The Kooks Have it. Bye
Old Man
Nothing but demented trolls on sci.physics today. No
physics to be found. Not one worthwhile post. Can't
stand it. Nothing but spewing, incompetent, delusional,
demented, stupid, ignorant, assholes.
The purpose of this post is to notify the trolls that the
competency level of their audience on sci,physics is
now decremented by one, at least for awhile; probably
a long while; maybe forever.
To the trolls: may you eat your own garbage.
To the competent few that remain: farewell.
[Old Man]
Traveler
<nom...@nomail.net> wrote:
[crap]
Fuck off, Old Man. We don't senile ass kissers on sci.physics. We need
people with guts. So fuck you. ahahaha... Go eat your oatmeal and
kiss somebody's ass elsewhere. I hear the little con artist in the
wheelchair is hiring. ahahaha... ahahahaha...
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
hanson
news:07noc1hd4tveb3qok...@4ax.com...[hanson]
ahahaha..... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
No, no, no, Louis. Old Man, aka Jako Epke, takes things
very seriously. The oldfashioned way. His way. So, I must
de-crap and reinstate his message, for a warning to all:
>
[Old Man]
> Fuck off, Old Man. We don't senile ass kissers on sci.physics.
> We need people with guts. So fuck you. ahahaha... Go eat
> your oatmeal and kiss somebody's ass elsewhere.
> I hear the little con artist in the wheelchair is hiring. ahahaha... \
> ahahahaha... Louis Savain
>
AHAHAHAHA...... ahahahaha... But .... Awe........
Louis,... Old Man, aka Jako Epke, is really a good old boy.
He is not senile but he barley can see the monitor screen.
So, don't beat on him with such utterly ferocious cruelty....
After all, you are supposed to STAND on the shoulders
of giants, gently, not to trample on them and then tell'em
to get hired on by con artists in wheel chairs... AHAHAHA....
But, yours was a funny response, albeit a bit on the slightly
gauche side... ahahaha....
Consider, as the great humanitarian that you are, if it
weren't for them you wouldn't have gotten the chance to
be in the lime light, the way you are now... Be grateful.
They are the products of their time. It's up to you now
to make and finish a new product. Yours. A better one!
Carry on, dude. I like your posts. Very lively!
AHAHAHA.... ahahahanson
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Llanzlan Klazmon
j...@prairiewave.com:
It's a shame. I have enjoyed reading your posts.
Klazmon
>
> [Old Man]
>
>
Traveler
>I'm about ready to follow you. It is a waste of time.
Wow! God is good. Hallelujah! All the ass kissers are moving out en
masse! Can it be true? I sure hope you take Dick Van de merde and
Uncle Dickhead with you. ahahaha... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahaha... All
the senile old fucks should fucking retire and leave physics to the
newcomers. And don't forget to take your fucking oatmeal, goddamnit!
It's one thing to be an aging ass kisser with a calcified brain. It's
another to be a constipated one on top of it. ahaha... ahahaha...
Traveler
Klazmon <Kla...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote:
>It's a shame.
Ass kisser. ahahaha... ahahaha...
Uncle Al
I looked to sci.physics as a resource to massage heterodox but
empirically allowable ideas. Neither untenured faculty nor industrial
folk may dare think given the consequences of being wrong.
sci.physics has devolved into a slum (Inner City!) of psychotics,
intellectual cripples, and pimply boors hurling feces at each other.
I have no imaginable use for the toolbox past mid-September. Social
policy made the Internet accessible without limit to anybody
regardless of qualifications. Gresham's Law is diversity in action,
CUNY or Usenet.
Godspeed. We'll do something else.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Greg Neill
I have found that a good set of newsgroup filters cuts the
trash load considerably. When I fire up the newsreader,
maybe 200 or so post headers arrive for sci.physics, which
are quickly pruned to about a couple of dozen by the filters.
Just about the only evidence I ever see of many of the usual
"offenders" is the follow-ups to their rantings by the more
sane individuals. If everyone would just stop responding to
the dingbats there'd be very little dingbattery to deal with
at this end.
Paul Stowe
Goodbye,
Good luck,
Good Riddance...
Paul Stowe
Traveler
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>Consider, as the great humanitarian that you are, if it
>weren't for them you wouldn't have gotten the chance to
>be in the lime light, the way you are now... Be grateful.
>They are the products of their time. It's up to you now
>to make and finish a new product. Yours. A better one!
>Carry on, dude. I like your posts. Very lively!
>AHAHAHA.... ahahahanson
ahahaha... Ok, maybe I should show a little bit of gratitude.
ahahaha... But the old farts have got to go if for no other reason
than that Kuhn was right. ahahaha... I'm just tired of the same old
shit, the same old sterile four-hundred year old chicken-shit ideas.
They may have given us warp drive, time travel, wormholes and other
Star-trek crap of the genre but, lately, I am finding it all to be
excruciatingly boring and lame. So IMO, we need fewer ass kissers on
sci.physics, not more. ahahaha... Hang in there. There is more to
come.
Schoenfeld
Traveler wrote:
> In article <MKZye.1821$BK1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
> >Consider, as the great humanitarian that you are, if it
> >weren't for them you wouldn't have gotten the chance to
> >be in the lime light, the way you are now... Be grateful.
> >They are the products of their time. It's up to you now
> >to make and finish a new product. Yours. A better one!
> >Carry on, dude. I like your posts. Very lively!
> >AHAHAHA.... ahahahanson
>
> ahahaha... Ok, maybe I should show a little bit of gratitude.
> ahahaha... But the old farts have got to go if for no other reason
> than that Kuhn was right. ahahaha... I'm just tired of the same old
> shit, the same old sterile four-hundred year old chicken-shit ideas.
> They may have given us warp drive, time travel, wormholes and other
> Star-trek crap of the genre but, lately, I am finding it all to be
> excruciatingly boring and lame. So IMO, we need fewer ass kissers on
> sci.physics, not more. ahahaha... Hang in there. There is more to
> come.
Hey Savain, d(ct)/dt != 1. Stop making mistakes.
Timo Nieminen
> I'm about ready to follow you. It is a waste of time.
But isn't that the whole point of usenet?
--
Timo
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
No, don't go Old Man.
Yes the base SNR here in sci.physics is pretty low.
Truely one has to plonk a great number of kooks
to get it up to even 0 dB but plonking works.
I read your posts. You are part of the signal.
(In particular your posting of the Larmor formula,
which I hadn't heard of before, comes to mind.)
Come on, I'll bet you won't be able to resist looking in
to see how the poor (somewhat) non-kooks are
fairing in this looney bin, ya' big lug ya'.
Looking forward to seeing more of your posts,
--
rb
Sam Wormley
Old Man--Oh the dilemma. I've asked myself many times if this
is good use of my time (mostly replying to cranks and trolls)
and it is probably not! But... There is something to be said
for sharpening arguments... and I sometimes learn something in
the process.
I guess I stay, hoping that others like yourself will do likewise.
There needs to be a critical number (don't ask me what it is) to
dominate the traffic with fruitful discussion.
We need to encourage real physics discussion and ignore more
troll posts. Without people who know some physics participating,
there is little hope for the survival of sci.physics as a resource.
I'm going to hang around a while longer...
Lefty
> >
> > To the competent few that remain: farewell.
>
> No, don't go Old Man.
>
Second that motion, Old Man should stay.
Modern science is the Darwinian result of many millenia of kookery. Even
Newton had some half-baked pursuits in alchemy. Kind of amazing that
calculus was invented by a guy who was somewhat kookish "in certain ways".
So, I salute those who reject kookery, and also salute the kooks, with the
caveat that too many kooks become a huge pain in the ass.
I think that some of my own ideas are pretty kooky, but at least I try to
follow the scientific method to prove my kookery, and I hope that my kookery
has not contributed to your feelings of chucking it.
Y.Porat
though i consider you a conseravive
(may ber superconservative)
i have some sympathy to you.
dont know why.
may be your apposite apraoch
may be your being a gentleman
what even
you dont have to take it personaly
while people dont agree with you
and consider you as too conservative
if you take jsut me
i appreciate your knowlwdge
and by no way underestimete
the importance of waht has achieved untill now
actually i admire the real acheivements of untill now
yet the one thing i disagreed with you
is you 'smugness' with the existing
sort of :
anything is under control'
no need to go furthwer'
no need to amend anything
no need to correct errors' !
yet as i sayed
it is very important that people like you will keep th e
existing achienments of
and transfere it to the next generations.
Newton saies once ;
i could see further away because i was standing uopn the shoulders of -
Giants!!!
ps if i remember corect i heared not too far ago that you have some
sight problems
so may be that is the real problem
with your frustration??
all the best
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
p6
Of course, he is an Old Man, maybe older than Franz. His eyes
are failing and don't have the energy to read all messages.
Maybe getting a break can save his life. Look at Franz. If
he retires last year. He would still be there to look at
his garden.
Or maybe Old Man needs to be at sci.physics.research where
he can save his energy for debates with string researches
and m-brane theorists.
This sci.physics are for younger men like Bjoern who have
the energy required for fights, etc.
This sci.physics is for students asking questions. Old
Man definitely needs to be at sci.physics.research which is
moderated.
