True Science is hampered by the culture of stupidity.

NoEinstein

unread,

Oct 3, 2011, 4:05:55 PM10/3/11

to

In my efforts to locate ‘new posts’ by others that are within my
primary areas of expertise, I replied to Harald (see below). Harald
was playing the deferential student by posting on
sci.physics.research. Such site is primarily where naïve grad
students ask others to help them understand things, because they
aren’t smart enough to figure anything out for themselves.
Moderators, like Jonathan Thornburg, love their seeming intellectual
superiority and become defensive and resentful of any person who
actually knows how science works.

Mr. Thornburg’s bone-of-contention is that “accepted science” has
somehow ruled out the existence of an ether. For nearly half a
century the arguments raged between the science shallows whether or
not there is a… luminiferous ether that acts as the ‘medium’ for the
propagation of light ‘waves’ (sic!). The majority of those arguments
centered on explaining the nil results of the 1887 Michelson-Morley
experiment. No one before yours truly was sharp enough to realize
that the ether must NURTURE light on its course, and will never
perpetually drag (slow) the passage of light. Note: If the latter
happened, there would be no life in the universe, because the stellar
energy couldn’t get very far from any star till the light velocity
reached ZERO.

Over a century of supposed science has been based on the imbecilic
‘rubber ruler’ notions of a drunken German named Lorentz. He was
Einstein’s mentor and supposed that velocity has the capability to
cause all materials—whether made of rubber or stone, etc. and of any
cross-sectional area—to contract identically, and to STAY contracted
(without the possibility of elastic rebounds) until the velocity is
reduced (sic!). The latter “accepted science” violates every
principle of engineering physics and strengths of materials!!

Nothing about the M-M experiment confirms one thing about the
existence of an ether (with varying density and flow). Nonetheless,
within just a single hour of research in my local library I confirmed
that M-M is a wrongly DESIGNED experiment for measuring light
velocity! That is because it lacks an unchanging CONTROL light
course! What such experiment does prove is that the times of travel
of light in any optical system that is confined to a single plane will
never change! The attached link explains a simple algebraic
invalidation of M-M that any middle school student can duplicate. In
addition to the latter, I designed, constructed, and have successfully
tested my X, Y, and Z interferometer which places the unchanging
control light course on the Z axis (of rotation) without any 45 degree
mirrors or beam splitters in such light course. Such experiment
easily detects thousands of fringe shifts within 360 degrees of
apparatus rotation! Einstein himself said (and I paraphrase): “If any
Earth-based experiment ever measures our velocity, my S. R. theory
will have been disproved.” Well, I have done that, handily!

I’ve easily disproved 75 plus percent of the status quo physics.
There is no intellectual hierarchy placing sci.physics.research over
wherever I happen to be replying at the moment. In short: No one in
science can hold a candle to me! — NoEinstein —

Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f9852639d5d9e1/dcb2a1511b7b2603?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#dcb2a1511b7b2603

The following is a copy of Jonathan Thornburg’s direct email to
NoEinstein, including my apt reply:

10/03/11

Jonathan:

You 'moderators' are... "the BLIND leading the BLIND". Your only
standard of "scientific correctness" is to count how many years errant
stuff has been accepted by the airheads. Fortunately, my
accomplishments won't be limited by the status quo dunces, like you,
once my New Science is widely accepted. When that happens, you will
be one of the first... moderators to be let go!

- NoEinstein - The man who has invalidated the M-M experiment (no
control, or unchanging light course!); and disproved SR for violating
the Law of the Conservation of Energy-Mass; and a hundred etcs...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Thornburg" <jth...@astro.indiana.edu>
To: "NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 10:00 PM
Subject: REJ: Re: Question on time dilation

> Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is
> inappropriate for the newsgroup because it makes controversial
> statements about observation or theory without showing that they
> have a rigorous scientific basis. In particular, your posting
> is based on the concept of an (a)ether, which has been generally
> discredited for over a century as a blind alley. If you wish to
> discuss the (a)ether concept, then you need a solid argument for
> why this is useful.
>
> For more information see the sci.physics.research charter at
> http://www.astro.multivax.de:8000/spr/spr.html
>
> You may wish to revise and resubmit your posting taking this into
> account, or to send it to another newsgroup (possibly sci.physics)
> instead. Revised versions of your posting will be reconsidered for
> sci.physics.research on the same criteria. Please DO NOT ask for
> the existing posting to be reconsidered. The moderators will not
> enter into correspondence regarding the suitability of postings for
> sci.physics.research -- we are all volunteers and simply don't have
> the time.
>
> Please note that, since the article was posted to a moderated group
> and was not approved, it will not appear in ANY newsgroup. If you
> want to post it to an unmoderated newsgroup (such as sci.physics),
> you must post it again, avoiding any moderated newsgroups.
>
> Keep in mind that posts are randomly distributed to one of the ACTIVE
> co-moderators. At any given time, one or more of these can be inactive.
> If, rather than resubmitting a post in the normal way, you email a
> moderator directly, it might arrive while s/he is inactive, causing
> an unnecessary delay.
>
> Sincerely,

