisite
technical expertise. Unfortunately, in recent months a half dozen
embarrassingly erroneous preprints have been submitted to LANL which
repeat a variety of "typical-first-year-graduate-student-errors"
concerning the good old Schwarzschild solution! No doubt they have
attracted only one critique (to date) because the errors are so obvious
that the experts hold these particular preprints beneath contempt. One
way to confirm my claim that these preprints are based on trivial errors
on the part of their authors will be to check back in a year and verify
that they have -not- been published in leading peer reviewed journals in
gravitation physics, such as Classical & Quantum Gravity.
Erik Max Francis
> Why don't you join in and complaint also?
Why wouldn't I?
Seto, you are an annoyance on this newsgroup, and have just graduated to
net abuse. You should stop before you regret your actions.
This is not a threat; it is a sincere wish for you to correct your ways.
You are behaving inappropriately for Usenet, much less this newsgroup.
Erik Max Francis
> Not quite. He first started that spam back in February (IIRC), and he
> only recently started again -- I was counting BOTH times, so it's out
> of the 45 day window.
If at any time he exceeded a BI of 20 within a 45-day sliding window,
then thereafter it is _always_ cancellable as a continuation of a
previous spam. I suspect the first time he probably exceeded the
limits.
> I thought if OTHER people told him that it was annoying he might stop.
When has that ever worked with cranks?
Chris Hillman
On 1 Jul 1999, Aaron Bergman wrote:
> >* Until very recently, the quality of preprints submitted to this server
> >was uniformly quite good,
>
> Er, have you looked at the physics section?
No. Silly me :-)
(Aside for the non-net-savvy folk: LANL preprints appear in different
sections, such as hep-th and gr-qc; I have mostly confined my reading to
astro-ph and gr-qc.)
> > This happy
> >situation was no doubt the result of "self-censorhip" in the sense that
> >until very recently, most authors resisted the temptation to submit poorly
> >thought out work, or work in areas in which they lacked the requisite
> >technical expertise.
>
> It's not self-censorship -- it's the fact that the kooks simply
> didn't know enough to submit.
Very possibly. There was an article on the LANL server in the LA Times
(IIRC) about a year ago in which the person who owns the humble PC clone
which hosts this invaluable resource speculated about self-censorship
along the lines I indicated. Not long after this article appeared, the
nut cases started submitting preprints to gr-qc, and a half dozen slipped
by the robomoderator. Very possibly not a coincidence of timing.
> > Unfortunately, in recent months a half dozen
> >embarrassingly erroneous preprints have been submitted to LANL which
> >repeat a variety of "typical-first-year-graduate-student-errors"
> >concerning the good old Schwarzschild solution! No doubt they have
> >attracted only one critique (to date) because the errors are so obvious
> >that the experts hold these particular preprints beneath contempt.
>
> Nah. They're either ignored or passed around for humor value.
That's what I meant; they are not deemed worthy of going to the trouble of
writing a preprint explaining the error. I'd be inclined to feel that
anyone foolish enough to commit such errors in the first place is probably
too dim to learn from explanation by someone who knows more. IOW, only
the idgits would be fooled by the preprints in question, methinks.
Chris Hillman
On Thu, 1 Jul 1999, Gerry Quinn wrote:
> I tend to disagree with the above. In the end, we're still trying to
> figure out exactly why that apple falls. As for Einstein, Hilbert
> remarked more than once on his mathematical limitations, though I
> concede they were probably more relative than absolute (sorry, Tom).
Just so; compared to Hilbert or Cartan (two of the greatest mathematicians
of the century), Einstein's mathematical powers were modest; compared to
all but a very small fraction of posters in this ng, his purely
mathematical abilities were off the charts. One thing which impresses me
about Einstein's papers is how much mileage he gets out of a few simple
tricks, such as power series expansions.
I'd just add that speculations about Einstein's mental powers, or
limitations, or his intellectual heritage, are of little interest unless
they come from someone familiar both with his work and with how physicists
really think.
> And I suspect a lot of people in the field are thinking too much about
> group theory etc. and not enough about the 'nuts and bolts' of how
> nature works at the local level.
Uhm... I guess I have to spell this out in inch high letters ;-)
Gerry, if you want to speak with any knowledge about what "people in the
field are thinking about" (much less whether they are thinking about any
particular thing too much or too little) you need to
##### ###### ## #####
# # # # # # #
# # ##### # # # #
##### # ###### # #
# # # # # # #
# # ###### # # #####
##### # # ######
# # # #
# ###### #####
# # # #
# # # #
# # # ######
# # #####
# # #
# # # #####
# # #
# # #
###### # #
###
###### ##### ## ##### # # ##### ###### ###
# # # # # # # # # # # ###
##### # # # # # # # # # ##### #
# ##### ###### # # # ##### #
# # # # # # # # # # # ###
###### # # # # # #### # # ###### ###
Particularly if you think physicists are not thinking about "nuts and
bolts"! (Presuming you mean mathematical tools other than group theory,
and possible formulations of new theories of fundamental physics, not
little cogs and gears that make the planets go round the Sun.)
To put it another way: presume not to tell theoretical physicists how to
do their job if you haven't the foggiest just what it is that they
actually do.
