Physicists Don't Know Shit! ahahaha...
Traveler
They don't know why things fall.
They don't know why decay rates are probabilistic.
They don't know what things are made of.
They don't know that the universe is discrete.
They don't know how the universe began.
They don't know that a discrete universe is necessarily probabilistic.
They don't know that nothing can move faster or slower than c.
They don't know that everything that exists is absolute.
They don't know that the relative is abstract and non-existent.
I could go on but my point is that physicists are simply full of shit
and over 90% of them are gutless ass kissers. 'Peer review' is
synonymous with 'ass review'. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
cnctut
Traveler wrote:
> They don't know why things move.
> They don't know why things fall.
> They don't know why decay rates are probabilistic.
> They don't know what things are made of.
> They don't know that the universe is discrete.
> They don't know how the universe began.
> They don't know that a discrete universe is necessarily probabilistic.
> They don't know that nothing can move faster or slower than c.
> They don't know that everything that exists is absolute.
> They don't know that the relative is abstract and non-existent.
>
> I could go on but my point is that physicists are simply full of shit
> and over 90% of them are gutless ass kissers. 'Peer review' is
> synonymous with 'ass review'. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
> Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
>
> Louis Savain
Louis my friend--
One must breath the air around him--in a pig lot, the farmer says--
"Mmmm, smell that--that's the smell of money!"
Keep me smiling,
Tut
hanson
Louis Savainb aka "Traveler" <trav...@nospam.net> w/i
news:720sd2pugfo3ja0oq...@4ax.com...
[ -------- the **10 point Louis Manifesto** ----------- ]
> They don't know why things move.
> They don't know why things fall.
> They don't know why decay rates are probabilistic.
> They don't know what things are made of.
> They don't know that the universe is discrete.
> They don't know how the universe began.
> They don't know that a discrete universe is necessarily probabilistic.
> They don't know that nothing can move faster or slower than c.
> They don't know that everything that exists is absolute.
> They don't know that the relative is abstract and non-existent.
>
> I could go on but my point is that physicists are simply full of shit
> and over 90% of them are gutless ass kissers. 'Peer review' is
> synonymous with 'ass review'. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
> Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
> Louis Savain
>
.... hahahahahaha.. not withstanding the absolute truth of your
**10 point Louis Manifesto** it is not clear whether your >90%
is also absolute. I say this for the reason that only a tiny minority,
say <1%, of physicists in the real world are physi_cysts. These are
blemishes on that community which include Einstein Dingleberries,
Time travelers and Wormhole architects who move in space-time.
To boot, most of the Einstein Dingleberries have condensed into
the Usenet, their relativity refuge, from where, as a laughing stock,
they cajole and beguile young romantic and impressionable
Dingleberry sniffers with their geriatric physics.
These days a more sober view of the _usefulness_ of SR/GR (REL)
may be summarized as/for anybody who works in
[1] mil/indust. Eng, R&D "does not need REL shit"
[2] *.edu & for R-grants "does need REL, - No shit"
[3] Promo, Sales & Movies "loves REL by the shitload"
[4] Jews protect it as cultural heritage whether "REL is shit or not".
ahahaha... ahahahanson
cnctut
//
Tut writes:
Boys, Boys--
I think we need some "Federal Grant Money" to study this--like they
say:
Prove it's so--pocket $50,000 or so,
Two years later, prove it ain't so---that's another $50,000 or moe
Tut
hanson
news:1155425211.1...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> hanson wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5c3f3ea347d3e87a
>> .... ahahahaha... ahahaha..... AHAHAHAHA....
>> Louis Savainb aka "Traveler" <trav...@nospam.net> w/i
>> news:720sd2pugfo3ja0oq...@4ax.com...
>> [ -------- the **10 point Louis Manifesto** ----------- ]
>> > They don't know why things move.
>> > They don't know why things fall.
>> > They don't know why decay rates are probabilistic.
>> > They don't know what things are made of.
>> > They don't know that the universe is discrete.
>> > They don't know how the universe began.
>> > They don't know that a discrete universe is necessarily probabilistic.
>> > They don't know that nothing can move faster or slower than c.
>> > They don't know that everything that exists is absolute.
>> > They don't know that the relative is abstract and non-existent.
>> >
>> > I could go on but my point is that physicists are simply full of shit
>> > and over 90% of them are gutless ass kissers. 'Peer review' is
>> > synonymous with 'ass review'. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>> >
>> > Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
>> > Louis Savain
>> >
>> [hanson]
>> .... hahahahahaha.. not withstanding the absolute truth of your
>> **10 point Louis Manifesto** it is not clear whether your >90%
>> is also absolute. I say this for the reason that only a tiny minority,
>> say <1%, of physicists in the real world are physi_cysts. These are
>> blemishes on that community which include Einstein Dingleberries,
>> Time travelers and Wormhole architects who move in space-time.
>> To boot, most of the Einstein Dingleberries have condensed into
>> the Usenet, their relativity refuge, from where, as a laughing stock,
>> they cajole and beguile young romantic and impressionable
>> Dingleberry sniffers with their geriatric physics.
>> These days a more sober view of the _usefulness_ of SR/GR (REL)
>> may be summarized as/for anybody who works in
>> [1] mil/indust. Eng, R&D "does not need REL shit"
>> [2] *.edu & for R-grants "does need REL, - No shit"
>> [3] Promo, Sales & Movies "loves REL by the shitload"
>> [4] Jews protect it as cultural heritage whether "REL is shit or not".
>> ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
> Boys, Boys--
> I think we need some "Federal Grant Money" to study this--like they
> say: Prove it's so--pocket $50,000 or so,
> Two years later, prove it ain't so---that's another $50,000 or moe
> Tut
>
ahahaha...AHAHAHA... ah, Tutweiler, a man with elegant financial
aims and serious fiduciary underpinnings. Industrious!. I like that!...
Ersatz-purser, tj Frazir, will undoubtedly praise you highly for your
enterprising spirit. However, as brilliant as your plan is, Tut:
----- "Why prove the Self-evident. What is, IS!....What was said is
----- truly fundamental, axiomatic, a given, a manifest state of affairs"
Thanks for the laughs, tut.......AHAHAHAHA...
ahaha... ahahahanson
surrealis...@hotmail.com
Traveler wrote:
> They don't know why things move.
Why do things move?
> They don't know why things fall.
Why do things fall?
> They don't know why decay rates are probabilistic.
Why are decay rates probabilistic?
> They don't know what things are made of.
What are things made of?
> They don't know that the universe is discrete.
> They don't know how the universe began.
> They don't know that a discrete universe is necessarily probabilistic.