Also we are not in a subject like psychology, microprocessor,
cooking, genetics etc. where knowledge are definite. Darn it, we
don't even know how the photon know how to interfere itself
at the detector and Everett even has to propose many worlds
interpretation. Physics is more bizarre than any science
fiction stories or twilight zone episode you have seen. So
as one's thinking develops. It is proper to ask and evaluate
what is the world really made up of. Only parrots can be
silent and behaving to Old Man's expectations.
p6
Y.Porat
except on a few things
1
dont be so harsh and ungrateful to old man
2
please God give me a break with Feuerbacher.
dont give me Feuerbacher and your new hero worship!!
try to beleive me that that is a masterpeace of overestimating him.
he is a (very young ) super conservative
if not to say a super parrot!1
a too tiny personality as a human being (a "mentch')
over pompous - for being a model for immtation
(and now you even pompt on his pomous little ego)
may be 30 years later with some improvements
(yet a conservative by nature cannot be improving himself .......)
all the best
Y.Porat
------------------
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
free-cell? By now I'm not sure.
Morituri-|-Max
> physics to be found. Not one worthwhile post. Can't
> stand it. Nothing but spewing, incompetent, delusional,
> demented, stupid, ignorant, assholes.
Amen. You'll be missed.
> To the trolls: may you eat your own garbage.
>
> To the competent few that remain: farewell.
If it were up to me, I would implement programs to sterilize trolls so they
don't have kids. Maybe even throw in a bullet for each of them.
Good thing it's not up to me.
Jerry
My brother (whom many of you knew as "Minor Crank" and
later, briefly, as "Myxococcus xanthus") lasted here
about three years. He's constantly urging me to quit,
and he's right, I really don't have the time. It's gotten
into my studies. So I need to go, too.
Fortunately for this newsgroup, I don't rate anywhere
near as great a loss as my brother, or Old Man.
Jerry
Strange Indeed
j...@prairiewave.com:
There are many ways to become part of the problem
(this being one of them) but only a few ways to
be part of the solution.
jmfb...@aol.com
Why should the real scientists here want to be part of this
solution? I have watched them be cursed, mocked,
abused in as many verbal ways as possible. Some have
been stalked. Very few of those helped bothered to thank
for genuine help. I can now tell the serious students by
their last two-word post.
The cranks, kooks, and those whose intention is to destroy
human knowledge have managed to get what they've asked for.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Andy Resnick
<snip>
>
> To the competent few that remain: farewell.
>
One of the best pieces of advice I ever got was "If you quit, the
bastards win- don't give them the satisfaction." I understand your
frustration but hope that all you need is a little detox time.
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
The Ghost In The Machine
<nom...@nomail.net>
wrote
on Wed, 6 Jul 2005 17:14:11 -0500
<3JKdnaNvL9I...@prairiewave.com>:
A pity, but do what you have to. You'll be missed.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
john_r...@sagitta-ps.com
Well said, Lefty. FWIW I agree 100%, especially with the
final para as I consider myself in the same position at
times.
I'd only add another caveat that the most annoying thing
about some kooks is their relentless and too frequent and
unvarying repetition.
Actually I've been mulling over replies made to some
posts of mine last week ("Black Holes and Red Shift",
about black hole vacuum energy cascade and the Big Bang),
and on reflection I think Uncle Al was quite right to be
sceptical of the absence of any equations.
Also, it was perhaps slightly conceited of me to imagine
one can realistically hope to get the jump, theory-wise,
on brain boxes who do have the skills to whump up relevant
equations, the more so when the phenomena (goings on inside
black holes) are so remote from everyday intuition, and the
professionals are constantly bouncing ideas off each other.
All the same, it's quite appealing to think that our Universe
may be just the messy result of some interaction caused by a
plasma jet entering a black hole in another universe not much
different from ours.
Damn, I've gone and run off the mouth again with my kookish
theory, and in a thread about kooks as well of all places !-P
To make amends here's a link to a recent speculative (and
mostly conversational) paper on black holes by a _real_
expert: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304052
Traveler
<gnei...@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:
Ass-kissing jackass! ahahahah... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahah...
Traveler
<p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote:
Why do wish the pompous asshole good luck? May he be suffer with
constipation for the rest of his life while contemplating his
Star-trek physics. ahahahaha... ahahaha...
Traveler
<andy.r...@op.case.edu> wrote:
>Old Man wrote:
><snip>
>>
>> To the competent few that remain: farewell.
>>
>
>One of the best pieces of advice I ever got was "If you quit, the
>bastards win- don't give them the satisfaction." I understand your
>frustration but hope that all you need is a little detox time.
You are all a bunch of gutless cry-babies. You're also a bunch of
know-it-all, pompous ass kissers who can't stand not being worshipped
by adulating fans. ahaha... You will get no fucking respect from the
lay public because you are a bunch of charlatans. Go play with your
little chicken-shit spacetime models and your time travel and
wormhole/black hole fantasies. Just stay the fuck off sci.physics. We,
in kookland, hate your stinking guts. And we won't give up until you
shut the fuck up. sci.physics is not a mutual ass-kissing forum for
pompous asses. It belongs to the people. So fuck you all.
>Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
The pomposity of the physics community is legendary. Go pack your
Ph.D. up your ass, you gutless sack of shit. ahahaha... ahahaha...
geraldk...@hotmail.com
How does it feel to realise that the working model for 4 dimensions is
a literary device from a fictional 1898 novel that could be found in
any bookstore in 1901 or 4 years before the empirical curia went along
with Albert's annus.
"'Really this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some
people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It
is only another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between
time and any of the three dimensions of space except that our
consciousness moves along it. But some foolish people have got hold of
the wrong side of that idea. You have all heard what they have to say
about this Fourth Dimension?'"
Ken Muldrew
Usenet is a good place to kill time that might otherwise be difficult
to kill.
Ken Muldrew
kmul...@ucalgazry.ca
(remove all letters after y in the alphabet)
richard miller
> physics to be found. Not one worthwhile post. Can't
> stand it. Nothing but spewing, incompetent, delusional,
> demented, stupid, ignorant, assholes.
>
> The purpose of this post is to notify the trolls that the
> competency level of their audience on sci,physics is
> now decremented by one, at least for awhile; probably
> a long while; maybe forever.
>
> To the trolls: may you eat your own garbage.
>
>
>
>
Having faced your wrath, I might not expected to be polite. Well, I won't
particularly. Kookdom is rife for sure. But don't give up though, some of it
should make you think. Sometimes you get what you give! There are kooks
because it is unmoderated. But reputable professionals have not helped their
cause with prejudice; sometimes they cannot take it from an amateur, or at
least someone who doesn't have cushy, tax subsidised tenure. Work in
industry and the best man (or woman) wins - money talks.
Sci.physics is particularly bad. sci.math is better. sadly, the moderated
groups have very little to say and some of them talk gobbledegook, and
delight in it. no names.
Hang on in there
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>Timo Nieminen <uqtn...@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>
>>> I'm about ready to follow you. It is a waste of time.
>>
>>But isn't that the whole point of usenet?
>
>Usenet is a good place to kill time that might otherwise be difficult
>to kill.
>
Math Freak
> Nothing but demented trolls on sci.physics today. No
> physics to be found. Not one worthwhile post. Can't
> stand it. Nothing but spewing, incompetent, delusional,
> demented, stupid, ignorant, assholes.
>
Hehe :)
> The purpose of this post is to notify the trolls that the
> competency level of their audience on sci,physics is
> now decremented by one, at least for awhile; probably
> a long while; maybe forever.
>
Hehe :)
> To the trolls: may you eat your own garbage.
>
Hehe :)
My garbage is your Elixir, Oldman.
> To the competent few that remain: farewell.
>
>
Try to get some education for a change. And good luck
on that!
--
"goft nanamo mibaram mifrusham, goft chetor? goft
gheymati rush mizAram ke nakharn!"
Math Freak
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> I'm about ready to follow you. It is a waste of time.
>
Hmm. Not as long as I still can fart.
> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
> me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
"No Lord but Jehovah; no tax but that of the Temple; no
friend but the Zealots."
--
"be khAbe khargushi foru rafteh."
Ed Hanna
Dear Lefty, Old Man, et al.,
But where do you draw the line between serious physics and crackpot
physics?
I too, am a student of physics, and I acknowledge that I have some
pretty kooky ideas about discrete space-time. I would like to discuss
these ideas within the framework of the scientific method. I tried
sci.physics.discrete but it seems to have died out last January, and
there was no reply to a recent posting. I tried sci.physics.research
but that group does not seem to go in for much discussion outside of
established mainstream physics. I've submitted papers to Nature, Phys.
Rev. D, Nature Physics, and The International Journal of Theoretical
Physics, but so far no luck, as the paper seems to be too speculative
for those journals.
My approach is as follows:
1. Try and show that relativity is correct, and why, based on a
discrete space-time model.
2. Try and show that quantum mechanics is correct, and why, based on
the same discrete space-time model.
3. Discuss the notion that if both relativity and quantum mechanics
were emergent properties of a single discrete space-time model, then
perhaps there might be a way to unify them.
4. Discuss the notion that a discrete space-time model of the universe
could provide an "explanation" or "mechanism" for current physics.
(This notion of is very out of favor with conventional physics at this
time.)
5. Try and show that there is a concrete test to distinguish between
discrete physics and continuum physics.
6. Discuss the notion that discrete space-time provides a mechanism
that explains the wave-particle duality found in nature.
7. Try and show that non-locality is correct, and why, based on the
same discrete space-time model.
8. Discuss the notion that this mechanism of non-locality could explain
the phenomena of delayed choice, as well as David Bohm's wave guide /
quantum potential.
See what I mean about being speculative?
Is this topic too kooky for the serious people on this newsgroup?
Regards,
Ed Hanna.
Uncle Al
>
> Lefty wrote:
> > > > To the trolls: may you eat your own garbage.
> > > >
> > > > To the competent few that remain: farewell.
> > >
> > > No, don't go Old Man.
> > >
> >
> > Second that motion, Old Man should stay.