I speak here as an outsider myself, but someone who -does- read (a tiny
fraction of) the current literature in physics, and who -understands- a
goodly portion of said reading. Which is why my opinion ;-) carries a lot
more weight.
> That the behaviour and structure of fundamental particles, and the
> entropic process that we recognise as the arrow of time do not match
> well to our physical experience goes without saying.
The arrow of time -doesn't- match our everyday experience? Parents of
small children might disagree.
> But is mathematics really the entire answer? - I'd rather think we
> should try to get a 'feel' for what this fundamental stuff is doing,
> but despite what you say above about (for example) Tom's background
> working with particle beams, I suspect he would claim to predict their
> behaviour mathematically rather than intuitively.
Sigh... you -were- thinking about little cogs and wheels. That notion of
physics went out with the Cartesian school. You might want to read the
amusing essay by Voltaire on the foolishness of Cartesian cogwheels
compared with a new-fangled invention called the differential and integral
calculus.
Gerry, don't you see? "Understanding" a theory means precisely that you
-do- have an intuitive understanding of "how the math works"! For a very
nice example of this, consider Maxwell's field equations in the vector
calculus form with which every undergraduate physics student is familiar.
Do you understand intuitively the role of each partial derivative therein?
Evidently the answer must be "no". Do good theoretical physicists
understand the role of each term in Maxwell's equation? You bet they do!
For a good explanation of one way of understanding intuitively how the
vacuum Maxwell's equations give rise to radiation, see Feynman, Lectures
on Physics.
Another rhetorical question: do you understand why physicists are always
on the lookout for new (mathematical) reformulations of an important
theory such as Maxwell's theory of EM or gtr? The answer is that there is
often more than one way to get some good intuition for "how things work".
Again, a perfect example comes from Feynman's discussion of how the
"integral" and "differential" forms of Maxwell's theory reinforce each
another to deepen our insight into the physical -meaning- of his field
equations. In the same vein, see Wheeler's chapter (in MTW) on the Bianchi
identities as a homological phenomenon, or Frankel's discussion of the
geometric meaning of the field equation in his textbook, or Gerald Rosen's
papers on the meaning of the field equation (see PROLA for these). And,
of course, -every- modern textbook on gtr discusses the variational
formulation (or more properly, one of many such formulations) of the field
equations, which conceptually relates gtr to the formally similar
variational formulations of quantum and classical mechanics.
I cannot emphasize this too highly: theoretical physicists rarely "just
calculate". To make even modest progress, it is--- surely this is
obvious?--- neccessary to have an -idea-. Working physicists know that
this idea is a mathematical insight as often as not, rather than a "purely
physical" insight. But it would be absurd to say that mathematical
insights or guesses or hunches are any less "intuitive" than, say, my
suspicion that the parents of small children are likely to disagree with
your statement about the arrow of time.
Erik Max Francis
> That's fine. Protecting your SR expert brother eh?:-) I was just
> paying back for Simon's permanent website ridiculing me.
You are engaging in net abuse. That is objectively stupid, regardless
of who you disagree with when you do it.
Erik Max Francis
> That's right even cranks have the right to defend themselves and use
> whatever mean that is available to them.
They have the right to post. They do not have the right to abuse
Usenet.
Simon Clark
my bestest friend Ken Seto wrote:
> So you think that you have a permanent website ridiculing me
It's hardly permanent, I had to get rid of it to make some room for
this:
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/postgrad/clarksj/srian/hq.htm
(there seems to be a problem with my web space -- I'll fix it when I
get back from vacation.)
> and invite everybody to visit it every chance you got is not spaming?
Don't be silly, of course it isn't -- at least not by any ACCEPTED
definition of the word "spam". Spamming simply means placing a post
which is entirely (or almost entirely) the same a multiple number of
times. All of your "Simon Clark is a..." posts ARE spam.
Now you once FALSELY accused me of cancelling your posts. Did you know
that if you place a large number of (almost) identical posts that they
CAN be cancelled (by the right people)?
> Go ahead and complaint, I am tire of the bull shit in this NG anyway
> so it wont hurt me one bit by being kick out.
But you wont JUST be "kicked out" -- you will lose ALL internet
access. No Usenet, no E-mail, and no webpages. Nothing...
> Here's more ammunition:
and evidence...
> Simon Clark is a low-life stupid jerk. [blah blah blah]
[snip spam]
I can't be bothered right now (I go on vacation in a couple of days).
But if you keep this up when I get back, I promise you that I'll
contact erinet personally -- there is plenty of evidence of your
spamming to be found here. ISPs don't like spammers.
If anyone else is fed up by Ken's spamming: try ab...@erinet.com. The
more complaints they get, the less likely he is going to be able to
spam again...
Simon Clark
my bestest friend Ken Seto rewrote:
> So you think that you have a permanent website ridiculing me and
[snip new spam]
> Simon Clark is a low-life stupid jerk.
[and old spam]
> It's working:-)
You are only demonstrating what a pathetic little spammer you are...
Simon Clark
zapk...@geocities.com plonked:
> (The kitty has amazing super powers granted by exposure to
> Special Relativity Mind Control Rays...
Speaking of mind control:
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/postgrad/clarksj/srian/hq.htm
> He can put a stop to the
> madness!...)
>
> Have I introduced you to the feral lemmings that dwell in the
> cold, icy depths of my kill file?
>
> I haven't?... here you go.