__________

PD

unread,

Oct 3, 2011, 4:12:06 PM10/3/11

to

On 10/3/2011 3:05 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> In my efforts to locate ï¿½new postsï¿½ by others that are within my

> primary areas of expertise, I replied to Harald (see below). Harald
> was playing the deferential student by posting on

> sci.physics.research. Such site is primarily where naï¿½ve grad

> students ask others to help them understand things, because they

> arenï¿½t smart enough to figure anything out for themselves.

> Moderators, like Jonathan Thornburg, love their seeming intellectual
> superiority and become defensive and resentful of any person who
> actually knows how science works.
>

> Mr. Thornburgï¿½s bone-of-contention is that ï¿½accepted scienceï¿½ has

> somehow ruled out the existence of an ether. For nearly half a
> century the arguments raged between the science shallows whether or

> not there is aï¿½ luminiferous ether that acts as the ï¿½mediumï¿½ for the
> propagation of light ï¿½wavesï¿½ (sic!). The majority of those arguments

> centered on explaining the nil results of the 1887 Michelson-Morley
> experiment. No one before yours truly was sharp enough to realize
> that the ether must NURTURE light on its course, and will never
> perpetually drag (slow) the passage of light. Note: If the latter
> happened, there would be no life in the universe, because the stellar

> energy couldnï¿½t get very far from any star till the light velocity
> reached ZERO.

Your ignorance of historical facts is exceeded only by your easy and
confessed willingness to make lies up to fill in the holes.'

Please note further your unwillingness to abide by a newsgroup's charter
before submitting to it. See for example the charter for
sci.physics.research noted below.

PD

unread,

Oct 3, 2011, 4:21:20 PM10/3/11

to

On 10/3/2011 3:05 PM, NoEinstein wrote:

Such site is primarily where naïve grad
> students ask others to help them understand things, because they
> aren’t smart enough to figure anything out for themselves.
> Moderators, like Jonathan Thornburg, love their seeming intellectual
> superiority and become defensive and resentful of any person who
> actually knows how science works.
>

> I’ve easily disproved 75 plus percent of the status quo physics.
> There is no intellectual hierarchy placing sci.physics.research over
> wherever I happen to be replying at the moment. In short: No one in
> science can hold a candle to me!
>

> Fortunately, my
> accomplishments won't be limited by the status quo dunces, like you,
> once my New Science is widely accepted. When that happens, you will
> be one of the first... moderators to be let go!
>

John, it's useful for you to see how recognizable you are. And since you
are internet-incompetent and cannot click a link or do a web search if
your life depended on it, I will directly quote copyrighted material
below for your easy consumption. Notice how high you rank on the
crackpot scale.
=====================================================
The Crackpot Index
John Baez

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to
physics:

1. A -5 point starting credit.

2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite
careful correction.

6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the
results of a widely accepted real experiment.

7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those
with defective keyboards).

8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

9. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally
misguided (without good evidence).

10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if
this were evidence of sanity.

11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying
how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you
worked on your own.)

12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know
personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear
that your ideas will be stolen.

13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or
finds any flaws in your theory.

14. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly
defining it.

15. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at
math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone
to express it in terms of equations".

16. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is
"only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established
theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they
occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

18. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein,
or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided
(without good evidence).

19. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a
"paradigm shift".

20. 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot
index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying
that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)

21. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

22. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or
claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good
evidence).

23. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if
they were fact.

24. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or
imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

25. 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking
about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)

26. 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never
actually explaining it.

27. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".

28. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of
the orthodoxy".

29. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly
disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that
Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by
reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)

30. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was
groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

31. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an
extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).

32. 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent
time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk
you out of your theory.

33. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to
Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

34. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is
engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its
well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

35. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a
modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

36. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally
appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is.
(30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists
who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

37. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving
no concrete testable predictions.

© 1998 John Baez
ba...@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Darwin123

unread,

Oct 3, 2011, 5:57:29 PM10/3/11

to

On Oct 3, 4:05 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> In my efforts to locate ‘new posts’ by others that are within my
> primary areas of expertise, I replied to Harald (see below). Harald
> was playing the deferential student by posting on
> sci.physics.research.

You don't have any areas of expertise.
Your previous posts indicate that you have no knowledge,
background, or skills. Therefore, you can't have expertise.

PD

unread,

Oct 3, 2011, 6:18:21 PM10/3/11

to

John NoEinstein Armistead would like to fantasize that expertise can be
had by armchair thinking, and that knowledge, background, and skills are
in fact not needed for expertise. (Some cranks here actually claim that
knowledge, background, and skills are counterproductive.) JNA is a
lunatic. He knows it. He might even have his mirror covered in the
bathroom so he doesn't have to look at himself.

jon car

unread,

Oct 3, 2011, 7:42:41 PM10/3/11

to

> Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f98526...

> __________- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Science cannot tell you who you are.
Science is lying about what it knows.
The idea that we are anywhere but a very beginning
means you are not objective to the youth of science.
Science is great?
Maybe in terms of its far future.

NoEinstein

unread,

Oct 3, 2011, 9:54:44 PM10/3/11

to

On Oct 3, 4:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/3/2011 3:05 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > In my efforts to locate new posts by others that are within my

> > primary areas of expertise, I replied to Harald (see below). Harald
> > was playing the deferential student by posting on

> > sci.physics.research. Such site is primarily where na ve grad

> > students ask others to help them understand things, because they

> > aren t smart enough to figure anything out for themselves.

> > Moderators, like Jonathan Thornburg, love their seeming intellectual
> > superiority and become defensive and resentful of any person who
> > actually knows how science works.
>

> > Mr. Thornburg s bone-of-contention is that accepted science has

> > somehow ruled out the existence of an ether. For nearly half a
> > century the arguments raged between the science shallows whether or

> > not there is a luminiferous ether that acts as the medium for the
> > propagation of light waves (sic!). The majority of those arguments

> > centered on explaining the nil results of the 1887 Michelson-Morley
> > experiment. No one before yours truly was sharp enough to realize
> > that the ether must NURTURE light on its course, and will never
> > perpetually drag (slow) the passage of light. Note: If the latter
> > happened, there would be no life in the universe, because the stellar

> > energy couldn t get very far from any star till the light velocity

> > reached ZERO.
>
> Your ignorance of historical facts is exceeded only by your easy and
> confessed willingness to make lies up to fill in the holes.'
>
> Please note further your unwillingness to abide by a newsgroup's charter
> before submitting to it. See for example the charter for
> sci.physics.research noted below.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> For more information see the sci.physics.research charter at

> >>http://www.astro.multivax.de:8000/spr/spr.html- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

PD, the jealous DUNCE, is undeserving of a reply. — NE —

NoEinstein

unread,

Oct 3, 2011, 9:55:52 PM10/3/11

to

On Oct 3, 4:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/3/2011 3:05 PM, NoEinstein wrote:

> Such site is primarily where na ve grad

> b...@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.eduhttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html- Hide quoted text -

NoEinstein

unread,

Oct 3, 2011, 10:02:03 PM10/3/11

to

Dear Darwin123: And the names and links to your '+new posts' are
where? Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —

Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f9852639d5d9e1/dcb2a1511b7b2603?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#dcb2a1511b7b2603

NoEinstein

unread,

Oct 3, 2011, 10:02:50 PM10/3/11

to

PD, the jealous DUNCE, is undeserving of a reply. — NE —

NoEinstein

unread,

Oct 3, 2011, 10:12:26 PM10/3/11

to

> Maybe in terms of its far future.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear Burt: Science isn't about delusions or suppositions; science is
about careful observation and rational explanations. My New Science
has respected both of those. The totality of the contributions of
ever physicist who ever lived cannot match my contribution in
correctly explaining the Universe and its creation. — NoEinstein —

P. S.: A quote: "Stupidity will have greater strength in numbers than
brilliance. But Science Truths shall never be determined by the votes
of airheads." — NE —

be...@iwaynet.net

unread,

Oct 4, 2011, 1:49:43 AM10/4/11

to

On 10/3/2011 9:54 PM, NoEinstein wrote:

>> Your ignorance of historical facts is exceeded only by your easy and
>> confessed willingness to make lies up to fill in the holes.'
>>
>> Please note further your unwillingness to abide by a newsgroup's charter
>> before submitting to it. See for example the charter for
>> sci.physics.research noted below.