> They don't know that nothing can move faster or slower than c.
> They don't know that everything that exists is absolute.
What does that mean?
> They don't know that the relative is abstract and non-existent.
Why is relative abstract and non-existent?
The Ghost In The Machine
<surrealis...@hotmail.com>
wrote
on 12 Aug 2006 16:56:41 -0700
<1155427001.2...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>
> Traveler wrote:
>> They don't know why things move.
>
> Why do things move?
Probably because the probability of a particle moving from
lattice state (a,b,c) to lattice state (a',b',c') becomes
nonzero. (Note that a, b, c, a', b', c' are multiples of
a value which Louis Savain has yet to specify. In any
event, it's a fixed cubic lattice.)
>
>> They don't know why things fall.
>
> Why do things fall?
That is a good question; I'll have to defer to Louis Savain on that one.
>
>> They don't know why decay rates are probabilistic.
>
> Why are decay rates probabilistic?
>
>> They don't know what things are made of.
>
> What are things made of?
Cubic lattice points.
>
>> They don't know that the universe is discrete.
>> They don't know how the universe began.
>> They don't know that a discrete universe is necessarily probabilistic.
>> They don't know that nothing can move faster or slower than c.
>> They don't know that everything that exists is absolute.
>
> What does that mean?
The lattice is immobile.
>
>> They don't know that the relative is abstract and non-existent.
>
> Why is relative abstract and non-existent?
>
>>
>> I could go on but my point is that physicists are simply full of shit
>> and over 90% of them are gutless ass kissers. 'Peer review' is
>> synonymous with 'ass review'. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>>
>> Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
>>
>> Louis Savain
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
cnctut
Tut writes:
For the 50K--of course--and a chance later for another blank check.
How's that "Global Warming" thing working for you.? :-))
Tut
Traveler
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
You crack me up, Ghost.
>In sci.physics.relativity, surrealis...@hotmail.com
><surrealis...@hotmail.com>
> wrote
>on 12 Aug 2006 16:56:41 -0700
><1155427001.2...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> Traveler wrote:
>>> They don't know why things move.
>>
>> Why do things move?
>
>Probably because the probability of a particle moving from
>lattice state (a,b,c) to lattice state (a',b',c') becomes
>nonzero.
Yes, but you also need to explain why. The cause of motion is
interaction. Always. This means that we are moving in a immense and
highly energetic lattice of particles. No lattice particles = no
motion.
> (Note that a, b, c, a', b', c' are multiples of
>a value which Louis Savain has yet to specify. In any
>event, it's a fixed cubic lattice.)
That will come soon enough. Its importance is minor.
>>> They don't know why things fall.
>>
>> Why do things fall?
>
>That is a good question; I'll have to defer to Louis Savain on that one.
Everything happens because there has been a violation of the mother of
all conservation principles: the total energy of the universe must be
zero. Any violation must be corrected at the earliest opportunity
according to probabilistic rules.
>>> They don't know why decay rates are probabilistic.
>>
>> Why are decay rates probabilistic?
Because there is only one interaction interval in nature and thus one
speed, c.
>>> They don't know what things are made of.
>>
>> What are things made of?
>
>Cubic lattice points.
Not true. Everything is made of absolutely nothing. See the nasty
little truth about matter:
http://rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm#Matter
>>> They don't know that the universe is discrete.
>>> They don't know how the universe began.
>>> They don't know that a discrete universe is necessarily probabilistic.
If you a physicist aqnd you don't understand that the universe is
discrete and probabilistic, you might as well be sucking the hind tit
of a mule.
>>> They don't know that nothing can move faster or slower than c.
Let me qualify by adding that speeds that appear to be slower than c
are actually a series of jumps interpersed with rests. The slower the
speed, the more numerous the rests in a given interval.
>>> They don't know that everything that exists is absolute.
>>
>> What does that mean?
>
>The lattice is immobile.
True, but that is not the right answer. It means exactly what it says.
Here's the reason that the relative is abstract:
http://rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm#Relativity
>>> They don't know that the relative is abstract and non-existent.
>>
>> Why is relative abstract and non-existent?
See above.
Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
purrcy
agnosticist
than we have an infinite regress of causes which is absurd. That's the
problem of eternity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity
Maybe a supernatural force (called God) designed the dimensions so that
we can only "see" part of them.
Greg Hansen
> Not everything has a cause. Nature just is. If everything has a cause
> than we have an infinite regress of causes which is absurd. That's the
> problem of eternity.
I thought it was interesting to learn that a specific region of the
brain is responsible for finding cause-effect relations, and if that
region is damaged, e.g. by an injury, then the afflicted can, for
instance, hear a doorbell, but it won't occur to him that it was caused
by someone at the door. It was just something that happened.
And there are others. A particular part of the brain tracks the
locations of the limbs and the boundaries of the body, and distinguishes
"me" from "not me". An interruption of information to that region,
which can be accomplished by those proficient at meditation, foils the
process and gives the sense of oneness with everything.
And there are those who are physiologically unable to appreciate music--
play it for them under MRI, and their brains just don't light up the way
most people's will.
It makes me wonder what things aren't true but we think must be so
because that's the way the brain is wired. And more intriguingly, what
things we fail to perceive because the brain isn't wired that way, and
there's nobody whose brain is wired properly to perceive it for us and
try to explain it to us.
PD
Traveler wrote:
> They don't know why things move.
> They don't know why things fall.
> They don't know why decay rates are probabilistic.
> They don't know what things are made of.
> They don't know that the universe is discrete.
> They don't know how the universe began.
> They don't know that a discrete universe is necessarily probabilistic.
> They don't know that nothing can move faster or slower than c.
> They don't know that everything that exists is absolute.
> They don't know that the relative is abstract and non-existent.
>
> I could go on but my point is that physicists are simply full of shit
> and over 90% of them are gutless ass kissers. 'Peer review' is
> synonymous with 'ass review'. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
> Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
>
> Louis Savain
>
Traveler, good to see you off your meds and back in original form.
Hurry before they come with the electroshock paddles.
You spend a lot of time focusing on what we *don't* know and absolutely
no time on what we *do* know, as though what we *do* know is made
worthless by having something remaining that we *don't* know.
If we knew *everything*, then physics wouldn't be fun anymore. You can
make fun of that all you want.
PD
wcb
Probably lots.
A lot of preprocessing is done by the visual system
before visual signals even get to the brain.
That looks for faces, hands, snakes and more.
We have these biases built in. I suspect likewise
we have a lot of biases built in from 40 million
years of primate evolution.
--
"The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent
men without religion, and religious men without
intelligence".
- Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri (973-1057; Syrian poet)
Cheerful Charlie
hanson
news:44E08300...@tcq.net...
> agnosticist wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/39122623c4b60544
>> Not everything has a cause. Nature just is. If everything has a
>> cause than we have an infinite regress of causes which is absurd.
>> Maybe a supernatural force (called God) designed
>> the dimensions so that we can only "see" part of them.
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/240d17b5412d6334
> I thought it was interesting to learn that a specific region of the brain
> is responsible for finding cause-effect relations, and if that region is
> damaged, e.g. by an injury, then the afflicted can, for instance, hear a
> doorbell, but it won't occur to him that it was caused by someone at the
> door. It was just something that happened.
>
> And there are others. A particular part of the brain tracks the locations
> of the limbs and the boundaries of the body, and distinguishes "me" from
> "not me". An interruption of information to that region, which can be
> accomplished by those proficient at meditation, foils the process and
> gives the sense of oneness with everything.
>
> And there are those who are physiologically unable to appreciate music--
> play it for them under MRI, and their brains just don't light up the way
> most people's will.
>
> It makes me wonder what things aren't true but we think must be so because
> that's the way the brain is wired. And more intriguingly, what things we
> fail to perceive because the brain isn't wired that way, and there's
> nobody whose brain is wired properly to perceive it for us and try to
> explain it to us.
[hanson]
Yo, Greg. You are describing splendid details of a general human
condition that was/is&will be skirted forever. Obviously, everybody's
brain is wired differently in detail which is expressed in our personal
distinctly different characters & behavior patterns. What is fascinating
though is that it is such wiring variations have collectively produced
such phenomena like religious notions (as portrayed by agnosticist
and believers/disciples in general)... all reactions due to the fact that
the result from external stimuli in some portion in the brain comes
into conflict with the results produced by other brain function/region
which then produce such BELIEF constructs as compromise solutions
to accept external reality as fact, be that actual reality or not, in order
to function as best as possible in an "alien" and hostile world that
threatens survival...
Here's Louis Savain's great initial post that initiated this discussion:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5c3f3ea347d3e87a
Take care, Greg, and enjoy AGW.... ahahahaha...
ahahaha... ahahahanson
Traveler
wrote:
>Not everything has a cause.
Indeed. Only effects have causes. Not everything is an effect.
> Nature just is.
Yes. But some things are created while other things just are what they
are.
> If everything has a cause
>than we have an infinite regress of causes which is absurd. That's the
>problem of eternity.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity
Infinite regress should be the primary criterion we use to judege
every one of our hypotheses.
>Maybe a supernatural force (called God) designed the dimensions so that
>we can only "see" part of them.
Maybe but I doubt that God created dimensions. Some things have to be
the way they are because there can't be any other way for them to be.
And there has to be both creation and creator. One is an effect; the
other is the cause, the prime mover.
sopraner
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In sci.physics.relativity, surrealis...@hotmail.com
> <surrealis...@hotmail.com>
> wrote
> on 12 Aug 2006 16:56:41 -0700
> <1155427001.2...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
> >
> > Traveler wrote:
> >> They don't know why things move.
> >
> > Why do things move?
>
> Probably because the probability of a particle moving from
> lattice state (a,b,c) to lattice state (a',b',c') becomes
> nonzero. (Note that a, b, c, a', b', c' are multiples of
> a value which Louis Savain has yet to specify. In any
> event, it's a fixed cubic lattice.)
i don kno what you are takin about ghost into
tha things moves becus tha low friction, and nothen else
sopraner
PD wrote:
> Traveler wrote:
> > They don't know why things move.
> >
>
> Hurry before they come with the electroshock paddles.
>
> You spend a lot of time focusing on what we *don't* know and absolutely
> no time on what we *do* know, as though what we *do* know is made
> worthless by having something remaining that we *don't* know.
>
> If we knew *everything*, then physics wouldn't be fun anymore. You can
> make fun of that all you want.
>
> PD
whay not answerin tha question
whay things move?
sopraner
> Try reading http://savefile.com/projects.php?pid=880850 for a refreshing
> new view on Reality.
whats wrong with tha good old reality?
was it incomplete?
Traveler
ahahaha... Hanson, I like the way you bunch both agnostics and
religious believers together. ahaha.. They deserve each other.
ahahaha... Note that Greg's argument only goes so far before it
crumbles. Truth is that the brain's ability to learn and recognize
temporal associations is not limited to causal relationships. As
psychology and neurobiology have taught us, we perceive both
sequential and coincidental phenomena. One thing is sure, if it does
not change, we cannot sense it, although we can infer its existence.
We don't notice the in-betweens. This is the reason that most of us
(especially the Einstein dingleberries) are trapped within a false
illusion of continuity.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> They don't know why things move.
> They don't know why things fall.
> They don't know why decay rates are probabilistic.
> They don't know what things are made of.
> They don't know that the universe is discrete.
> They don't know how the universe began.
> They don't know that a discrete universe is necessarily probabilistic.
> They don't know that nothing can move faster or slower than c.
> They don't know that everything that exists is absolute.
> They don't know that the relative is abstract and non-existent.
>
> I could go on but my point is that physicists are simply full of shit
> and over 90% of them are gutless ass kissers. 'Peer review' is
> synonymous with 'ass review'. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
> Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
>
> Louis Savain
Just great. Another Liberal Arts major has discovered USENET. :/
--
"Mystical references to "society" and its programs to "help" may warm
the hearts of the gullible but what it really means is putting more
power in the hands of bureaucrats." - Thomas Sowell
Traveler
>If we knew *everything*, then physics wouldn't be fun anymore. You can
>make fun of that all you want.
ahahaha... The problem is not that you don't know shit, the problem is
that you rejoice in your ignorance and your stupidity, and you do your
best to prevent others from going beyond your own chicken shit level.
You're all a bunch of pathetic ass kissers with shit for brains.
ahahaha... And chicken shit geriatric physics is what you practice.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
hanson
in news:2006081501421875249-spamtrap@REMOVEmacplanetdk...
> On 2006-08-12 18:33:37 +0200, Traveler <trav...@nospam.net> said:
>> They don't know why things move.
>> They don't know why things fall.
>> They don't know why decay rates are probabilistic.
>> They don't know what things are made of.
>> They don't know that the universe is discrete.
>> They don't know how the universe began.
>> They don't know that a discrete universe is necessarily probabilistic.
>> They don't know that nothing can move faster or slower than c.
>> They don't know that everything that exists is absolute.
>> They don't know that the relative is abstract and non-existent.