>
> *plomk*
>
> "Ken H. Seto" wrote:
>
> Nevermore.
OH MY GOD!!! HE KILLFILED KENNY!!!
--
Simon "You don't know how long I've waited to say that!" Clark
Simon Clark
Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
> Simon Clark wrote:
>
> > Not quite. He first started that spam back in February (IIRC), and
> > he only recently started again -- I was counting BOTH times, so
> > it's out of the 45 day window.
>
> If at any time he exceeded a BI of 20 within a 45-day sliding window,
> then thereafter it is _always_ cancellable as a continuation of a
> previous spam. I suspect the first time he probably exceeded the
> limits.
Hmmm. Maybe, maybe not. I'd have to check. But it's pretty close
though. (I've already gathered together the message IDs of his spams --
so I'll check sometime.)
> > I thought if OTHER people told him that it was annoying he might
> > stop.
>
> When has that ever worked with cranks?
Point taken.
If he is still doing this when I get back from vacation I WILL send a
complaint to his ISP. That's, EriNet, BTW, E.r.i.N.e.t. As in
http:///www.erinet.com and they state in their TOS that they do not
tolerate spamming! However, I'm not so sure they'll listen to just ONE
person, that is why I was hoping other members of this ng might also
complain. His spamming effects everybody here (with out a killfile).
--
Simon Clark
Simon Clark
Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
> "Ken H. Seto" wrote:
>
> > Why don't you join in and complaint also?
>
> Why wouldn't I?
A possible E-mail address to complain to would be:
which I found at:
but that is really meant for E-mail spam. However it does seem the
most appropriate address to send this kind of complaint to.
Also, I have links to all of the evidence here:
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/postgrad/clarksj/setospam.htm
Ken H. Seto
<zapk...@geocities.com> wrote:
>(The kitty has amazing super powers granted by exposure to
>Special Relativity Mind Control Rays... He can put a stop to the
>madness!...)
>
>Have I introduced you to the feral lemmings that dwell in the
>cold, icy depths of my kill file?
>
>I haven't?... here you go.
>
>*plomk*
Thank you.
Ken Seto
>
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>"Ken H. Seto" wrote:
>
>> Why don't you join in and complaint also?
>
>Why wouldn't I?
That's fine. Protecting your SR expert brother eh?:-) I was just
paying back for Simon's permanent website ridiculing me.
>
>Seto, you are an annoyance on this newsgroup, and have just graduated to
>net abuse. You should stop before you regret your actions.
Whose going to do it you? I welcome it.
>
>This is not a threat; it is a sincere wish for you to correct your ways.
>You are behaving inappropriately for Usenet, much less this newsgroup.
Go for it. I am not going to change.
Ken Seto
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>Simon Clark wrote:
>
>> Not quite. He first started that spam back in February (IIRC), and he
>> only recently started again -- I was counting BOTH times, so it's out
>> of the 45 day window.
>
>If at any time he exceeded a BI of 20 within a 45-day sliding window,
>then thereafter it is _always_ cancellable as a continuation of a
>previous spam. I suspect the first time he probably exceeded the
>limits.
>
>> I thought if OTHER people told him that it was annoying he might stop.
>
>When has that ever worked with cranks?
That's right even cranks have the right to defend themselves and use
whatever mean that is available to them.
Ken Seto
Gerry Quinn
>
>
>On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, someone (John Anderson?--- I haven't been following
>this thread) wrote:
>
>> >The point has been raised many times on this NG as to how many
>> >practicing physicists actually read or contribute to it.
>> >The aim of this thread was to try to get some idea of the type of
>> >people we are communicating with and to determine if anything useful
>> >can be achieved through our discussions.
>> >Does anyone here have any influence within academic establishments or
>> >are we all just a bunch of amateurs and interested outsiders?
>
>
I tend to disagree with the above. In the end, we're still trying to
figure out exactly why that apple falls. As for Einstein, Hilbert
remarked more than once on his mathematical limitations, though I
concede they were probably more relative than absolute (sorry, Tom).
And I suspect a lot of people in the field are thinking too much about
group theory etc. and not enough about the 'nuts and bolts' of how
nature works at the local level. That the behaviour and structure of
fundamental particles, and the entropic process that we recognise as the
arrow of time do not match well to our physical experience goes without
saying. But is mathematics really the entire answer? - I'd rather think
we should try to get a 'feel' for what this fundamental stuff is doing,
but despite what you say above about (for example) Tom's background
working with particle beams, I suspect he would claim to predict their
behaviour mathematically rather than intuitively.
- Gerry Quinn
Ken H. Seto
><<Simon Clark is a low-life stupid jerk. He doesn't know anything about
>real PHYSICS. He live in a fantasy world of mathematical constructs
>such as: space-time, properties for space-time, tensors, wave
>functions, collapse of wave functions, time dilation, length
>contraction, fields, virtual particles, duality, probability
>waves...........etc.>>
>
>If that's so, sign me up to become a low-life stupid jerk!
It's a free country. Go for it.
Simon Clark
my bestest friend Ken Seto wrote:
> That's right even cranks have the right to defend themselves and use
> whatever mean that is available to them.