> >
> > Modern science is the Darwinian result of many millenia of kookery. Even
> > Newton had some half-baked pursuits in alchemy. Kind of amazing that
> > calculus was invented by a guy who was somewhat kookish "in certain ways".
> >
> > So, I salute those who reject kookery, and also salute the kooks, with the
> > caveat that too many kooks become a huge pain in the ass.
> >
> > I think that some of my own ideas are pretty kooky, but at least I try to
> > follow the scientific method to prove my kookery, and I hope that my kookery
> > has not contributed to your feelings of chucking it.
>
> Dear Lefty, Old Man, et al.,
>
> But where do you draw the line between serious physics and crackpot
> physics?
Empirical reality, same as Galileo did it.
[snip]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Timo Nieminen
> In article <2005070713...@emu.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen <uqtn...@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
>> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>
>>> I'm about ready to follow you. It is a waste of time.
>>
>> But isn't that the whole point of usenet?
>>
> It is. But does it beat procrastinating playing solitaire or
> free-cell? By now I'm not sure.
Well, solitaire is pretty mindless, free-cell takes real concentration,
nethack takes too long; usenet divvies up the time into tiny brain-free
soundbites. I suppose I could get a teevee for the office instead ...
--
Timo
jmfb...@aol.com
What?!!! And go nuts? I'm still trying to figure out this
reality TV crap; for some strange reason, it reminds me of
People magazine. I still have no idea what that magazine
is about.
Timo Nieminen
I used to have a TV in the lab, back when I was a labrat (I was a teenage
atomic spectroscopist). The computer running the show was a home-built
bastard, complete with a custom OS, some demented nephew of Forth. It was
the only micro I've ever used where the user was expected to replace ICs -
the graphics display was a nifty little XY CRO driven by a couple of DA
chips, which would burn out evry 6 months or so. Only pixel-addressable
CRO I've had the pleasure of using.
I was a month behind at one stage and caught up in a week or so by the
simple expedient of not sleeping. While sitting around and babysitting the
spectrometer (which did pretty much everything itself except recover from
real trouble - which it ran into evry six hours on average), and lacking
sleep, the text display screen, which was just a BW TV, came in handy for
killing time.
Both People and "reality" TV are best avoided. My son has lately become
susceptible to Futurama. Far, far better ...
--
Timo
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>> In article <2005070713...@emu.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen <uqtn...@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
>>> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm about ready to follow you. It is a waste of time.
>>>
>>> But isn't that the whole point of usenet?
>>>
>> It is. But does it beat procrastinating playing solitaire or
>> free-cell? By now I'm not sure.
>
>Well, solitaire is pretty mindless, free-cell takes real concentration,
>nethack takes too long; usenet divvies up the time into tiny brain-free
>soundbites.
Yes, all true.
> I suppose I could get a teevee for the office instead ...
>
Uggh, no, thanks:-) Usenet, at least, is quiet.
FrediFizzx
| physics to be found. Not one worthwhile post. Can't
| stand it. Nothing but spewing, incompetent, delusional,
| demented, stupid, ignorant, assholes.
|
| competency level of their audience on sci,physics is
| now decremented by one, at least for awhile; probably
| a long while; maybe forever.
|
|
| To the competent few that remain: farewell.
|
So why are you whining about it? If you want to go; just go quitely.
If you stay, deal with it. Don't get me wrong here; I would rather see
you stay and deal with it. Lighten up. It really is the Wild Wild West
Physics Show. If ya want more serious physics, go to s.p.research.
I still would like to know why you never post to s.p.research but like
to whine about the state of sci.physics? Sheesh, the only thing worse
than an incompetent troll here is a whiner. ;-)
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
Lefty
> > Lefty wrote:
> > > > > To the trolls: may you eat your own garbage.
> > > > >
> > > > > To the competent few that remain: farewell.
> > > >
> > > > No, don't go Old Man.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Second that motion, Old Man should stay.
> > >
> > > Modern science is the Darwinian result of many millenia of kookery.
Even
> > > Newton had some half-baked pursuits in alchemy. Kind of amazing that
> > > calculus was invented by a guy who was somewhat kookish "in certain
ways".
> > >
> > > So, I salute those who reject kookery, and also salute the kooks, with
the
> > > caveat that too many kooks become a huge pain in the ass.
> > >
> > > I think that some of my own ideas are pretty kooky, but at least I try
to
> > > follow the scientific method to prove my kookery, and I hope that my
kookery
> > > has not contributed to your feelings of chucking it.
> >
> > Dear Lefty, Old Man, et al.,
> >
> > But where do you draw the line between serious physics and crackpot
> > physics?
>
> Empirical reality, same as Galileo did it.
> [snip]
Uncle Al is right, you need experiments to validate theory or vice versa.
But there are limits to what can be measured, and in my opinion it will
always be impossible to develop any physical instrumentation which has
infinite precision except maybe a calculator.
So, direct observation of continuity of physical space will never be
possible. So, there is definately a need for theory here, even if it's
kooky. I think that it will eventually be understood, despite limitations of
instruments.
1. Try and show that relativity is correct, and why, based on a
discrete space-time model.
Not sure how, I think Einstein and others were assuming continuity, but it's
certainly not illegal to do so. What really freaks me out is that it can be
thought of as dicrete or continuous in different contexts, and I think that
this is easily more bizarre that wave/particle duality.
2. Try and show that quantum mechanics is correct, and why, based on
the same discrete space-time model.
I think that you'll find lots of resources here, especially among the
cellular automata crowd.
3. Discuss the notion that if both relativity and quantum mechanics
were emergent properties of a single discrete space-time model, then
perhaps there might be a way to unify them.
Pretty much exactly the thrust of current thinking, I do believe.
4. Discuss the notion that a discrete space-time model of the universe
could provide an "explanation" or "mechanism" for current physics.
(This notion of is very out of favor with conventional physics at this
time.)
5. Try and show that there is a concrete test to distinguish between
discrete physics and continuum physics.
This will be difficult, but if you can find such a test, I'll buy your book.
Nick
Morituri-|-Max
"Nick" <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120888452....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I say gravity is a continuum Lefty.
Which begs the question, how in the heck does Jello maintain surface tension
at different temperatures? Was the science behind Jello purely chemical or
did someone have to know any physics to stray off into the gelatin research?
Ed Hanna
Uncle Al wrote:
> Ed Hanna wrote:
> > But where do you draw the line between serious physics and crackpot
> > physics?
>
> Empirical reality, same as Galileo did it.
Dear Uncle Al,
Ok, let's give it a shot, and see if it flies.
Regards,
Ed Hanna
Ed Hanna
> Uncle Al is right, you need experiments to validate theory or vice versa.
> But there are limits to what can be measured, and in my opinion it will
> always be impossible to develop any physical instrumentation which has
> infinite precision except maybe a calculator.
Dear Lefty,
I'd be taking a conceptual approach, rather than a measurement
approach. If space-time were somehow discrete (rather than a
continuum) at the Planck scale, there would be no hope of measuring
this directly, but the signs might be all around us. If so, these
signs have been interpreted within the space-time continuum assumed by
relativity and quantum mechanics. What I would propose to do is to
re-interpret these signs within a hypothetical model of discrete
space-time, and then propose a concrete experiment that might
distinguish between discrete space-time and a space-time continuum.
> So, direct observation of continuity of physical space will never be
> possible. So, there is definately a need for theory here, even if it's
> kooky. I think that it will eventually be understood, despite limitations of
> instruments.
I hope that kooky, in the sense of being different, is ok. I hope to
take a rather standard / simplified model of discrete space-time to its
logical conclusion, but in unexpected directions.
> 1. Try and show that relativity is correct, and why, based on a
> discrete space-time model.
>
> Not sure how, I think Einstein and others were assuming continuity, but it's
> certainly not illegal to do so. What really freaks me out is that it can be
> thought of as dicrete or continuous in different contexts, and I think that
> this is easily more bizarre that wave/particle duality.
If we can account for all of known physics, including both relativity
and quantum mechanics (at the same time), then we might dispose of the
need for a continuum.
As far as what Einstein and others think, I have a couple of quotes:
In 1936 Einstein wrote that: "To be sure, it has been pointed out that
the introduction of a space-time continuum may be considered as
contrary to nature in view of the molecular structure of everything
which happens on a small scale. It is maintained that perhaps the
success of the Heisenberg method points to a purely algebraical method
of description of nature, that is, to the elimination of continuous
functions from physics. Then, however, we must also give up, on
principal, the space-time continuum. It is conceivable that human
ingenuity will some day find methods which will make it possible to
proceed along such a path."
In 1965 Feynman said that: "I believe that the theory that space is
continuous is wrong, because we get infinities and other difficulties,
and we are left with questions on what determines the size of all the
particles. I rather suspect that the simple ideas of geometry,
extended down into infinitely small space, are wrong. Here, of course,
I am only making a hole, and not telling you what to substitute. If I
did, I should finish this lecture with a new law."
> 2. Try and show that quantum mechanics is correct, and why, based on
> the same discrete space-time model.
>
> I think that you'll find lots of resources here, especially among the
> cellular automata crowd.
I think the CA crowd, and the Wheeler "it from bit" crowd will find
this approach interesting.
Regards,
Ed Hanna
jmfb...@aol.com
"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
>news:3JKdnaNvL9I...@prairiewave.com...
>|
>| Nothing but demented trolls on sci.physics today. No
>| physics to be found. Not one worthwhile post. Can't
>| stand it. Nothing but spewing, incompetent, delusional,
>| demented, stupid, ignorant, assholes.