>>
>> I could go on but my point is that physicists are simply full of shit
>> and over 90% of them are gutless ass kissers. 'Peer review' is
>> synonymous with 'ass review'. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>> Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
>> Louis Savain
>
> Just great. Another Liberal Arts major has discovered USENET. :/
>
... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... maybe YOU, Peter, are a LAM, but
Prof. Louis Savain has lectured your still juvenile kind for a long
time. It's a hard job. You'll learn that only after you graduate and
then you will eventually learn how to create your own Perls and not
Bjørn them. .... Thanks for the laughs, Pete. .ahahaha... ahahahanson
Greg Hansen
Actually, I got much of the above from the book "Why God Won't Go Away".
The author makes the case that the human brain is wired to have
spiritual experiences, to search for a sense of belonging to something
larger than ones' self. I've long thought that religion wouldn't be so
universal throughout the world and throughout history if it didn't serve
some useful purpose, and not the kinds of delusional emotional problem
purposes that atheists commonly ascribe to it. Until DSM IV strong
religious belief was considered a mental illness! And that despite the
deeply religious apparantly living longer and healthier, experiencing
less stress, and having healthier personal relationships. The authors
give some physiology and some speculative evolutionary psychology to the
effect that myth-making is far more than a feeble brain struggling to
comprehend the unknown. Spirituality comes first, and it's surrounded
by stories later.
On the question of whether God exists, the authors say science can't
answer. But whether God exists or not, humans would perceive him
through the workings of their brains, the same way they perceive
everything else, and we're built to be religious.
> Here's Louis Savain's great initial post that initiated this discussion:
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5c3f3ea347d3e87a
Oh, I can't say anything to him.
hanson
news:7so1e2dmku3g2ffou...@4ax.com...
>>Here's Louis Savain's great initial post that initiated this discussion:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5c3f3ea347d3e87a
>>Take care, Greg, and enjoy AGW.... ahahahaha...
>>ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
> ahahaha... Hanson, I like the way you bunch both agnostics and
> religious believers together. ahaha.. They deserve each other.
> ahahaha... Note that Greg's argument only goes so far before it
> crumbles. Truth is that the brain's ability to learn and recognize
> temporal associations is not limited to causal relationships. As
> psychology and neurobiology have taught us, we perceive both
> sequential and coincidental phenomena. One thing is sure, if it does
> not change, we cannot sense it, although we can infer its existence.
> We don't notice the in-betweens. This is the reason that most of us
> (especially the Einstein dingleberries) are trapped within a false
> illusion of continuity.
> Louis Savain
>
Do you realize,Louis, that you just went one step further into the
undiscovered country from whence no traveler has yet returned ?
You (subconsciously?) imply that "it" can and does begin
everywhere and all they time, making your suggestions that
space and time are illusions into a manifest quantity.... and that
the un-observable "in betweens" do correspond to the reiteration
residues, (of the Gaston/Benoit "LOOP-and-DISCREPANCY"
fractal procedure/explanation) by which the processes repeat
and are propagated in your lattice from which nothing can escape.
... Heavy!, dude, heavy....
hanson
PS: re "Einstein dingleberries". You really should capitalize
the "d", for the Dingleberries should be honored to keep
the geriatric smell of their museum pieces of physics alive....
ahahahaha....
PD
Traveler wrote:
> On 14 Aug 2006 08:19:26 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >If we knew *everything*, then physics wouldn't be fun anymore. You can
> >make fun of that all you want.
>
> ahahaha... The problem is not that you don't know shit, the problem is
> that you rejoice in your ignorance and your stupidity,
That is quite wrong. If we rejoiced in it, then we would not continue
to try to find answers to questions we cannot now answer, including
some of the ones you mention.
> and you do your
> best to prevent others from going beyond your own chicken shit level.
And that is also plainly wrong. If we did that, then we would not
continue to train students to find answers to questions we cannot now
answer. It is every physicist's hope that his trainees will be better
than him/her.
However, this comes with an obligation to teach the student when they
are doing something stupid or unsupportable or unconfirmable or
unfalsifiable or careless -- precisely so that their work can be better
than the teacher's. There are, of course, some people who do not take
kindly to correction, and these people perceive teaching as persecution
or brainwashing. Those people fall by the wayside naturally and end up
... well, somewhere close to where you are.
shevek
Traveler wrote:
> On 14 Aug 2006 08:19:26 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >If we knew *everything*, then physics wouldn't be fun anymore. You can
> >make fun of that all you want.
>
> ahahaha... The problem is not that you don't know shit, the problem is
> that you rejoice in your ignorance and your stupidity, and you do your
> best to prevent others from going beyond your own chicken shit level.
> You're all a bunch of pathetic ass kissers with shit for brains.
> ahahaha... And chicken shit geriatric physics is what you practice.
> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
> Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
>
I guess you didn't get that grant, eh?
Better luck next time!
Traveler
ahahaha... Sorry. I Never applied for a physics grant. There is too
much ass kissing involved. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha
she...@yahoo.com
Traveler wrote:
> On 15 Aug 2006 08:56:38 -0700, "shevek" <she...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Traveler wrote:
> >> On 14 Aug 2006 08:19:26 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If we knew *everything*, then physics wouldn't be fun anymore. You can
> >> >make fun of that all you want.
> >>
> >> ahahaha... The problem is not that you don't know shit, the problem is
> >> that you rejoice in your ignorance and your stupidity, and you do your
> >> best to prevent others from going beyond your own chicken shit level.
> >> You're all a bunch of pathetic ass kissers with shit for brains.
> >> ahahaha... And chicken shit geriatric physics is what you practice.
> >> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
> >>
> >> Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
> >>
> >
> >
> >I guess you didn't get that grant, eh?
>
> ahahaha... Sorry. I Never applied for a physics grant. There is too
> much ass kissing involved. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha
>
Well I sense a note of bitterness.. what happened?,
Traveler
>
>Traveler wrote:
>> On 14 Aug 2006 08:19:26 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >If we knew *everything*, then physics wouldn't be fun anymore. You can
>> >make fun of that all you want.
>>
>> ahahaha... The problem is not that you don't know shit, the problem is
>> that you rejoice in your ignorance and your stupidity,
>
>That is quite wrong. If we rejoiced in it, then we would not continue
>to try to find answers to questions we cannot now answer, including
>some of the ones you mention.
You don't. ahahaha... Chicken shit physicists (especially relativists)
love to parrot the old line to the effect that science is not about
the why of things but the how.
>> and you do your
>> best to prevent others from going beyond your own chicken shit level.
>
>And that is also plainly wrong.