I don't mind you insulting me, but spamming is VERY bad netiquette. So
bad in fact that ISPs will (and HAVE) cancelled peoples accounts for
it. When you spam a newsgroup you don't just spam one person you spam
the WHOLE group. Do you REALLY want everyone here -- INCLUDING your
fellow cranks (hey, EVERYONE hates spam!) -- to look down on (and not
to mention killfile) you? Honestly Ken, you behave like a clueless
newbie! (And how long have you been here now?)
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>In article <377995f0...@news.erinet.com>,
> my beastest friend Ken Seto kooked:
>
>> >Did you find us more or less amusing than this:
>> >
>> > http://www.lancs.ac.uk/postgrad/clarksj/usenet/drip/mercury.htm ?
>>
>> I find this to be a sign of panic on your part.
>
>Then you are a very strange person...
Not at all. This is a very normal reaction: when somebody threatens us
we tend to react accordingly. In your case you couldn't find anything
wrong with DRT so you try to dismiss it with ridicule. In Ilja's case
he said that I don't have any math in his website---but of course he
completely ignored the math of DRT.
>
>> In a way I feel proud:
>> The reason is: of all those hundreds of aether theories, only my
>> theory was selected by you and Ilja to be attacked in a permanent
>> website. It must mean that I am on the right track.
>
>Either that or you are so badly wrong that it is funny...
It is that.
>
>> Keep them coming---jerk face. :-)
>
>Clearly I don't annoy you at all! (<-- sarcasm)
No I am not annoyed at all. I am kind of enjoying these exchanges.
It seems that you are annoyed though---otherwise you wouldn't appear
for help from your SR expert brothers.
Ken Seto
Aaron Bergman
<Pine.OSF.4.02A.99063...@goedel1.math.washington.edu>,
>
>* Until very recently, the quality of preprints submitted to this server
>was uniformly quite good,
Er, have you looked at the physics section?
> and I think almost all of these preprints wound
>up being published in peer reviewed journals in the field.
I'm not so sure about that, but I don't feel confident enough to
speak with authority.
> This happy
>situation was no doubt the result of "self-censorhip" in the sense that
>until very recently, most authors resisted the temptation to submit poorly
>thought out work, or work in areas in which they lacked the requisite
>technical expertise.
It's not self-censorship -- it's the fact that the kooks simply
didn't know enough to submit.
> Unfortunately, in recent months a half dozen
>embarrassingly erroneous preprints have been submitted to LANL which
>repeat a variety of "typical-first-year-graduate-student-errors"
>concerning the good old Schwarzschild solution! No doubt they have
>attracted only one critique (to date) because the errors are so obvious
>that the experts hold these particular preprints beneath contempt.
Nah. They're either ignored or passed around for humor value.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman
<http://www.princeton.edu/~abergman/>
Aaron Bergman
>In article <377A7B49...@alcyone.com>,
>> serious offense.
>
It's not annoying. Somewhere between amusing and pathetic really.
Aaron (can I be a lowlife stupid jerK?)
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>In article <377a8f3e...@news.erinet.com>,
> my bestest friend Ken Seto rewrote:
>
>> So you think that you have a permanent website ridiculing me and
>
>[snip new spam]
>
>> Simon Clark is a low-life stupid jerk.
>
>[and old spam]
>
>> It's working:-)
>
>You are only demonstrating what a pathetic little spammer you are...
Yeah why don't you cry for help:-) jerk face.
Ken Seto
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>In article <377a8a13...@news.erinet.com>,
> my bestest friend Ken Seto wrote:
>
>> So you think that you have a permanent website ridiculing me
>
>It's hardly permanent, I had to get rid of it to make some room for
>this:
>
> http://www.lancs.ac.uk/postgrad/clarksj/srian/hq.htm
>
>(there seems to be a problem with my web space -- I'll fix it when I
>get back from vacation.)
>
>> and invite everybody to visit it every chance you got is not spaming?
>
>Don't be silly, of course it isn't -- at least not by any ACCEPTED
>definition of the word "spam". Spamming simply means placing a post
>which is entirely (or almost entirely) the same a multiple number of
>times. All of your "Simon Clark is a..." posts ARE spam.
>
>Now you once FALSELY accused me of cancelling your posts. Did you know
>that if you place a large number of (almost) identical posts that they
>CAN be cancelled (by the right people)?
>
>> Go ahead and complaint, I am tire of the bull shit in this NG anyway
>> so it wont hurt me one bit by being kick out.
>
>But you wont JUST be "kicked out" -- you will lose ALL internet
>access. No Usenet, no E-mail, and no webpages. Nothing...
That's OK too
>
>> Here's more ammunition:
>
>and evidence...
>
>> Simon Clark is a low-life stupid jerk. [blah blah blah]
>
>[snip spam]
>
>I can't be bothered right now (I go on vacation in a couple of days).
>But if you keep this up when I get back, I promise you that I'll
>contact erinet personally -- there is plenty of evidence of your
>spamming to be found here. ISPs don't like spammers.
>
>If anyone else is fed up by Ken's spamming: try ab...@erinet.com. The
>more complaints they get, the less likely he is going to be able to
>spam again...
Poor little boy Simon (cry baby) need your help. It doesn't matter
that he started this whole thing by putting up a website that
ridicules me. In fact you can still see it. in this site:
Simon said:
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/postgrad/clarksj/usenet/drip/mercury.htm
(I'll think up something better when I get back from holiday.)