>|
>| The purpose of this post is to notify the trolls that the
>| competency level of their audience on sci,physics is
>| now decremented by one, at least for awhile; probably
>| a long while; maybe forever.
>|
>| To the trolls: may you eat your own garbage.
>|
>| To the competent few that remain: farewell.
>|
>| [Old Man]
>
>So why are you whining about it?
A statement of disgust is whinging? You need to reexamine your
definitions.
> .. If you want to go; just go quitely.
>If you stay, deal with it. Don't get me wrong here; I would rather see
>you stay and deal with it. Lighten up. It really is the Wild Wild West
>Physics Show. If ya want more serious physics, go to s.p.research.
OldMan is done doing serious physics; he was here to pass on his
expertise to those who don't have it...yet.
>
>I still would like to know why you never post to s.p.research but like
>to whine about the state of sci.physics? Sheesh, the only thing worse
>than an incompetent troll here is a whiner. ;-)
S.p.r is topical; s.p is general. If there is noone to correct
the initial mistakes of concept, there will be noone to
participate in the moderated group.
Edward Green
Well, for me it was always bi-valent: both a waste of time and a
serious outlet for intellectual discussion. Not necessarily mutually
exclusive. Bold plans for investigation were founded, and abandoned:
but at least a few neurons preserved their worthless lives for a space.
But then I am, as Mati once categorized me, a professional amateur --
which means, among other things, that I don't have the benefit of
walking down the hall and knocking on somebody's door to have
intelligent discourse. Usenet has been, and always will be, both a
stimulant for doing and an empty substitute. I have learned much and
accomplished little.
But it remains in any individual's power to improve the quality of
conversation.
Did anybody else happen to notice, by the way, that Michael Jackson's
accuser's self-characterization on the witness stand was a perfect
match for a Usenet troll? He admitted -- or bragged -- that he liked
to argue, and especially like to argue with his teachers and show them
up (in his own mind) in front of the other students. I think he was
really Spaceman.
hanson
"Ed Hanna" <st...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120900589....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Ed Hanna wrote:
>> > But where do you draw the line between serious physics and crackpot
>> > physics?
>>
>> Empirical reality, same as Galileo did it.
>
> Dear Uncle Al,
> Ok, let's give it a shot, and see if it flies.
>
ahahaha... ahahanson
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
>
<snip>
>
> Dear Lefty, Old Man, et al.,
>
> But where do you draw the line between serious physics and crackpot
> physics?
>
> I too, am a student of physics, and I acknowledge that I have some
> pretty kooky ideas about discrete space-time. I would like to discuss
> these ideas within the framework of the scientific method. I tried
> sci.physics.discrete but it seems to have died out last January, and
> there was no reply to a recent posting. I tried sci.physics.research
> but that group does not seem to go in for much discussion outside of
> established mainstream physics. I've submitted papers to Nature, Phys.
> Rev. D, Nature Physics, and The International Journal of Theoretical
> Physics, but so far no luck, as the paper seems to be too speculative
> for those journals.
Or maybe they thought it was just to much work to edit out
all the "try and [verb]".
http://www.drgrammar.org/faqs/#66
http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/plague.htm
http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000253.htm
<snip>
> My approach is as follows:
>
> 1. Try and show that relativity is correct, and why, based on a
> discrete space-time model.
<snip>
> 5. Try and show that there is a concrete test to distinguish between
> discrete physics and continuum physics.
Let's see that one, right there.
<snip>
> 7. Try and show
<snip>
> Is this topic too kooky for the serious people on this newsgroup?
Looking at:
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/t-16057_Need_practice_in_Analog/t-42095_Astrophysics/t-64183_Quick_question_on_find_freq/t-77084_A_question_of_discrete_space-time..html
it seems like a bogus idea.
It seems to lead to an anisotropic speed of light.
--
rb
Math Freak
wrote:
> OldMan is done doing serious physics; he was here to pass on his
> expertise to those who don't have it...yet.
A drop in an ocean. What kind of help is that. Him, as
well as others here need help all right. Real help. And
you may know whose.
--
"gah bolandist zamAni pasti
har kas ey dust boland akhtar nist
chaman ar nist ghafas khod chaman ast
be khiyAl ast bedidan gar nist
charkhe nilufariyat sAye fekand
agarat sAye ze nilufar nist"
- Parvin E'tesami
The Ghost In The Machine
<mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu>
wrote
on Fri, 08 Jul 2005 19:08:42 GMT
<_aAze.39$45....@news.uchicago.edu>:
> In article <2005070822...@emu.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen <uqtn...@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
>>On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>
>>> In article <2005070713...@emu.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen <uqtn...@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
>>>> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm about ready to follow you. It is a waste of time.
>>>>
>>>> But isn't that the whole point of usenet?
>>>>
>>> It is. But does it beat procrastinating playing solitaire or
>>> free-cell? By now I'm not sure.
>>
>>Well, solitaire is pretty mindless, free-cell takes real concentration,
>>nethack takes too long; usenet divvies up the time into tiny brain-free
>>soundbites.
>
> Yes, all true.
Heh.
>
>> I suppose I could get a teevee for the office instead ...
>>
> Uggh, no, thanks:-) Usenet, at least, is quiet.
Depends on how loudly one LOLs.... :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
(posted by a kind soul years ago) between Dionisian and Apollonian
approach to argument.
FrediFizzx
news:kaidnTM6kJk...@rcn.net...
| In article <3j91tqF...@individual.net>,
| "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| >"Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
| >news:3JKdnaNvL9I...@prairiewave.com...
| >|
| >| Nothing but demented trolls on sci.physics today. No
| >| physics to be found. Not one worthwhile post. Can't
| >| stand it. Nothing but spewing, incompetent, delusional,
| >| demented, stupid, ignorant, assholes.
| >|
| >| The purpose of this post is to notify the trolls that the
| >| competency level of their audience on sci,physics is
| >| now decremented by one, at least for awhile; probably
| >| a long while; maybe forever.
| >|
| >| To the trolls: may you eat your own garbage.
| >|
| >| To the competent few that remain: farewell.
| >|
| >| [Old Man]
| >
| >So why are you whining about it?
|
| A statement of disgust is whinging? You need to reexamine your
| definitions.
I get disgusted sometimes also but I don't whine about it. I just
engage more filters for the really obnoxious stuff. There is nothing
wrong with my definitions.
| > .. If you want to go; just go quitely.
| >If you stay, deal with it. Don't get me wrong here; I would rather
see
| >you stay and deal with it. Lighten up. It really is the Wild Wild
West
| >Physics Show. If ya want more serious physics, go to s.p.research.
|
| OldMan is done doing serious physics; he was here to pass on his
| expertise to those who don't have it...yet.
I have seen Old Man post original comments and questions about serious
physics here and have enjoyed and learned from many of them. So you are
wrong.
| >I still would like to know why you never post to s.p.research but
like
| >to whine about the state of sci.physics? Sheesh, the only thing
worse
| >than an incompetent troll here is a whiner. ;-)
|
| S.p.r is topical; s.p is general. If there is noone to correct
| the initial mistakes of concept, there will be noone to
| participate in the moderated group.
SPR will accept legitimate *general* physics questions and comments
whether you are a newbie or an expert. You are wrong again. Heck, I
have even carefully posted some of my "crankish" concepts on SPR without
ridicule or flames. It is very nice to have a place to possibly be able
to get decent critical feedback for fine tuning or adjusting concepts.
I think the solution is for those that are disgusted by the state of SP
is to go to SPR and be more active on there. But it seems to me that
most people are impatient and don't want to wait for moderation.
T Wake
<geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120757169.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> To Meron
>
> How does it feel to realise that the working model for 4 dimensions is
> a literary device from a fictional 1898 novel that could be found in
> any bookstore in 1901 or 4 years before the empirical curia went along
> with Albert's annus.
>
Repeating this again and again doesn't make it correct.
T Wake
>
Nick,
Back up your crackpottery with science or no one will care what you say.
Traveler
>OldMan is done doing serious physics; he was here to pass on his
>expertise to those who don't have it...yet.
hehe... Oldman's only expertise is knowing when to eat his oatmeal so
as to prevent constipation. Unfortunately, that won't help his
calcified brain. ahaha... He should stop whining like a pathetic cry
baby and go kiss ass elsewhere. His friends and admirers should do
likewise. I hear the little con artist in the wheelchair over in
England is hiring. ahahaha... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Physics is so much Phucking Phun! ahahaha...
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
geraldk...@hotmail.com
pass this relativistic garbage as an outstanding achievement remains
something to be dealt with.
Moving 2D images was a great 20th century achievement with tv and
movies but this dangerous bastard had different ideas on moving 2D
images -
http://www.bartleby.com/173/31.html
Most people enjoy working with optical illusions for a short while but
that crazy fucker had a license to human perceptions often seen as
illusions with real observations.
You what,suit yourself and drive yourself crazy justifying things that
are just illusions such as 'clocks measure time'. Clocks are simple but
exquisite devices that keep a standard pace based on the rotation of
the Earth against which all other motion can be compared.Clocks are
even are great rulers of distance.
Albert just finished off what Isaac started and I assure that while you
can correct Newton's unethical tampering,Albert is just plain daft as
are his disciples.
When you begin with the premise that Newton badly mangled astronomical
principles then you might stand a chance of having a conversation with
me but not before then.
Lefty
>
Would it be so surprising to find that it is a continuous field on large
scales, and discrete on small scales ?
I think it's both, depending on what scale you are looking at.
But, just saying things is'nt good enough for physics. What you are saying
must jive with physical observations.
Are you saying that you've observed a continuum ? You can see things which
are (strictly speaking) "infinitely small" ?