You are lying and you know it. See above. Chcken shit physics is what
you practice: description without explanation. I already know that
things fall, thank you very much. I want to know why. If you can't
answer this question and you're not even interested in knowing why,
you're not a physicist. You might as well be sucking the hind tit of a
mule. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Traveler
wrote:
No, not bitterness. Just a general lack of respect. ahahaha...
The Ghost In The Machine
<she...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 15 Aug 2006 11:17:17 -0700
<1155665837....@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>:
Traveler's genius has yet to be recognized. (I'll leave it at that.)
The Ghost In The Machine
<g3ry5...@cutey.com>
wrote
on 14 Aug 2006 12:23:23 -0700
<1155583403.2...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Well, if you want a more correct answer (Traveler/Louis
Savain is not exactly the most mainstream of posters
here!)...I'm not sure I can even answer the question as
to why things move (as opposed to what? freeze in place?
stand still? jump up and down?), for it boils down to
"things move because they move". Physics is occasionally
like that; there's no "why", just "how" or "what".
Of course, one can attempt to study the movement.
One thing I *can* answer: Earth is moving because long
ago, a rotating gaseous and/or dusty and/or rocky cloud
coalesced into the Sun and the solar system. Earth's
movement is therefore a more likely consequence than, say,
Earth standing still and falling into the Sun. (Nor would
we be here to argue the point in that case. :-) )
A marble moves because it was pushed, or because it is on
a slant in a curved space (gravitational field) and therefore
experiences a force.
Air moves because it changes density when heated; we
therefore get weather. The rotating earth imparts a
Coriolis force to the whole shebang and makes things more
interesting. (Also, the heating is a little more even.
A world locked in sync with the Sun and the right sort of
atmosphere to allow for breathability at dawn or dusk would
probably have *very* windy weather, from cold to hot.)
Massive particles move because something banged into them,
much like that marble -- or, if they're charged, because
something else moved nearby generating an electric or
magnetic field pushing or pulling on it.
Light moves because it must. :-) I'm not sure I can do
much better than that but light has no rest mass.
(No, one cannot conclude "therefore it cannot rest." :-) )
As for Traveler/Louis Savain, I'm not sure I've quite
gotten a response from him regarding this question either.
As for low friction, that applies to objects here on Earth
because of two processes:
[1] The force pushing the item moving. Usually, this is an
engine although one could use human arm or leg power (e.g.,
a bicycle).
[2] The acceleration of gravity, which looks a lot like
a force and tends to hold things down.
The engine must overcome friction in order for the item to
continue to move. Friction might be likened to sandpaper
on sandpaper; the rougher the paper pieces, the harder
it is for the paper to move against one another. Also,
the higher the pressure, the more the friction, very
roughly speaking. (I'd have to study the details.)
If things are very smooth, they slide. The marble and
other round things, since it can, will roll, changing
translational motion into rotational, or, in the case
of a driveshaft connected to a rubber tire, changing
rotational motion into translational. In the case of a
tire one doesn't want things to slide (unless one is using
a sleeve bearing) since the wheel would then spin uselessly
-- an issue in cold climates when a car gets stuck after
skidding off a snowy or icy roadway. Sand or traction
devices (basically a piece of metal or rubber ribbing
placed near the tire, with things to grip into the ice)
might assist in gaining friction and thereby allowing
the car to pull itself out of the ditch. Studded tires
and chains also help in snow and ice; ice has low tensile
strength and fractures easily, and snow has a lot of air.
she...@yahoo.com
Traveler wrote:
> On 15 Aug 2006 11:17:17 -0700, "she...@yahoo.com" <she...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Traveler wrote:
> >> On 15 Aug 2006 08:56:38 -0700, "shevek" <she...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Traveler wrote:
> >> >> On 14 Aug 2006 08:19:26 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >If we knew *everything*, then physics wouldn't be fun anymore. You can
> >> >> >make fun of that all you want.
> >> >>
> >> >> ahahaha... The problem is not that you don't know shit, the problem is
> >> >> that you rejoice in your ignorance and your stupidity, and you do your
> >> >> best to prevent others from going beyond your own chicken shit level.
> >> >> You're all a bunch of pathetic ass kissers with shit for brains.
> >> >> ahahaha... And chicken shit geriatric physics is what you practice.
> >> >> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
> >> >>
> >> >> Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >I guess you didn't get that grant, eh?
> >>
> >> ahahaha... Sorry. I Never applied for a physics grant. There is too
> >> much ass kissing involved. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha
> >>
> >
> >
> >Well I sense a note of bitterness.. what happened?,
>
> No, not bitterness. Just a general lack of respect. ahahaha...
>
Just curious, do you consider yourself a physicist?
Traveler
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
[cut crap]
When you have nothing interesting to say, Ghost, you should just shut
the hell up. ahahahaha...
Cranks Reply
Traveler wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 06:00:05 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>
> [cut crap]
>
> When you have nothing interesting to say, Ghost, you should just shut
> the hell up. ahahahaha...
>
you are an ass obsessed retard. you give idiots a bad name
Traveler
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>> Well I sense a note of bitterness.. what happened?,
>>
>
>Traveler's genius has yet to be recognized. (I'll leave it at that.)
ahahaha... That's not it, asswipe. I want to see answers to certain
fundamental questions before I die. I don't have 10 thousand years to
waste while waiting for the secrets of the universe to be unraveled by
a bunch of ass kissers who only care about their good standing within
their chicken shit community of fellow ass kissers. ahahaha...
AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Mike
Traveler wrote:
> They don't know why things move.
hahahahahahahaha idiot... Only God knows WHY things move. Physicists
try to understand HOW they move.
> They don't know why things fall.
hahahahahahahaha idiot... Only God knows WHY things fall. Physicists
try to understand HOW they fall.
> They don't know why decay rates are probabilistic.
hahahahahahahaha idiot... Only God knows WHY. Physicists try to
understand HOW.
> They don't know what things are made of.
hahahahahahahaha idiot... Only God knows the stuff he used to make
things. Physicists try to understand how the stuff interacts.
> They don't know that the universe is discrete.
hahahahahahahaha idiot... Do you have proof it is?
> They don't know how the universe began.
hahahahahahahaha idiot... You forgot to ask WHY it began?
hahahahahahaha
> They don't know that a discrete universe is necessarily probabilistic.
You got proof for necessity? About anything in particular?
hahahahahahaha ONLY sufficiency can be prooved idiot...hahahahahahahaha
> They don't know that nothing can move faster or slower than c.
Stupidity can because it carries no useful information. hahahahahahaha
idiot..