Ken Seto
jddescr...@my-deja.com
Chris Hillman <hil...@math.washington.edu> wrote:
the comments following this response.
You presented a very interesting post and I agree with most of what
you said but must take strong objection to the part about the benifits
of what I call the bourbakian obfuscation of physical description
[ things/symbology of no or negative value like differential forms ].
I think we are going to see a revolution in the next decade or
generation of a return to Hamiltonian Visualization ( HV ). The process
has already started in a very open way that you are probably familiar
with. The path is quite contorted but the revolution that brings
science description back to average people has occured with the
Bohm/Berry/Bristol school of physics and related subjects. Part of the
irony of the situation is that the discovery of Berry Phase , which has
revolutionized physics description: showing that Einstein was right and
the coppenheimer interpretation was a fraud on all students everywhere,
was made by Professor Berry who was educated in Scottish schools with
the bourbakian ( differential forms ) methods. This revolution has been
widely seen in places like Scientific American and I doubt that they
will be able to cover it up again.
I think the revolution will have similarities to Bill Gates bringing
visualization to the computer desktop. A generation ago we were forced
to use punch cards. Do you think it will ever go back? The amazing
question is how did the bourbakians keep their rule going all these
years?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > In the end, peer-reviewed papers are the only things taken
seriously by
> > the establishment.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > It is a problem, particularly in fields where a certain 'language'
has
> > accreted which actively militates against new ideas getting through.
>
> I disagree--- there is a very good reason for the highly mathematical
> language of current theoretical physics, with all its exterior forms
and
> Lie algebras and Virasoro algebras and tensor products and spinors and
> representations and what have you. These notions have all -greatly-
> simplified (-simplified!-) vast areas of theoretical physics (and
> mathematics).
>
> I cannot emphasize too highly that sophisticated mathematics is the
> theoretical physicist's best friend, because we achieve greater
> generality, simplicity, and economy of thought, at the cost of
ascending
> to higher planes of mathematical sophistication. Three hundred years
of
> modern physics, and three thousand years of mathematics, amply bears
out
> this assessment.
>
> Noone can do anything about the entirely unintenional side effect that
> this sophisticated technical language shuts out the majority of
interested
> amateurs with backgrounds in fields other than pure math or physics.
>
> > But it was always so, and truth will out (in the end).
>
> Yes and yes.
>
> Chris Hillman
>
> Home Page: http://www.math.washington.edu/~hillman/personal.html
>
>
Aaron Bergman
>
>> >* Until very recently, the quality of preprints submitted to this server
>> >was uniformly quite good,
>>
>> Er, have you looked at the physics section?
>
>
>(Aside for the non-net-savvy folk: LANL preprints appear in different
>sections, such as hep-th and gr-qc; I have mostly confined my reading to
>astro-ph and gr-qc.)
Astro-ph seems to be the wackiest of the ones I skim. Others
vary.
>
>> > This happy
>> >situation was no doubt the result of "self-censorhip" in the sense that
>> >until very recently, most authors resisted the temptation to submit poorly
>> >thought out work, or work in areas in which they lacked the requisite
>> >technical expertise.
>>
>> It's not self-censorship -- it's the fact that the kooks simply
>> didn't know enough to submit.
>
>Very possibly. There was an article on the LANL server in the LA Times
>(IIRC) about a year ago in which the person who owns the humble PC clone
>which hosts this invaluable resource speculated about self-censorship
>along the lines I indicated. Not long after this article appeared, the
>nut cases started submitting preprints to gr-qc, and a half dozen slipped
>by the robomoderator. Very possibly not a coincidence of timing.
I just think self-censorship is a bit too strong of a term if you
mean that physicists weren't submitting blatantly stupid articles
-- I just call that common sense. I mean, most of the wacky stuff
is really quite wacky.
Aaron
Zachary Uram
>
> Anyway, Pais is pretty much the last word on this matter, so anybody
> concerned should read him.
I think it's titled "Subtle is the Lord"
regards
Zach
________________________________________________________
ur...@cmu.edu
"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have faith." - John 20:29
Aaron Bergman
>
>
> Chris Hillman <hil...@math.washington.edu> wrote:
>the comments following this response.
>
>You presented a very interesting post and I agree with most of what
>you said but must take strong objection to the part about the benifits
>of what I call the bourbakian obfuscation of physical description
>[ things/symbology of no or negative value like differential forms ].
Bourbakian?
Oh please.
>
>I think we are going to see a revolution in the next decade or
>generation of a return to Hamiltonian Visualization ( HV ). The process
>has already started in a very open way that you are probably familiar
>with. The path is quite contorted but the revolution that brings
>science description back to average people has occured with the
>Bohm/Berry/Bristol school of physics and related subjects. Part of the
>irony of the situation is that the discovery of Berry Phase , which has
>revolutionized physics description: showing that Einstein was right and
>the coppenheimer interpretation was a fraud on all students everywhere,
Huh?
What does the Berry phase have to do with the Copenhagen
interpretation? Yeah, sure the Copenhagen interpretation is
basically a joke, but everyone knows it, an besides, the other
interpretations out there aren't all that much better.
>was made by Professor Berry who was educated in Scottish schools with
>the bourbakian ( differential forms ) methods. This revolution has been
>widely seen in places like Scientific American and I doubt that they
>will be able to cover it up again.