There might be a way to make statements about continuity, but very very
difficult. All of modern physics has gone out on a limb by making the
=assumption= of continuity. There is no proof.
hanson
attaboy!... Fat Gerald, yeah!... Tell'em Tiger!... ahahaha...
You have posted below two excellent urls, however,....
..... ahahaha.... it seems that you have managed to
"drive yourself crazy", well, at least as "fucking crazy"
as your "lot" which you have accused of doing the same,
because of "this dangerous bastard" and "that crazy fucker".
Tanks for the laughs and carry on. by all means, Fat Gerald.
AHAHAHAHA... ahahahanson
<geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120947064....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Lefty
> Lefty wrote:
> > Uncle Al is right, you need experiments to validate theory or vice
versa.
> > But there are limits to what can be measured, and in my opinion it will
> > always be impossible to develop any physical instrumentation which has
> > infinite precision except maybe a calculator.
>
> Dear Lefty,
>
> I'd be taking a conceptual approach, rather than a measurement
> approach. If space-time were somehow discrete (rather than a
> continuum) at the Planck scale, there would be no hope of measuring
> this directly, but the signs might be all around us. If so, these
> signs have been interpreted within the space-time continuum assumed by
> relativity and quantum mechanics. What I would propose to do is to
> re-interpret these signs within a hypothetical model of discrete
> space-time, and then propose a concrete experiment that might
> distinguish between discrete space-time and a space-time continuum.
Even if you were to fail, you will be a better human being for having
pursued such a thing.
Personally, I think that it is both continuous and discrete simultaneously,
a position which sounds like nonsense, but I think it's true. Any progress
in this area would be a great thing for science. The solution is probably
some stupidly simple thing, and someone will discover it almost by accident
just like Cantor.
> > So, direct observation of continuity of physical space will never be
> > possible. So, there is definately a need for theory here, even if it's
> > kooky. I think that it will eventually be understood, despite
limitations of
> > instruments.
>
> I hope that kooky, in the sense of being different, is ok. I hope to
> take a rather standard / simplified model of discrete space-time to its
> logical conclusion, but in unexpected directions.
>
> > 1. Try and show that relativity is correct, and why, based on a
> > discrete space-time model.
> >
> > Not sure how, I think Einstein and others were assuming continuity, but
it's
> > certainly not illegal to do so. What really freaks me out is that it can
be
> > thought of as dicrete or continuous in different contexts, and I think
that
> > this is easily more bizarre that wave/particle duality.
>
> If we can account for all of known physics, including both relativity
> and quantum mechanics (at the same time), then we might dispose of the
> need for a continuum.
Consider something really simple, like freefall, or even an object simply
existing. How can you account for this with strictly discrete fine structure
? Might be possible, but the continuum sure looks attractive here.
But I think that you will have great success looking for discreteness in
places, and the mystery is why spacetime would be discrete and continuous at
the same time - something which cant happen in mathematics.
Edward Green
But of course. Much of the time wasting of Usenet (but not all), I
think you will agree, occurs when a Dionysian is not caught in the
early, treatable, stage. Once the victim has become emotionally
entangled, it's much harder to disengage: which is what the argument
meme spreader wants.
And now, for a complete tangent which I think you will enjoy, a
principle from the McGraw Hill "36 hour negotiating course": a good
negotiator is neither conflict averse nor conflict happy. I think that
is a powerful generality, which moves beyond "negotiating" to "life";
unless we want to adopt a psuedo-Marxian POV that everything is a
negotiation.
Edward Green
> Timo Nieminen <uqtn...@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> >
> >> I'm about ready to follow you. It is a waste of time.
> >
> >But isn't that the whole point of usenet?
>
> Usenet is a good place to kill time that might otherwise be difficult
> to kill.
So... a kind of Time Terminator, eh?
It's the closest thing to a really convincing AI. :-)
One is startled when one of the sub-routines terminates. Though I just
had the strange experience of "a fifth of Lagavulin on the shelf" roll
by while something else was loading, the way things will, and now I
wonder if someone has been reincarnated or it was merely an old post:
like sitting at the bar when a glass clinks, the floor creaks, the wind
blows and the door opens, and you think you hear a familiar voice...
This is the other species of time-wasting post: no Dionysians here,
even more provocative.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>> In article <1120913401....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Edward Green" <spamsp...@netzero.com> writes:
>
>> >Did anybody else happen to notice, by the way, that Michael Jackson's
>> >accuser's self-characterization on the witness stand was a perfect
>> >match for a Usenet troll? He admitted -- or bragged -- that he liked
>> >to argue, and especially like to argue with his teachers and show them
>> >up (in his own mind) in front of the other students. I think he was
>> >really Spaceman.
>> >
>> Might've been. Do you recall (that's another BTW) the old distinction
>> (posted by a kind soul years ago) between Dionisian and Apollonian
>> approach to argument.
>
>But of course. Much of the time wasting of Usenet (but not all), I
>think you will agree, occurs when a Dionysian is not caught in the
>early, treatable, stage. Once the victim has become emotionally
>entangled, it's much harder to disengage: which is what the argument
>meme spreader wants.
Yes, as observed here all the time.
>
>And now, for a complete tangent which I think you will enjoy, a
>principle from the McGraw Hill "36 hour negotiating course": a good
>negotiator is neither conflict averse nor conflict happy.
A good principle. Indeed, both "extreme" positions lead to defeat.
You may say that this principle is a formalization of the adage "pick
your battles".
> I think that is a powerful generality, which moves beyond "negotiating"
> to "life";
Yep.
>unless we want to adopt a psuedo-Marxian POV that everything is a
>negotiation.
>
Pseudo-Marxian indeed and no, I would not adopt it. The problem with
such sweeping generalizations is that while sounding sweet, they're
meaningless. If evrything is X then saying that something is X
conveys no information.
RichD
> Nothing but demented trolls on sci.physics today. No
>
> To the competent few that remain: farewell.
Don't go, Shane!
--
Rich
Timo Nieminen
> Timo Nieminen <uqtn...@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
>
> Yes, all true.
>
>> I suppose I could get a teevee for the office instead ...
>>
> Uggh, no, thanks:-) Usenet, at least, is quiet.
Must be almost a decade since I last bothered having a working soundcard
in a computer. Quiet has its plusses. Back when I was a teenage atomic
spectroscopist, and I was a month behind making measurements, I ran the
gear almost round the clock. Everything was ancient and breaking down; the
1/2 life of the system was 6 hours. So I was doing 4 hour runs, with it
sitting idle 4 hours per day so I could get some sleep.
The computer running the show (15 years old at the time) had an
interesting set of peripherals, including a CRO driven by a couple of DA
converters in the guts of the computer - the original graphics display,
supplanted by a serial graphics terminal as far as most (but not all)
programs were concerned - and a BW TV, the old text display. On late
nights, it was a useful entertainment device.
Ah, nostalgia! Watching a teeny tiny BW TV by the light of a sodium lamp
...
--
Timo
(No wonder I turned theoretician!)
Timo Nieminen
> Timo Nieminen wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>
>>> In article <2005070713...@emu.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen <uqtn...@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
>>>> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm about ready to follow you. It is a waste of time.
>>>>
>>>> But isn't that the whole point of usenet?
>>>>
>>> It is. But does it beat procrastinating playing solitaire or
>>> free-cell? By now I'm not sure.
>>
>> Well, solitaire is pretty mindless, free-cell takes real concentration,
>> nethack takes too long; usenet divvies up the time into tiny brain-free
>> soundbites. I suppose I could get a teevee for the office instead ...
>
> Well, for me it was always bi-valent: both a waste of time and a
> serious outlet for intellectual discussion. Not necessarily mutually
> exclusive.
For sure.
I'll note 4 types of denizens: pros, cranks, homework answer seekers, and
trolls.
From some pros, there is much to be learned.
I don't mind cranks or eccentrics, per se. Discussion with such,
if sensible discussion, at the very least, gets you to think, and to
clarify your own ideas.
Homework answer seekers, well, there are the pointless lazy ones, not
worth answering. But then there are the genuinely curious who come here to
learn, not to avoid work.
As for trolls, well, do fish want to be caught? (In some cases,
apparently!) The only difficulty is distinguishing between some on the
borderline of crankdom/trolldom.
The noise level is high, but it's easy to press the "D" key.
> Bold plans for investigation were founded, and abandoned:
> but at least a few neurons preserved their worthless lives for a space.
> But then I am, as Mati once categorized me, a professional amateur --
> which means, among other things, that I don't have the benefit of
> walking down the hall and knocking on somebody's door to have
> intelligent discourse.
Usenet, at its best, provides a breadth that colleagues cannot provide.
--
Timo
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>> Timo Nieminen <uqtn...@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
>>
>> Yes, all true.
>>
>>> I suppose I could get a teevee for the office instead ...
>>>
>> Uggh, no, thanks:-) Usenet, at least, is quiet.
>
>Must be almost a decade since I last bothered having a working soundcard
>in a computer. Quiet has its plusses. Back when I was a teenage atomic
>spectroscopist, and I was a month behind making measurements, I ran the
>gear almost round the clock. Everything was ancient and breaking down; the
>1/2 life of the system was 6 hours. So I was doing 4 hour runs, with it
>sitting idle 4 hours per day so I could get some sleep.
>
>The computer running the show (15 years old at the time) had an
>interesting set of peripherals, including a CRO driven by a couple of DA
>converters in the guts of the computer - the original graphics display,
>supplanted by a serial graphics terminal as far as most (but not all)
>programs were concerned - and a BW TV, the old text display. On late
>nights, it was a useful entertainment device.
>
Yes, I can see this.