> They don't know that everything that exists is absolute.
hmmmmm.... I think "idiot" is an understatement. hahahahahahaha....
> They don't know that the relative is abstract and non-existent.
Tell that to your relatives....hahahahahahahaha idiot...
> I could go on but my point is that physicists are simply full of shit
> and over 90% of them are gutless ass kissers. 'Peer review' is
> synonymous with 'ass review'. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
hahahahahahaha....idiot....
> Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
especially when you are an idiot....hahahahahahahaha.
Mike
Traveler
>
>Traveler wrote:
>> They don't know why things move.
>
>hahahahahahahaha idiot... Only God knows WHY things move. Physicists
>try to understand HOW they move.
It's because physicists are fucking stupid. ahahaha...
>> They don't know why things fall.
>
>hahahahahahahaha idiot... Only God knows WHY things fall. Physicists
>try to understand HOW they fall.
It's because physicists are fucking stupid. ahahaha...
>> They don't know why decay rates are probabilistic.
>
>hahahahahahahaha idiot... Only God knows WHY. Physicists try to
>understand HOW.
It's because physicists are fucking stupid. ahahaha...
>> They don't know what things are made of.
>
>hahahahahahahaha idiot... Only God knows the stuff he used to make
>things. Physicists try to understand how the stuff interacts.
It's because physicists are fucking stupid. ahahaha...
>> They don't know that the universe is discrete.
>
>hahahahahahahaha idiot... Do you have proof it is?
If you're a physicist, your question proves your stupidity. ahahaha...
>> They don't know how the universe began.
>
>hahahahahahahaha idiot... You forgot to ask WHY it began?
>hahahahahahaha
If you don't even know the how, why ask why?
>> They don't know that a discrete universe is necessarily probabilistic.
>
>You got proof for necessity? About anything in particular?
>hahahahahahaha ONLY sufficiency can be prooved idiot...hahahahahahahaha
This goes over your head because you're a chicken shit physicist.
ahahaha...
>> They don't know that nothing can move faster or slower than c.
>
>Stupidity can because it carries no useful information. hahahahahahaha
>idiot..
fffttt!... Over your head again, I see. ahahaha...
[crap]
I see Mike Varney (the Denver KKK man) is back in town. Watch out,
blacks and Mexicans! ahahaha...
Traveler
wrote:
ahahaha... We are all scientists, the insufferably pompous scientific
elite notwithstanding.
Mike
Traveler wrote:
[snip repeated sh_tdrops]
> I see Mike Varney (the Denver KKK man) is back in town. Watch out,
> blacks and Mexicans! ahahaha...
You forgot to warn the cranks. Actually, just them. Mexican and blacks
are fine with me.
hahahahahahaha ..... idiot....keep on asking the questions your local
priests have all the answers about...hahahahahaha...
Mike
Traveler
>You forgot to warn the cranks.
The cranks are not afraid of you, asswipe. You are chicken shit, just
like your ass-kissing peers. ahahahaha... sci.physics would be
worthless without the cranks, crackpots, rebels, renegades and other
trouble makers. They're my kind of people and theirs is a beautiful
choir, as Hanson would put it. ahahaha... OTOH, your sterile,
geriatric physics is boring as fuck. ahaha...
> Actually, just them. Mexican and blacks
>are fine with me.
Yeah, sure. The truth is that you're just getting scared, buttface.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
she...@yahoo.com
Well that narrows it down a bit. However unless you actually name
names or better yet point to equations and provide an alternative you
are just attacking a straw man as do Anne Coulter and other 'gutless
ass-kissers' and flamers.
PD
Traveler wrote:
> On 15 Aug 2006 05:51:41 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Traveler wrote:
> >> On 14 Aug 2006 08:19:26 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If we knew *everything*, then physics wouldn't be fun anymore. You can
> >> >make fun of that all you want.
> >>
> >> ahahaha... The problem is not that you don't know shit, the problem is
> >> that you rejoice in your ignorance and your stupidity,
> >
> >That is quite wrong. If we rejoiced in it, then we would not continue
> >to try to find answers to questions we cannot now answer, including
> >some of the ones you mention.
>
> You don't. ahahaha... Chicken shit physicists (especially relativists)
> love to parrot the old line to the effect that science is not about
> the why of things but the how.
The line is fuzzy. Understanding *how* electrons acquire mass comes
close to answering why they have mass at all. Of course, this simply
begs yet another question about why it happens that way and not another
way, or why that way happens at all, which the next generation of
students will hopefully answer.
>
> >> and you do your
> >> best to prevent others from going beyond your own chicken shit level.
> >
> >And that is also plainly wrong.
>
> You are lying and you know it. See above. Chcken shit physics is what
> you practice: description without explanation. I already know that
> things fall, thank you very much. I want to know why.
Good. So find out why. By the way, though, if your methods for finding
out why are untestable, or based on crappy thinking, or inconsistent
with know observations, or sloppy, or internally inconsistent, then
you're going to get called on it -- as all students should be if
they're learning to be consistent and careful and clear-thinking and to
produce testable predictions. You don't seem to think you should be
subject to that -- requires ass-kissing, in your mind.
>If you can't
> answer this question and you're not even interested in knowing why,
Of course I'm interested in why. The way I *answer* why is to find out
*how*. The *how* tells you something about why it is this way and not
another way.
> you're not a physicist.
That BS and you know it. If you want to know what a physicist is, ask a
physicist. If you're not a physicist but you want to tell physicists
what they SHOULD be, then you're out of turn. Deal with it.
PD
PD
Traveler wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 06:00:10 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>
> >> Well I sense a note of bitterness.. what happened?,
> >>
> >
> >Traveler's genius has yet to be recognized. (I'll leave it at that.)
>
> ahahaha... That's not it, asswipe. I want to see answers to certain
> fundamental questions before I die.
I see.
And you want them answered in your lifetime, and if that isn't done on
your timeline, then you reserve the right to hoot at those that fail to
fulfill your sense of entitlement. Sorry, pal. Ain't gonna happen. Not
to satisfy you.
Especially since you don't seem to want to do the work required
yourself. You just want others to work faster.
PD
Mike
Traveler wrote:
> On 16 Aug 2006 08:01:39 -0700, "Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote:
>
> >You forgot to warn the cranks.
>
> The cranks are not afraid of you, asswipe. You are chicken shit, just
> like your ass-kissing peers. ahahahaha... sci.physics would be
> worthless without the cranks, crackpots, rebels, renegades and other
> trouble makers. They're my kind of people and theirs is a beautiful
> choir, as Hanson would put it. ahahaha... OTOH, your sterile,
> geriatric physics is boring as fuck. ahaha...