>
>I think the revolution will have similarities to Bill Gates bringing
>visualization to the computer desktop.
Oops. You're a troll, aren't you. Sigh. Well, I'll respond
anyways.
Leong Chung Wei Bernard
> I think it's titled "Subtle is the Lord"
Just add to the title, the book "Subtle is the Lord : the life and
science of Albert Einstein" published by Oxford University Press....
Do take care.
Yours sincerely,
Bernard Leong
Simon Clark
ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jul 1999 00:09:35 GMT, Simon Clark <cla...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
> >But you wont JUST be "kicked out" -- you will lose ALL internet
> >access. No Usenet, no E-mail, and no webpages. Nothing...
>
> That's OK too
Obviously YOU don't really think so -- I HAD noticed that you seem to
have stopped spamming...
> Poor little boy Simon (cry baby) need your help.
The only one round here acting like a "cry baby" is you -- as anyone
watching you little temper tantrum can see!
> It doesn't matter
> that he started this whole thing by putting up a website that
> ridicules me. In fact you can still see it. in this site:
> Simon said:
> http://www.lancs.ac.uk/postgrad/clarksj/usenet/drip/mercury.htm
As you have been told several posts ago: IT. IS. NOT. THERE. ANY.
MORE. However...
>> (I'll think up something better when I get back from holiday.)
That website seemed to REALLY upset you, didn't it? ;-) In fact that
was what started your little spam spasm in the first place!
--
Simon Clark
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/postgrad/clarksj
ICQ: 41011046
Simon Clark
my bestest friend Ken Seto wrote:
> In your case you couldn't find anything wrong with DRT
> so you try to dismiss it with ridicule.
Duh! How many times have I (make that WE) pointed out your errors
now? Please predict the perihelion advance of Mercury according to
your theory. If you can't do this then there is something wrong with
your theory! And that is only one of the MANY things wrong with your
theory...
> >> Keep them coming---jerk face. :-)
> >
> >Clearly I don't annoy you at all! (<-- sarcasm)
>
> No I am not annoyed at all.
The fact that you keep spamming insults suggests otherwise...
--
Simon "Well at least he didn't spam that time!" Clark
Simon Clark
my bestest friend Ken Seto kooked:
> Yeah why don't you cry for help:-) jerk face.
I'm REALLY getting to you aren't I? You never used to throw about
insults quite as much as you have done lately.
--
Simon Clark
Simon Clark
aber...@princeton.edu (Aaron Bergman) wrote:
[re Kens spamming]
> It's not annoying. Somewhere between amusing and pathetic really.
>
> Aaron (can I be a lowlife stupid jerK?)
You have to make Ken go crazy(er) first. Only then can you join the
Low-life Stupid Jerk Club...
--
Simon "Go on have a go, you know you want to" Clark
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>"Ken H. Seto" wrote:
>
>> That's fine. Protecting your SR expert brother eh?:-) I was just
>> paying back for Simon's permanent website ridiculing me.
>
>You are engaging in net abuse. That is objectively stupid, regardless
>of who you disagree with when you do it.
I got it: when your SR expert brother Simon used the net to abuse me
it's OK. But when I fight back by using the net it's not OK. What
planet are you coming from Sir?
Ken Seto
Simon Clark
Insulting someone a bit ISN'T net abuse -- spamming IS. Net abuse
means abuse OF the net. Try reading one of the many FAQs about spam
that you can find on the web or on usenet. Insult me all you like (you
are entitled to), but DON'T spam (that is net abuse, and WILL cost you
your internet access should you keep it up -- I've seen it happen many
times).
--
Simon Clark
Gerry Quinn
>
>> That the behaviour and structure of fundamental particles, and the
>> entropic process that we recognise as the arrow of time do not match
>> well to our physical experience goes without saying.
>
>The arrow of time -doesn't- match our everyday experience? Parents of
>small children might disagree.
>
The arrow of time matches our everyday experience, as does the falling
apple. Our best explanations of these matters would seem extremely
strange to the average parent. But the explanations do not match the
behaviour of high-energy particle beams any better than they match the
behaviour of children and apples.
>> But is mathematics really the entire answer? - I'd rather think we
>> should try to get a 'feel' for what this fundamental stuff is doing,
>> but despite what you say above about (for example) Tom's background
>> working with particle beams, I suspect he would claim to predict their
>> behaviour mathematically rather than intuitively.
>
>Sigh... you -were- thinking about little cogs and wheels. That notion of
>physics went out with the Cartesian school. You might want to read the
>amusing essay by Voltaire on the foolishness of Cartesian cogwheels
>compared with a new-fangled invention called the differential and integral
>calculus.
>Gerry, don't you see? "Understanding" a theory means precisely that you
>-do- have an intuitive understanding of "how the math works"! For a very
>nice example of this, consider Maxwell's field equations in the vector
>calculus form with which every undergraduate physics student is familiar.
>Do you understand intuitively the role of each partial derivative therein?
>Evidently the answer must be "no". Do good theoretical physicists
>understand the role of each term in Maxwell's equation? You bet they do!
>For a good explanation of one way of understanding intuitively how the
>vacuum Maxwell's equations give rise to radiation, see Feynman, Lectures
>on Physics.
>
You brought up Tom's experience with particle beams, not me. And
Maxwell's equations give rise to radiation equations, not radiation.