>Ah, nostalgia! Watching a teeny tiny BW TV by the light of a sodium lamp
>...
>
>--
>Timo
>(No wonder I turned theoretician!)
Well, as a theoretician you're indeed no longer at the mercy of
temperamental equipment. your sleepless nights are self inflicted, I
gether:-)
geraldk...@hotmail.com
Indignation is one of the greatest human attributes when used sparingly
but among the audience here there may be a seed of dignity in the
effort to appreciate natural phenomena on its own terms rather than
empirical guesswork geometrised as 'frames of reference' and other
inappropriate lingo.
So Hanson,you dare not look on the principles which you will use today
and use tomorrow insofar as the exquisite reasoning that facilitates
the seamless passage from one 24 hour day to the next 24 hour day was
adapted by the first heliocentrists and applied to the newly discovered
insight of axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour.
As you are one of the 'shut up and calculate' crowd who base their
equations on the Earth rotation to inertial space/sidereal value,you
phony hyena laughing is a symptom of a diseased mind no better or worse
than Al or Meron or anyone else who keeps the insincerity up and
running.
All creativity is learning to live with impatience whereas a dull man
is patient and nothing else.You can outlast me because you are patient
and streetwise but then again,what has investigation of natural
phenomena anything to do with being politically saavy for even Newton's
maneuvering can become borimng after a while and that is the guy
,inadvertingly andwith purpose,so much of a mess.
Being a Christian makes it easy to descend into this empirical hell
but I would not wish anyone else to remain there longer than is
necessary.You go on laughing and mocking from your empirical standpoint
but you should see what the first heliocentrists really did.
Ed Hanna
<snip>
> Personally, I think that it is both continuous and discrete simultaneously,
> a position which sounds like nonsense, but I think it's true.
<snip>
What really freaks me out is that it can be
> > > thought of as dicrete or continuous in different contexts, and I think
> that
> > > this is easily more bizarre that wave/particle duality.
<snip>
> Consider something really simple, like freefall, or even an object simply
> existing. How can you account for this with strictly discrete fine structure
> ? Might be possible, but the continuum sure looks attractive here.
>
> But I think that you will have great success looking for discreteness in
> places, and the mystery is why spacetime would be discrete and continuous at
> the same time - something which cant happen in mathematics.
<snip>
Dear Lefty,
My take on your question of discrete vs. continuum, is that if
space-time is actually discrete in some way at very small scales, it
would function as if it were continuous at very large scales. A couple
of examples might illustrate this notion.
(1) The computer monitor I'm typing this on displays a large number of
discrete pixles, and looking up close at photographs and line drawings,
I can see the grainyness.
When I stand across the room from it, photographs and line drawings do
not appear to have any grainyness at all, and it would be hard to prove
that the monitor display is not continuous.
(2) A jar of smooth and creamy peanut butter looks and acts continuous
at large scales, but we know that it is discrete at the molecular
scale.
So my take is that discrete physics vs. continuum physics is a matter
of perspective, depending on the scale of the peerspective. Discrete
physics would imply that all smooth physical equations, integrals, and
derivatives should work fine at larger scales, but at some point they
will fail at smaller scales.
This is the approach I will take in the other "question of discrete
space-time" thread.
Regards,
Ed Hanna
Ed Hanna
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
<snip>
> Or maybe they thought it was just to much work to edit out
> all the "try and [verb]".
> http://www.drgrammar.org/faqs/#66
> http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/plague.htm
> http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000253.htm
I stand corrected. In school I always paid more attention in science
classes than in English classes - a failing of mine.
> Looking at:
> http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/t-16057_Need_practice_in_Analog/t-42095_Astrophysics/t-64183_Quick_question_on_find_freq/t-77084_A_question_of_discrete_space-time..html
> it seems like a bogus idea.
> It seems to lead to an anisotropic speed of light.
More discussion on the other thread.
Regards,
Ed Hanna
jmfb...@aol.com
"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
><jmfb...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:kaidnTM6kJk...@rcn.net...
>| In article <3j91tqF...@individual.net>,
>| "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>| >"Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
>| >news:3JKdnaNvL9I...@prairiewave.com...
>| >|
>| >| Nothing but demented trolls on sci.physics today. No
>| >| physics to be found. Not one worthwhile post. Can't
>| >| stand it. Nothing but spewing, incompetent, delusional,
>| >| demented, stupid, ignorant, assholes.
>| >|
>| >| The purpose of this post is to notify the trolls that the
>| >| competency level of their audience on sci,physics is
>| >| now decremented by one, at least for awhile; probably
>| >| a long while; maybe forever.
>| >|
>| >| To the trolls: may you eat your own garbage.
>| >|
>| >| To the competent few that remain: farewell.
>| >|
>| >| [Old Man]
>| >
>| >So why are you whining about it?
>|
>| A statement of disgust is whinging? You need to reexamine your
>| definitions.
>
>I get disgusted sometimes also but I don't whine about it.
OldMan wasn't whinging. When the most intelligent elders
start talking about quitting a project, you had better learn
to interpret that as a wake-up call.
>I just
>engage more filters for the really obnoxious stuff. There is nothing
>wrong with my definitions.
Fine. Your coping method is to ignore the mess makers and their
afterburns. This is not how some other people deal with problems.
Physicists are trained to not ignore messes.
>
>| > .. If you want to go; just go quitely.
>| >If you stay, deal with it. Don't get me wrong here; I would rather
>see
>| >you stay and deal with it. Lighten up. It really is the Wild Wild
>West
>| >Physics Show. If ya want more serious physics, go to s.p.research.
>|
>| OldMan is done doing serious physics; he was here to pass on his
>| expertise to those who don't have it...yet.
>
>I have seen Old Man post original comments and questions about serious
>physics here and have enjoyed and learned from many of them. So you are
>wrong.
Sigh! Serious physics is not done in newsgroups. You have a lot
to learn about science and how the work is done.
>
>| >I still would like to know why you never post to s.p.research but
>like
>| >to whine about the state of sci.physics? Sheesh, the only thing
>worse
>| >than an incompetent troll here is a whiner. ;-)
>|
>| S.p.r is topical; s.p is general. If there is noone to correct
>| the initial mistakes of concept, there will be noone to
>| participate in the moderated group.
>
>SPR will accept legitimate *general* physics questions and comments
>whether you are a newbie or an expert. You are wrong again.
I give up. It's gotta be the water.
<snip>
Lefty
Is'nt that weird ? There is no math currently which can explain how a
manifold can be discrete and continuous simultaneously, unless you consider
it to be a relativistic illusion of extreme scales - like a mirage. I think
it's extremely bizarre, but QM weirdness seems to back it up !!
I was just thinking - how is it that a photon can travel all the way across
the universe in a relatively stright line (nto counting gravitational
lensing) ? We have deep space photos from Hubble telescope that look great.
This seems to imply that those photons are zipping through a medium which is
perfectly smooth, i.e. continuous.
But at the same time, it cannot be continuous because of nonlocality,
quantum eraser, double eraser, etc !!!
Very weird !!
zzbu...@netscape.net
Lefty wrote:
> > > Personally, I think that it is both continuous and discrete
> simultaneously,
> > > a position which sounds like nonsense, but I think it's true.
That has to be the case, given that the basic
assumption behind relativity is that nothing
can be both A and B simultaneously,
for every A and B.
Which is the only reason the Lorentz group
even "works".
Hence science idiots still can't even
keep the definitions of discrete as
distinct digital straightened out.
Since the idiots can't even do
dimensional analysis. Since the
only math they quite apparanetly
know anything about is Goedel math.
Lefty
> > > > Personally, I think that it is both continuous and discrete
> > simultaneously,
> > > > a position which sounds like nonsense, but I think it's true.
>
> That has to be the case, given that the basic
> assumption behind relativity is that nothing
> can be both A and B simultaneously,
> for every A and B.
>
> Which is the only reason the Lorentz group
> even "works".
Ya learn somethin' new every day. I did'nt even know that the collection of
all Lorentz transforms makes a group. Well, wadda ya know.
But why would'nt it. If spacetime is continuous, then all kinds of math
applies to physics very nicely.
But nonlocality and all this other stuff is like a little troll sitting
there just mocking you. A little green leprachaun, dancing and laughing,
singing his little leprachaun song "your too dumb to figure me out"...
Someone oughta PUNT that leprachaun.
zzbu...@netscape.net
Lefty wrote:
> > Lefty wrote:
> > > > > Personally, I think that it is both continuous and discrete
> > > simultaneously,
> > > > > a position which sounds like nonsense, but I think it's true.
> >
> > That has to be the case, given that the basic
> > assumption behind relativity is that nothing
> > can be both A and B simultaneously,
> > for every A and B.
> >
> > Which is the only reason the Lorentz group
> > even "works".
>
>
> Ya learn somethin' new every day. I did'nt even know that the collection of
> all Lorentz transforms makes a group. Well, wadda ya know.
You do learn something new everydoay, since the
collection of all Lorentz transforms only
exists in moron-ville of physics.
Since the idiots haven't even shown that ONE
Lorentz Transforms exists. Since Einstein's
ssumptions about the Lorentz transformation
was that it not only didn't exist anywhere
outside of mathematics, it didn't even explain
the Euclid transformation.
FrediFizzx
news:8OidncWaFar...@rcn.net...