>
> > Actually, just them. Mexican and blacks
> >are fine with me.
>
> Yeah, sure. The truth is that you're just getting scared, buttface.
> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Yes indeed, when the lunatic is around and he's out of med.
you have nothing to contribute to sci.physics hahahaman. you cannot
even contribute anything to metaphysics since you don't know the right
way to ask questions of philosophical content. actually, it seem your
only contribution is in increasing the methane level in the atmosphere.
Mike
hanson
cranked himself as a y-turd aka <yt5...@gmail.com> in his message
news:1155768959.2...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
[gr eek y-turd Varney to Traveler Louis Savain]:
>> >You forgot to warn the cranks.
>>
>> The cranks are not afraid of you, asswipe. You are chicken shit, just
>> like your ass-kissing peers. ahahahaha... sci.physics would be
>> worthless without the cranks, crackpots, rebels, renegades and other
>> trouble makers. They're my kind of people and theirs is a beautiful
>> choir, as Hanson would put it. ahahaha... OTOH, your sterile,
>> geriatric physics is boring as fuck. ahaha...
>>
>> > Actually, just them. Mexican and blacks
>> >are fine with me.
>>
>> Yeah, sure. The truth is that you're just getting scared, buttface.
>> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
> Yes indeed, when the lunatic is around and he's out of med.
> you have nothing to contribute to sci.physics hahahaman. you cannot
> even contribute anything to metaphysics since you don't know the right
> way to ask questions of philosophical content. actually, it seem your
> only contribution is in increasing the methane level in the atmosphere.
> Mike
>
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahahaha... Louis, I like y-turd Varney's
incandescent jealously which he could not have expressed any better
than by his "criticism being the sincerest form of flattery.... ahahaha
Mikey just showed you that he envies you.... deeply and intensely......
Just look at his own livre de l'amour, his competing pet theory which he,
y-turd Varney, is promoting with great vigor and reverse psychology in
Varney's "Cranks Reply" writing as <y-t...@gmail.com> in message
news:1155822796.1...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> http://thefinaltheory.com/ [is] shockingly kooklike.
Moral of the story:
**** "Let'em sing!... All of'em... it's a beautiful choir! ****
Welcome back, Mikey, you are always funny in your many cloaks when
you are laying your piles of y-turds and sucking on your Dingleberries.
Thanks for the laughs. guys.... ahahahaha....
ahahaha.... ahahanson
PS: Mikey, you didn't lose your San Diego job already. Or did you?
.. 'cuz your interests in greek made you go "yahoo"?... ahahaha...
The Ghost In The Machine
<trav...@nospam.net>
wrote
on Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:07:38 -0400
<6s56e2l2mnnefj0vf...@4ax.com>:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 06:00:10 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>
>>> Well I sense a note of bitterness.. what happened?,
>>>
>>
>>Traveler's genius has yet to be recognized. (I'll leave it at that.)
>
> ahahaha... That's not it, asswipe. I want to see answers to certain
> fundamental questions before I die.
And these are....?
The Universe doesn't give a damn about what you want. (Neither do I,
really, although I find your lattice idea interesting from a
theoretical/mathematical standpoint. Of course I'm not entirely
certain I have enough of your theory yet to predict such things as
the measured frequency of a beam from a moving source.)
> I don't have 10 thousand years to
> waste while waiting for the secrets of the universe to be unraveled by
> a bunch of ass kissers who only care about their good standing within
> their chicken shit community of fellow ass kissers. ahahaha...
> AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>
> Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
If you're making fun of physicists, you're wasting time better
used to find the answers to your questions.
>
> Louis Savain
>
> Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
PD
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In sci.physics.relativity, Traveler
> <trav...@nospam.net>
> wrote
> >
>
> If you're making fun of physicists, you're wasting time better
> used to find the answers to your questions.
>
But you see, Traveler knows he doesn't have the ability to find the
answers himself in the time remaining, and so he gives up and instead
chooses to vent his frustration on physicists, perhaps hoping that by
prodding them with invective they will act faster to answer the
questions for him.
This is the difference between Traveler and a scientist. A scientist
will work on solving a problem *even if* it seems apparent that it
won't be solvable in his lifetime.
PD
Traveler
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> In sci.physics.relativity, Traveler
>> <trav...@nospam.net>
>> wrote
>> >
>> > Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
>>
>> If you're making fun of physicists, you're wasting time better
>> used to find the answers to your questions.
>>
>
>But you see, Traveler knows he doesn't have the ability to find the
>answers himself in the time remaining,
Don't bet on it. I have made tremendous progress as it is, given the
barrage of stupidity I have to fend off and the mountain of crap I had
to unlearn.
>and so he gives up
Nope. I just don't have the time, at least for now. But that will
change soon enough. ahahaha...
> and instead
>chooses to vent his frustration on physicists, perhaps hoping that by
>prodding them with invective they will act faster to answer the
>questions for him.
These are questions that humanity, as a whole, should try to answer.
It bothers me that the physics community (humanity's ostensible way of
finding such answers) have been invaded by a bunch of shit-for-brains
ass kissers. We all know who I'm talking about, the likes of Kip
Thorne, Brian Greene, Michio Kaku and the little crackpot/con-artist
in the wheelchair. ahahaha...
>This is the difference between Traveler and a scientist. A scientist
>will work on solving a problem *even if* it seems apparent that it
>won't be solvable in his lifetime.
You're stupid as fuck, PD, which does not surprise me a bit
considering that you are an inveterate defender of notorious crackpots
and their ass kissers. The truth is that physicists are not working on
obtaining the fundamental answers they should be searching for. They
are only interested in kissing ass and maintaining the status quo. We
already see Mike Varney (the perpetual ass kisser) in this same
thread, repeating the old tired and stupid refrain to the effect that
physics is not about the why of phenomena but the how. This is truly
fucking pathetic! You assholes should be tarred and feathered and your
alma mater burned down to the ground for being so fucking incompetent.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
PD
Traveler wrote:
> On 18 Aug 2006 07:51:10 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >> In sci.physics.relativity, Traveler
> >> <trav...@nospam.net>
> >> wrote
> >> >
> >> > Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
> >>
> >> If you're making fun of physicists, you're wasting time better
> >> used to find the answers to your questions.
> >>
> >
> >But you see, Traveler knows he doesn't have the ability to find the
> >answers himself in the time remaining,
>
> Don't bet on it. I have made tremendous progress as it is, given the
> barrage of stupidity I have to fend off and the mountain of crap I had
> to unlearn.