>Another rhetorical question: do you understand why physicists are always
>on the lookout for new (mathematical) reformulations of an important
>theory such as Maxwell's theory of EM or gtr? The answer is that there is
>often more than one way to get some good intuition for "how things work".
>Again, a perfect example comes from Feynman's discussion of how the
>"integral" and "differential" forms of Maxwell's theory reinforce each
>another to deepen our insight into the physical -meaning- of his field
>equations. In the same vein, see Wheeler's chapter (in MTW) on the Bianchi
>identities as a homological phenomenon, or Frankel's discussion of the
>geometric meaning of the field equation in his textbook, or Gerald Rosen's
>papers on the meaning of the field equation (see PROLA for these). And,
>of course, -every- modern textbook on gtr discusses the variational
>formulation (or more properly, one of many such formulations) of the field
>equations, which conceptually relates gtr to the formally similar
>variational formulations of quantum and classical mechanics.
>
And what I'm looking for is a model of gravity in a mathematical form
_I_ can work with. I am hoping to produce a reformulation in terms of
simple(ish) particles moving in an absolute Euclidean space. (Such a
formulation exists for the electromagnetic Lorentz effects, as we both
know.) I then hope to get as much use from computer simulation of these
particles as Einstein got from his power series. Maybe I'll be able to
see into such models as deeply as others see into their field equations.
There's more than one way to skin a cat.
Cogs and gears it may be. But cogs and gears have taken many scientists
a long way, often long after the time of Voltaire.
- Gerry Quinn
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>In article <377b313...@news.erinet.com>,
> my bestest friend Ken Seto wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 23:45:31 -0700, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Ken H. Seto" wrote:
>> >
>> >> That's fine. Protecting your SR expert brother eh?:-) I was just
>> >> paying back for Simon's permanent website ridiculing me.
>> >
>> >You are engaging in net abuse. That is objectively stupid,
>> >regardless of who you disagree with when you do it.
>>
>> I got it: when your SR expert brother Simon used the net to abuse me
>> it's OK. But when I fight back by using the net it's not OK. What
>> planet are you coming from Sir?
>
>Insulting someone a bit ISN'T net abuse -- spamming IS. Net abuse
>means abuse OF the net.
Abusing someone by having a website is a net abuse. It has the same
effect as spamming.
Try reading one of the many FAQs about spam
>that you can find on the web or on usenet. Insult me all you like (you
>are entitled to), but DON'T spam (that is net abuse, and WILL cost you
>your internet access should you keep it up -- I've seen it happen many
>times).
I will spam when I am being abused in the net. You can make book on
it.
Ken Seto
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>In article <377add17...@news.erinet.com>,
> my bestest friend Ken Seto kooked:
>
>> Yeah why don't you cry for help:-) jerk face.
>
>I'm REALLY getting to you aren't I? You never used to throw about
>insults quite as much as you have done lately.
No I think the reverse is true. You are crying to your SR brother for
help. So I think I am really getting to you.
Ken Seto
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>In article <377ade47...@news.erinet.com>,
> ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 01 Jul 1999 00:09:35 GMT, Simon Clark <cla...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >But you wont JUST be "kicked out" -- you will lose ALL internet
>> >access. No Usenet, no E-mail, and no webpages. Nothing...
>>
>> That's OK too
>
>Obviously YOU don't really think so -- I HAD noticed that you seem to
>have stopped spamming...
I have stopped spamming because you stopped abusing me in your
website. But for the last time until you start again here it is:
Simon Clark is a low-life stupid jerk. He doesn't know anything about
real PHYSICS. He live in a fantasy world of mathematical constructs
such as: space-time, properties for space-time, tensors, wave
functions, collapse of wave functions, time dilation, length
contraction, fields, virtual particles, duality, probability
waves...........etc. He is inviting everybody to visit him in his
fantasy world. But we don't have time for his nonsenses. Perhaps
someday he will ask Disney to make a cartoon about himself in this
fantasy land so that we can review it at our leisure.
>
>> Poor little boy Simon (cry baby) need your help.
>
>The only one round here acting like a "cry baby" is you -- as anyone
>watching you little temper tantrum can see!
Fighting back is not "crying baby". Ask you Sr brothers to help you is
a crying baby.
>
>> It doesn't matter
>> that he started this whole thing by putting up a website that
>> ridicules me. In fact you can still see it. in this site:
>> Simon said:
>> http://www.lancs.ac.uk/postgrad/clarksj/usenet/drip/mercury.htm
>
>As you have been told several posts ago: IT. IS. NOT. THERE. ANY.
>MORE. However...
>
>>> (I'll think up something better when I get back from holiday.)
>
>That website seemed to REALLY upset you, didn't it? ;-) In fact that
>was what started your little spam spasm in the first place!
Correct. That's net abuse and the only thing I have to fight back is
to repeat the same message to you.
Ken Seto
Simon Clark
ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) wrote:
> I have stopped spamming because you stopped abusing me in your
> website. But for the last time until you start again here it is:
You're not a big believer in free-speech are you Kenny?
> Simon Clark is a low-life stupid jerk. blah blah blah
[snip canned spam]
Now, that was VERY silly of you Kenny. I found some more space, so
here it is again:
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/postgrad/clarksj/spam/seto.htm !