> PD, the jealous DUNCE, is undeserving of a reply. — NE —

You hit the nail on the head, NoEinstein. PD is basically one more shill
for "establishment" physics just like the Nazi censors of
sci.physics.research. They represent a perfect recreation of the famous
"prison guard-prisoners" experiment where when ordinary students were
given some authority they suddenly became brutal and totalitarian. I
presume PD is naturally that way, but the moderators of the group? I
suspect that limitless power simply corrupted them. And now they insure
the corruption of the wide-eyed ignorant students groveling at their
feet for crumbs!

As you know, I am officially 'banned for life' from the group as an
officially designated "crackpot" for referring to what they felt were
inappropriate results found in the peer-reviewed scientific literature
(this was NOT even a reference to any of my own experiments!). How bad
are these Nazis? Just note that the remark wasn't even made in the
normal "student" forums, but in the social "Lounge" forum! THAT is how
insecure they all are in their "belief" in "establishment" physics! As
well they should be, given how so much of "establishment" is illogical
and insane, such as PD's desperate insistence that waves do not need a
medium to propagate. That's gibberish in English let alone in the
language of science!

And of course we can expect "strategic internet posters" such as Wormley
and PD to keep the agenda moving in the "right" direction! This is a
perfect example of what happens when science takes a backseat to politics.

jim

unread,

Oct 4, 2011, 4:24:43 AM10/4/11

to

Well, the people in engineering long ago proved the only science
they're interested in is efficiency reports, so that's mostly why
people started working on digit computers and AI anyway.

And the people that work in materials research is mostly
why people build ICBMs anyway, and let them calculate the boundary
conditions.

>
> Nothing about the M-M experiment confirms one thing about the
> existence of an ether (with varying density and flow). Nonetheless,
> within just a single hour of research in my local library I confirmed
> that M-M is a wrongly DESIGNED experiment for measuring light
> velocity! That is because it lacks an unchanging CONTROL light
> course! What such experiment does prove is that the times of travel
> of light in any optical system that is confined to a single plane will
> never change! The attached link explains a simple algebraic
> invalidation of M-M that any middle school student can duplicate. In
> addition to the latter, I designed, constructed, and have successfully
> tested my X, Y, and Z interferometer which places the unchanging
> control light course on the Z axis (of rotation) without any 45 degree
> mirrors or beam splitters in such light course. Such experiment
> easily detects thousands of fringe shifts within 360 degrees of
> apparatus rotation! Einstein himself said (and I paraphrase): “If any
> Earth-based experiment ever measures our velocity, my S. R. theory
> will have been disproved.” Well, I have done that, handily!
>
> I’ve easily disproved 75 plus percent of the status quo physics.
> There is no intellectual hierarchy placing sci.physics.research over
> wherever I happen to be replying at the moment. In short: No one in
> science can hold a candle to me! — NoEinstein —
>

> Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f98526...

PD

unread,

Oct 4, 2011, 8:59:58 AM10/4/11

to

Wasn't talking to you, John. Notice who I replied to.

NoEinstein

unread,

Oct 4, 2011, 11:12:04 AM10/4/11

to

Dear BJACOBY! Your well-composed reply is a breath-of-fresh-air!
What Einstein was saying was either over-the-heads of most mortals, or
was simply wrong—as viewed by reasonable people. Those "students" of
Einstein, such as PD and Wormley, who have been purporting for years
to understand his garbage, have self-elevated their intellectual
status by so doing, but ONLY as viewed by people of average mentality,
like their typical students. Enter more exceptional people like you
and me, and all of the Einsteiniacs, such as PD and Wormley, come
running out of the woodwork to defend the status quo. They do so,
because when Einstein, the MORON, falls from intellectual grace, they
do as well. PD likes to hunt birds, I've heard. So... "DUNCES of a
feather flock together." Isn't it shameful? Ha, ha, HA! —
NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Oct 4, 2011, 11:26:11 AM10/4/11

to

> Wasn't talking to you, John. Notice who I replied to.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