Your noble intentions notwithstanding, Traveler, I hope you don't mind
if I just wait until you actually produce something. Until then, your
cackling about what you think physicists *should* be asking and how
they *should* go around answering that question just sounds a little
hollow.
>
> >and so he gives up
>
> Nope. I just don't have the time, at least for now. But that will
> change soon enough. ahahaha...
>
> > and instead
> >chooses to vent his frustration on physicists, perhaps hoping that by
> >prodding them with invective they will act faster to answer the
> >questions for him.
>
> These are questions that humanity, as a whole, should try to answer.
> It bothers me that the physics community (humanity's ostensible way of
> finding such answers) have been invaded by a bunch of shit-for-brains
> ass kissers. We all know who I'm talking about, the likes of Kip
> Thorne, Brian Greene, Michio Kaku and the little crackpot/con-artist
> in the wheelchair. ahahaha...
>
> >This is the difference between Traveler and a scientist. A scientist
> >will work on solving a problem *even if* it seems apparent that it
> >won't be solvable in his lifetime.
>
> You're stupid as fuck, PD, which does not surprise me a bit
> considering that you are an inveterate defender of notorious crackpots
> and their ass kissers. The truth is that physicists are not working on
> obtaining the fundamental answers they should be searching for.
Actually, they ARE, in exactly the way I described to you. By asking
HOW something occurs and figuring out why it doesn't happen another
way, they learn WHY something occurs. The fact that this isn't
happening fast enough to satisfy you is your problem only. And you're
not doing a *damn* thing to be part of the solution, which makes you
part of the problem, and I'm tired of you whining that you don't have
enough time to work on it (but you will soon). If you felt it was
really important to work on it, you would arrange your life so that you
COULD spend as much time as needed to work on it, which is what
physicists do. Since you haven't done that yet, you must have a reason
for not doing it. If it has to do with a career choice, then I'd say
you spend too much time kissing the asses of your employers rather than
choosing a profession that lets you do what you think is really
important to do.
Put up or shut up, Louis. As it is, you sound like a whiny child.
PD
Traveler
>
>Traveler wrote:
>> On 18 Aug 2006 07:51:10 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> >> In sci.physics.relativity, Traveler
>> >> <trav...@nospam.net>
>> >> wrote
>> >> >
>> >> > Making phun of physicists is so much phucking phun! ahahaha...
>> >>
>> >> If you're making fun of physicists, you're wasting time better
>> >> used to find the answers to your questions.
>> >>
>> >
>> >But you see, Traveler knows he doesn't have the ability to find the
>> >answers himself in the time remaining,
>>
>> Don't bet on it. I have made tremendous progress as it is, given the
>> barrage of stupidity I have to fend off and the mountain of crap I had
>> to unlearn.
>
>Your noble intentions notwithstanding, Traveler, I hope you don't mind
>if I just wait until you actually produce something.
Why should I care about your opinion of my work? I've been waiting all
my life for physicists to actually produce some results and reveal the
causal mechanism gravity and movement. Right now, I'm just having fun.
>Until then, your
>cackling about what you think physicists *should* be asking and how
>they *should* go around answering that question just sounds a little
>hollow.
I don't care.
>>
>> >and so he gives up
>>
>> Nope. I just don't have the time, at least for now. But that will
>> change soon enough. ahahaha...
>>
>> > and instead
>> >chooses to vent his frustration on physicists, perhaps hoping that by
>> >prodding them with invective they will act faster to answer the
>> >questions for him.
>>
>> These are questions that humanity, as a whole, should try to answer.
>> It bothers me that the physics community (humanity's ostensible way of
>> finding such answers) have been invaded by a bunch of shit-for-brains
>> ass kissers. We all know who I'm talking about, the likes of Kip
>> Thorne, Brian Greene, Michio Kaku and the little crackpot/con-artist
>> in the wheelchair. ahahaha...
>>
>> >This is the difference between Traveler and a scientist. A scientist
>> >will work on solving a problem *even if* it seems apparent that it
>> >won't be solvable in his lifetime.
>>
>> You're stupid as fuck, PD, which does not surprise me a bit
>> considering that you are an inveterate defender of notorious crackpots
>> and their ass kissers. The truth is that physicists are not working on
>> obtaining the fundamental answers they should be searching for.
>
>Actually, they ARE, in exactly the way I described to you.
No, they are not. You are full of shit as usual.
> By asking
>HOW something occurs and figuring out why it doesn't happen another
>way, they learn WHY something occurs. The fact that this isn't
>happening fast enough to satisfy you is your problem only.
This is bull and you know it. As usual, you are kissing ass and
apologising for the ineptitude of your crackpot peers. The old refrain
(science is not about the why, but the how) is used almost exclusively
by physicists to excuse their incompetence and inability to give
answers to questions like "why do bodies fall?" and "why does a moving
body stay in motion?" (It was used right here in this thread by none
other than Mike Varney, the ass kisser. ahahaha...
FYI, physicists use equations to describe the how of falling bodies
(acceleration) and the how of inertial motion (unaccelerated
movement). These math descriptions of how things move under various
conditions don't even come close to modelling the actual causal
mechanism and they never will. Of course, the old chicken shit
relativist claim that they know what causes gravity (the curvature of
spacetime) has been mercilessly refuted and most of them no longer
repeat it.
> And you're
>not doing a *damn* thing to be part of the solution, which makes you
>part of the problem, and I'm tired of you whining that you don't have
>enough time to work on it (but you will soon). If you felt it was
>really important to work on it, you would arrange your life so that you
>COULD spend as much time as needed to work on it, which is what
>physicists do. Since you haven't done that yet, you must have a reason
>for not doing it. If it has to do with a career choice, then I'd say
>you spend too much time kissing the asses of your employers rather than
>choosing a profession that lets you do what you think is really
>important to do.
I am self-employed, so I don't have to kiss asses except those of my
clients. The customer is always right. ahahaha... and, BTW, I
initially planned to pursue a career in physics but I quickly became
disillusioned after I realized the extent of the crackpottery and the
ass kissing prevalent in the physics community. ahahaha....
>Put up or shut up, Louis. As it is, you sound like a whiny child.
Actually, I have already contributed plenty. I have even made a
precise falsifiable prediction regarding gravity and the electric
field gradient. You and your peers are just too much into kissing ass
to ever see it. Not that I care though. Life goes on. ahahaha...
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
So naturalists observe a flea
Hath smaller fleas that on him prey
And these have smaller still to bite'em
And so proceed ad infinitum
-- Jonathan Swift
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Traveler" <trav...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:v9goe21dljk65dfem...@4ax.com...