Now, if you ask me nicely, AND if you promise not to spam again, I WILL
take it down FOR GOOD... That is as long as you honour your promise.
Spam again (even ONCE more!) and it stays up FOREVER! AND the link
goes in my usenet .sig! AND I'll make sure the page can be found by
searching the web for "Ken Seto"! Now that IS a promise!
Think VERY carefully before you write your reply -- do you REALLY want
me to keep that page up? I don't think that you do.
You can reply by E-mail if you wish.
Zachary Uram
> In article <slrn7nljel....@tree0.Stanford.EDU>,
> aber...@princeton.edu (Aaron Bergman) wrote:
>
> [re Kens spamming]
>
> > It's not annoying. Somewhere between amusing and pathetic really.
> >
> > Aaron (can I be a lowlife stupid jerK?)
>
> You have to make Ken go crazy(er) first. Only then can you join the
> Low-life Stupid Jerk Club...
How exclusive :)))
<TELE SAVALIS> Now you too can be a member of the Low-life Stupid Jerk
Club! </TELE SAVALIS>
hehe
Erik Max Francis
> Abusing someone by having a website is a net abuse. It has the same
> effect as spamming.
No it isn't. Try learning some more about net abuse before you engage
in it.
> I will spam when I am being abused in the net. You can make book on
> it.
Abusing someone on the net is not the same thing as abusing the net.
What are you doing is objectively reprehensible and you will regret it,
should you continue. (Again, this is not a threat, it is a statement of
fact.)
--
Erik Max Francis / email m...@alcyone.com / whois mf303 / icq 16063900
Alcyone Systems / irc maxxon@efnet / finger m...@members.alcyone.com
San Jose, CA / languages En, Eo / web http://www.alcyone.com/max/
USA / icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W / &tSftDotIotE
\
/ If you think you're free, there's no escape possible.
/ Baba Ram Dass
Erik Max Francis
> I got it: when your SR expert brother Simon used the net to abuse me
> it's OK. But when I fight back by using the net it's not OK.
"Fighting back" is not the same as abusing the net. Abusing the net
also isn't the same thing as being mean to someone. You have
objectively engaged in net abuse; Simon has not.
If you do not understand why this is the case, ask your news
administrator (be sure to point out what you're doing, that'll be good
for a larf), or read some news.admin.net-abuse FAQs. That you don't
believe it's true does not make it any less so.
and...@ibm.net
>
[snip]
What the hell does this have to do with this thread?
John Anderson
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>In article <377bccad...@news.erinet.com>,
> ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) wrote:
>
>> I have stopped spamming because you stopped abusing me in your
>> website. But for the last time until you start again here it is:
>
>You're not a big believer in free-speech are you Kenny?
>
>> Simon Clark is a low-life stupid jerk. blah blah blah
>
>[snip canned spam]
>
>Now, that was VERY silly of you Kenny. I found some more space, so
>here it is again:
>
> http://www.lancs.ac.uk/postgrad/clarksj/spam/seto.htm !
>
>Now, if you ask me nicely, AND if you promise not to spam again, I WILL
>take it down FOR GOOD... That is as long as you honour your promise.
>Spam again (even ONCE more!) and it stays up FOREVER! AND the link
>goes in my usenet .sig! AND I'll make sure the page can be found by
>searching the web for "Ken Seto"! Now that IS a promise!
>
>Think VERY carefully before you write your reply -- do you REALLY want
>me to keep that page up? I don't think that you do.
>
>You can reply by E-mail if you wish.
Do whatt you want. Since you put it up again so here goes:
Simon Clark is a low-life stupid jerk. He doesn't know anything about
real PHYSICS. He live in a fantasy world of mathematical constructs
such as: space-time, properties for space-time, tensors, wave
functions, collapse of wave functions, time dilation, length
contraction, fields, virtual particles, duality, probability
waves...........etc. He is inviting everybody to visit him in his
fantasy world. But we don't have time for his nonsenses. Perhaps
someday he will ask Disney to make a cartoon about himself in this
fantasy land so that we can review it at our leisure
Ken Seto
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>"Ken H. Seto" wrote:
>
>> I got it: when your SR expert brother Simon used the net to abuse me
>> it's OK. But when I fight back by using the net it's not OK.
>
>"Fighting back" is not the same as abusing the net. Abusing the net
>also isn't the same thing as being mean to someone. You have
>objectively engaged in net abuse; Simon has not.
Obviously your opinion means squat to me. Simom use the net to abuse
me. I am using the net to abuse him back.
ken Seto
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>"Ken H. Seto" wrote:
>
>> Abusing someone by having a website is a net abuse. It has the same
>> effect as spamming.
>
>No it isn't. Try learning some more about net abuse before you engage
>in it.
>
>> I will spam when I am being abused in the net. You can make book on
>> it.
>
>Abusing someone on the net is not the same thing as abusing the net.
>What are you doing is objectively reprehensible and you will regret it,
>should you continue. (Again, this is not a threat, it is a statement of
>fact.)
It is quite clear that I am not taking your advise. So go and fly a
kite.
Ken Seto
DJMenCk
>basically a joke, but everyone knows it,
Dennis: Wow. Everyone on my side always knew this--but when did mainstream
physicists start admitting this?
I still see articles everywhere praising or paraphrasing "wave-particle
duality" etc....