Let's just say I pay much more attention to the posts on SPR. To me, SP
really is the Wild Wild West Physics Show and is better than watching
TV. I really wouldn't change much about SP. I think it would ruin my
entertainment value. ;-)
| >| > .. If you want to go; just go quitely.
| >| >If you stay, deal with it. Don't get me wrong here; I would
rather
| >see
| >| >you stay and deal with it. Lighten up. It really is the Wild
Wild
| >West
| >| >Physics Show. If ya want more serious physics, go to
s.p.research.
| >|
| >| OldMan is done doing serious physics; he was here to pass on his
| >| expertise to those who don't have it...yet.
| >
| >I have seen Old Man post original comments and questions about
serious
| >physics here and have enjoyed and learned from many of them. So you
are
| >wrong.
|
| Sigh! Serious physics is not done in newsgroups. You have a lot
| to learn about science and how the work is done.
Well, that does not mean serious physics can't be discussed in
newsgroups. I have worked on and helped work on some serious
theoretical research projects one of them being the one at the link in
the sig. and also presented at,
http://www.physical-congress.spb.ru/2004en_text.asp
And another I helped on,
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404048
I do know what serious physics work is like. Even theoretical research
can be very tedious.
And some physics research you have worked on can be found where?
| >| >I still would like to know why you never post to s.p.research but
| >like
| >| >to whine about the state of sci.physics? Sheesh, the only thing
| >worse
| >| >than an incompetent troll here is a whiner. ;-)
| >|
| >| S.p.r is topical; s.p is general. If there is noone to correct
| >| the initial mistakes of concept, there will be noone to
| >| participate in the moderated group.
| >
| >SPR will accept legitimate *general* physics questions and comments
| >whether you are a newbie or an expert. You are wrong again.
|
| I give up. It's gotta be the water.
Hmm... I hardly ever see you post to SPR whereas I *do* occasionally
post there and read most of the messages posted there. You should give
up because you are coming mostly from a stance of ignorance about SPR.
BTW, Old Man has always been a whiner even if he does know physics.
That fact doesn't cause me to have less respect for his physics
knowledge. I would rather have him stay but leave his whining elsewhere
and maybe he really should try posting to SPR. Since he has never
really tried, he might find that he likes it. But I can imagine he
would find something to whine about SPR. ;-)
Richard Herring
<uqtn...@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes>> In article <2005070713...@emu.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen
>>> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm about ready to follow you. It is a waste of time.
>>>
>>> But isn't that the whole point of usenet?
>>>
>> It is. But does it beat procrastinating playing solitaire or
>> free-cell? By now I'm not sure.
>
>Well, solitaire is pretty mindless, free-cell takes real concentration,
Try Spider. (It's in the "cards" package for Firefox, and standard issue
on some varieties of Unix.)
>nethack takes too long; usenet divvies up the time into tiny brain-free
>soundbites. I suppose I could get a teevee for the office instead ...
>
--
Richard Herring
yt56erd
Traveler wrote:
> In article <MKZye.1821$BK1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
oh look, louise and his bitch handjob are having a love in. dickwads.
old man - shame if you think you have to leave but fair one. usenet
will still be here. pricks like savain and handjob think they are funny
and original but they arent.
Traveler
"yt56erd" <yt5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[crap]
hehe... What does OldMan's ass smell like today? ahahaha... ahahaha...
Andy Resnick
> Which begs the question, how in the heck does Jello maintain surface tension
> at different temperatures? Was the science behind Jello purely chemical or
> did someone have to know any physics to stray off into the gelatin research?
Eh? Gelatin has a non-zero yield stress, AFAIK. The theory of
viscoplastic fluids is incomplete, to put it mildly.
--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University
hanson
To Fat Gerald aka <geraldk...@hotmail.com>
Your "Indignation" is clearly apparent in the odiously religious
and the retro-historical undertones in your post. I appreciate
your believe that it was me who started the Copernican/Galilean
revolution. But since I am not that fossilized yet, I must say that
you have expelled your barks into the wrong direction without
any "frames of reference".. ahahaha... be they "geometrised"
or done in any other "inappropriate lingo".... ahahahaha...
The following excerpt of your post clearly shows that:
>
[Fat Gerald's complaint]
> your phony hyena laughing is a symptom of a diseased mind
> no better or worse than Al or Meron who keeps the insincerity
> up and running. You can outlast me because you are patient
> and streetwise but then again.... [me, Fat Gerald] being a
> Christian makes it easy to descend into this empirical hell
> but I would not wish anyone else to remain there longer than is
> necessary.You go on laughing and mocking from your empirical
> standpoint but you should see what the first heliocentrists really did.
>
[hanson]
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... so, Fat Gerald, in your mind then there
is that "empirical" fear that somehow me and two jews are conspiring
against your Christian beliefs... ahahahaha.... Well, well, Fat Gerald.
Listen, Fat Gerald, here are the fact on this issue. You, Fat Gerald
and Mati Moron appear to be fervent believers in your respective
religion. OTOH Al, when he is not urinAl, and me do not seem to
be members of any godly flock, like Mati and you happen to be.
Me, I do travel alone on my own path in such matters and I will
show you now the really true and only 5 steps towards heaven.
It works. Even for quasi-saintly, pseudo intellects like you,
for it is written that:
== there is only one *scene* and that is *obscene*, of which
== there is only one *version* and that is *perversion*, as is
written in the stars & carved in every line of your palms, that
== Heresy, Blasphemy, Sacrilege, Irreverence and Profanity,
== in any convenient sequence, are the 5 true paths to heaven.
Fuck! yeah!
Fat Gerald, bless you, go forth and praise the Load! Hallelujah!
Praise the Load!... and always remember that:
"For they who fucketh are happy and blessed.
For she who gets eaten shall never go hungry, and
For he who gets blown shall never have asthma."
Matthew 69-71[*], King James VI-IX, deep sea scroll version.
The late Mme. Koster, the reverend Koster's pretty wife, Lauralee
who blew and fucked me in the church, on the altar, right next to
the chalice filled with holy water,... she would be so proud of me...
ahahahaha.... Lauralee will not go hungry and I never had asthma.
AHAHAHAHA......ahahahahanson
[*] = position 71 is 69 with 2 people watching.
hanson
your sub-intellectual, emotionally charged turdlets, my dear y-turd:
y-turd aka "yt56erd" <yt5...@gmail.com> cranked himself in message
news:1121080437.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Traveler wrote:
>> "hanson" wrote in:
news:MKZye.1821$BK1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net
>
[y-turd groans in his jealous agony]
> oh look, louise and his bitch handjob are having a love in. dickwads.
>
[hanson]
ahahaha... "love in"...AHAHAHA... y-turd is jealous!.. AHAHAHA...
y-turd, are you an old, wilting, still high and loaded flower child?
>
[y-turd comes out of his closet]
> old man - shame if you think you have to leave but fair one.
>
[hanson]
ahahaha.... "fair one".... ahahaha.... describing yourself as the
"fairy one", the number one fairy...... AHAHAHA.... You made
a bad Freudian slip here, homo y-turd! ...ahahaha... next time,
you better try the more gay tingling "queen or queenie" and
you may get some takers, somewhere, y-turd... ahahaha...
But here,... bad call, y-turd!
Go seek your relativity homo joys elsewhere... ahahaha...
>
[y-turd makes profound, seminal announcements]
> usenet will still be here. pricks like savain and handjob think they
> are funny and original but they arent.
>
[hanson]
ahahaha... AHAHA.... y-turd, you just sported another give-away
about your compulsive homo yearnings!... You seem to be so
uncontrollably driven & forced by your gayety to think about our pricks.
No wonder, you are fantasizing about handjobs, y-turd... ahahaha
Thanks for the laughs, y-turd, have at it, but don't strain yourself too
much. You could get a hernia or pop one of your many hemmies, and
relatively speaking, grow hair on your palms instead of on your tiny,
bald pin head... .ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahahahaha... ahahanson
>
Mitch Perkins
[snip]
> But the old farts have got to go if for no other reason
> than that Kuhn was right.
Kuhn?! That old fart? Whyn't ya kiss his dead old ass somewheres
else? Eh?
Mitch P.
Mitch Perkins
> Nothing but demented trolls on sci.physics today. No
> physics to be found. Not one worthwhile post. Can't
> stand it. Nothing but spewing, incompetent, delusional,
> demented, stupid, ignorant, assholes.
>
> The purpose of this post is to notify the trolls that the
> competency level of their audience on sci,physics is
> now decremented by one, at least for awhile; probably
> a long while; maybe forever.
>
> To the trolls: may you eat your own garbage.
>
> To the competent few that remain: farewell.
>
> [Old Man]
Two things -
Of all the "new topics" started by Old Man, this one, I believe, has
generated the longest thread, so Old Man is right to leave such a silly
ng behind.
Old Man's decision to leave means stupidity wins, and posters with
honest physics questions lose, so Old Man is wrong to leave such a
silly ng behind.
I'll miss your cryptic postings, even though I was mostly unable to
decipher them. Oh, and I *always* understood the photographs!
Mitch P.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>In message <2005070822...@emu.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen
><uqtn...@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes
>>On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>
>>> In article <2005070713...@emu.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen
>>><uqtn...@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
>>>> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm about ready to follow you. It is a waste of time.
>>>>
>>>> But isn't that the whole point of usenet?
>>>>
>>> It is. But does it beat procrastinating playing solitaire or
>>> free-cell? By now I'm not sure.
>>
>>Well, solitaire is pretty mindless, free-cell takes real concentration,
>
>Try Spider. (It's in the "cards" package for Firefox, and standard issue
>on some varieties of Unix.)
>
Bob Cain
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Old Man--Oh the dilemma. I've asked myself many times if this
> is good use of my time (mostly replying to cranks and trolls)
> and it is probably not! But... There is something to be said
> for sharpening arguments... and I sometimes learn something in
> the process.
>
> I guess I stay, hoping that others like yourself will do likewise.
> There needs to be a critical number (don't ask me what it is) to
> dominate the traffic with fruitful discussion.
>
> We need to encourage real physics discussion and ignore more
> troll posts. Without people who know some physics participating,
> there is little hope for the survival of sci.physics as a resource.
It would help one whole hell of a lot if you folks that
actually know something would simply ignore the trash. Then
kook filters would really have a chance at helping the
situation. I really don't give a rat's ass what you think
about the trolls and idiot wogs or the garbage they spew.
Can't you just let them entertain themselves?
What on earth is the compulsion to respond to idiots all
about anyway?
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."
A. Einstein
Bob Cain
Bob Cain wrote:
> It would help one whole hell of a lot if you folks that actually know
> something would simply ignore the trash. Then kook filters would really
> have a chance at helping the situation. I really don't give a rat's ass
> what you think about the trolls and idiot wogs or the garbage they spew.
> Can't you just let them entertain themselves?
>
> What on earth is the compulsion to respond to idiots all about anyway?
Sorry if that seemed uniquely targeted, Sam. I meant to
address all of the competent people here that can't seem to
resist engaging the ..., the ...., oh, whatever they are.
Richard Herring
<arc...@arcanemethods.com> writes
>
>
>Bob Cain wrote:
>
>> It would help one whole hell of a lot if you folks that actually know
>>something would simply ignore the trash. Then kook filters would
>>really have a chance at helping the situation. I really don't give a
>>rat's ass what you think about the trolls and idiot wogs or the
>>garbage they spew. Can't you just let them entertain themselves?
>> What on earth is the compulsion to respond to idiots all about
>>anyway?
>
>Sorry if that seemed uniquely targeted, Sam. I meant to address all of
>the competent people here that can't seem to resist engaging the ...,
>the ...., oh, whatever they are.
>
emotionally committed to educating a crank; it's quite another matter to
present the opposing arguments in the hope of educating the *audience*.
--
Richard Herring
yt56erd
hanson wrote:
> ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... You must try'n press harder to extrude
> your sub-intellectual, emotionally charged turdlets, my dear y-turd:
>
hey handjob. does your butt banger know you are posting here? dont you
have to get savains permission to speak to adults?
why dont you take yourself back into your little corner and have a nice
big cup of shut the fuck up. adults are talking and your pathetic whiny
voice is giving louise a hardon. you know what will happen to your ass
if you keep going.
why the fuck would i want to talk to a monkey like you when even your
organ grinder is a retard?
you havent an original insult in your whole body, you even have to get
louise's approval before you make a joke. pathetic lowlife.
yt56erd
Traveler wrote:
> [crap]
>
> hehe... What does OldMan's ass smell like today? ahahaha... ahahaha...
>
> Louise Savain
why are you missing it? little handjob not filling all your needs now?
i notice as you get more excited your posts get shorter. must be hard
typing one handed with a ball gag in your mouth. why dont you get your
litte assbitch handjob to do it for you - or is he doing you instead?
Sam Wormley
>
>
> Bob Cain wrote:
>
>> It would help one whole hell of a lot if you folks that actually know
>> something would simply ignore the trash. Then kook filters would
>> really have a chance at helping the situation. I really don't give a
>> rat's ass what you think about the trolls and idiot wogs or the
>> garbage they spew. Can't you just let them entertain themselves?
>>
>> What on earth is the compulsion to respond to idiots all about anyway?
>
>
> Sorry if that seemed uniquely targeted, Sam. I meant to address all of
> the competent people here that can't seem to resist engaging the ...,
> the ...., oh, whatever they are.
>
>
> Bob
No problem--hopefully the responses help people reading to learn
something.
hanson
ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... You must try'n press MUCH harder to extrude
your sub-intellectual, emotionally charged turdlets, my dear y-turd,:
y-turd aka "yt56erd" <yt5...@gmail.com> is truly straining now in his
news:1121157076....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> hanson wrote in:
news:vFyAe.2122$dU3....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... You must try'n press harder to extrude
>> your sub-intellectual, emotionally charged turdlets, my dear y-turd:
>>
> [y-turd comes out of his closet]
>> old man - shame if you think you have to leave but fair one.
>>
> [hanson]
> ahahaha.... "fair one".... ahahaha.... describing yourself as the
> "fairy one", the number one fairy...... AHAHAHA.... You made
> a bad Freudian slip here, homo y-turd! ...ahahaha... next time,
> you better try the more gay tingling "queen or queenie" and
> you may get some takers, somewhere, y-turd... ahahaha...
> But here,... bad call, y-turd!
> Go seek your relativity homo joys elsewhere... ahahaha...
>>
> [y-turd makes profound, seminal announcements]
>> usenet will still be here. pricks like savain and handjob think they
>> are funny and original but they arent.
>>
> [hanson]
> ahahaha... AHAHA.... y-turd, you just sported another give-away
> about your compulsive homo yearnings!... You seem to be so
> uncontrollably driven & forced by your gayety to think about our pricks.
> No wonder, you are fantasizing about handjobs, y-turd... ahahaha
> Thanks for the laughs, y-turd, have at it, but don't strain yourself too
> much. You could get a hernia or pop one of your many hemmies, and
> relatively speaking, grow hair on your palms instead of on your tiny,
> bald pin head... .ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahahahaha... ahahanson
>>
[y-turd is getting besides himself now, not being able to cum ... ahahaha]
> why the fuck would i want to talk to a monkey like you when even your
> organ grinder is a retard?
>
[hanson]
ahahahaha....... but you just did, y-turd.....ahahahaha... AHAHAHA....
So, why do you talk to me then, y-turd?........ ahahahaha.....
That is the profound question that you should ask yourself, y-turd, (who
is now also available/posting as Crank Hat and Crank Head) ... ahaha...
ahahahaha... So, again, thanks for the laughs, y-turd, have at it, but
don't strain yourself so much. You could get a hernia or pop one of
your many hemmies, and relatively speaking, grow hair on your palms
instead of on your tiny, bald pin head... .ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
ahahaha... ahahahanson
PS: Seriously, dear homo queenie y-turd... do you get so badly bent
out of shape and jealous because I do go past your highschool ken?
There is more to physics then the few Einstein papers. Don't you know
that yet.... ahahaha.... AHAHAHA.... y-turd don't know. He cum undun!
geraldk...@hotmail.com
You travel you own path !!!!,most certainly you are a product of the
empiricist doctrine for what began as a politically saavy approach to
celestial phenomena by Newton has not descended into total politics
with not much else,this is why I can listen to what you have to say as
a street smart kid but the substance of your views are exactly as Old
Man once described - intellectual tinsel..
> It works. Even for quasi-saintly, pseudo intellects like you,
> for it is written that:
> == there is only one *scene* and that is *obscene*, of which
> == there is only one *version* and that is *perversion*, as is
> written in the stars & carved in every line of your palms, that
> == Heresy, Blasphemy, Sacrilege, Irreverence and Profanity,
> == in any convenient sequence, are the 5 true paths to heaven.
> Fuck! yeah!
> Fat Gerald, bless you, go forth and praise the Load! Hallelujah!
> Praise the Load!... and always remember that:
> "For they who fucketh are happy and blessed.
> For she who gets eaten shall never go hungry, and
> For he who gets blown shall never have asthma."
> Matthew 69-71[*], King James VI-IX, deep sea scroll version.
>
Those of mediocre intelligence are denominational Christians, non or
anti-religious,those of high intelligence with a small core of wisdom
are often drawn to the principles of all faiths and beliefs,the truly
wise are Christians who view other beliefs from Christian (not
necessarily denominational )grandeur.
Guess you have trouble with the root word for Bible or biblios which
means a library of books which act as guidelines.
> The late Mme. Koster, the reverend Koster's pretty wife, Lauralee
> who blew and fucked me in the church, on the altar, right next to
> the chalice filled with holy water,... she would be so proud of me...
> ahahahaha.... Lauralee will not go hungry and I never had asthma.
> AHAHAHAHA......ahahahahanson
>
> [*] = position 71 is 69 with 2 people watching.
You are no different than Meron or Roberts no matter how hard you try
for you serve their purpose and I assure you whatever path you imagine
you travel alone,at the end of it you will find you peers applauding.
Many people who call themselves Christians have never found the
Christian path for it is something that opens up for those who know no
prejudice and insincerity.All you lot ever do is either of these two
evil things and it showas,my God it shows.
hanson
news:1121194355.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> to hanson who wrote in
news:8xRAe.4050$BK1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
news:KzxAe.2110$dU3....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net
>> ahahaha... AHAHA... you have p/laid a good one here, Fat Gerald.
> [Fat Gerald's fu complaint in its glorious distillation]
> Those of mediocre intelligence are denominational Christians.
> The truly wise are Christians who view other beliefs from Christian
> (not necessarily denominational ) grandeur.
> The root word for Bible or biblios which means a library of books
> which act as guidelines.
> Many people who call themselves Christians have never found the
> Christian path for it is something that opens up for those who know
> no prejudice and insincerity. All you lot ever do is either of these two
> evil things and it shows, my God it shows.
>
[hanson]
Yo, Fat Gerald, don't forget your words but look into the mirror to
see firsthand such a picture of "mediocre intelligence... prejudice
and insincerity"... ahahaha.... Fat Gerald, listen carefully while you
must adore yourself in your mirror: == Stone/Glass house --- Pot/kettle
goose/gander == ... and last but not least... "Father forgive him, for
Fat Gerald not knows what he is doing".... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
Thanks for the laughs, Fat Gerald. I enjoy such grand bullsherations
with you every now and them. You are a good man, Fat Gerald!
ahaha... ahahanson