NoEinstein

unread,

Oct 4, 2011, 11:25:28 AM10/4/11

to

> > __________- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear Jim: Engineers are interested in getting predictable RESULTS,
not in playing mind games over what processes to use to do so. I've
proposed that technology follow Edison's model: Trial and error until
workable solutions are found. That way the theoretical stuff that
slows progress doesn't reduce the time available for finding workable
solutions. All of the trillion dollars of money being wasted on high
energy particle research wouldn’t be happening if Edison-type testing
took its place. I have the nucleus of an idea how to have low cost
fusion, electric power generation. But "science" is too caught up in
the microscopic particles that "explain" the Universe, to ever do
anything practical. The world would be done a great favor if instead
of allowing my New Science to be attacked, simply put the needed
economic resources at my disposal, and I can start the wheels turning
to solve every technical problem known to man! — NoEinstein —

PD

unread,

Oct 4, 2011, 12:02:55 PM10/4/11

to

This is simply a lie, John. What Einstein was saying was actually pretty
simple and easy to understand. For which "mortals" do you think it was
over their heads?

> Those "students" of
> Einstein, such as PD and Wormley, who have been purporting for years
> to understand his garbage, have self-elevated their intellectual
> status by so doing,

I don't know what you think is status-elevating about understanding
something that is pretty simple and easy to understand. I certainly
don't think so. Are you perhaps the one with the inferiority complex? Why?

> but ONLY as viewed by people of average mentality,
> like their typical students. Enter more exceptional people like you
> and me, and all of the Einsteiniacs, such as PD and Wormley, come
> running out of the woodwork to defend the status quo. They do so,
> because when Einstein, the MORON, falls from intellectual grace, they
> do as well.

Why would you say that?
Did Newton fall from intellectual grace when it was discovered that he
was wrong about a few things?

> PD likes to hunt birds, I've heard.

John, I don't know who's telling you such crap. I've never tried to kill
a bird in my life.

Michael Moroney

unread,

Oct 4, 2011, 3:25:14 PM10/4/11

to

NoEinstein <noein...@bellsouth.net> writes:

>On Oct 3, 5:57 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> You don't have any areas of expertise.
>> Your previous posts indicate that you have no knowledge,
>> background, or skills. Therefore, you can't have expertise.

>Dear Darwin123: And the names and links to your '+new posts' are
>where? Ha, ha, HA!

[snip a bunch of links to crap]

Quantity is *not* an indication of quality. (often, it is an indication
of the opposite!)

Androcles

unread,

Oct 4, 2011, 3:39:21 PM10/4/11

to

"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:j6fmip$3ek$1...@pcls6.std.com...

| NoEinstein <noein...@bellsouth.net> writes:
|
| >On Oct 3, 5:57 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| >> You don't have any areas of expertise.
| >> Your previous posts indicate that you have no knowledge,
| >> background, or skills. Therefore, you can't have expertise.
|
| >Dear Darwin123: And the names and links to your '+new posts' are
| >where? Ha, ha, HA!
|
| [snip a bunch of links to crap]
|

Ok, done.
This snipping is easy, Mickey Moron.

jim

unread,

Oct 4, 2011, 3:41:24 PM10/4/11

to

Engineers are so interested in perpetuating the rules of
Engineering,
that's mostly why the 20th Century engineers started working on
DSP, Adaptive DSP, Digital Computers, Integrated Circuits,
AI, Lasers, Optical Fibers, Optical Networks, Atomic Clocks,
Nanotechnology, Holograms,
Digital TV, USB, and Digital Photography, and let IEEE work on the
theory of RCA.

unread,

Oct 5, 2011, 11:18:36 AM10/5/11

to

And it's amazing how many astoundingly stupid people get their
self-assessments wrong, too.

NoEinstein

unread,

Oct 5, 2011, 11:25:48 AM10/5/11

to

> > to solve every technical problem known to man! — NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear Jim: Scientists working in industry must be pragmatic or they
will be fired. "Scientists" working in academia are encouraged to
be... 'theoretical' and aren't required to produce anything useful.
True 'education' doesn't need to teach anyone more than: "How to
located information when the need arises." The creative types with
the nucleus of an idea for improving the world (and making money) have
all the motive they need to develop the means for accomplishing those
ends. Instead of parents spending $100,000.00 sending a kid to
college, find out what they desperately want to do, and give them the
seed money to do so. Education… "for the masses" is about as wasteful
as our G. D. screwed-up government. Wise-up, people! — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Oct 5, 2011, 11:30:56 AM10/5/11

to

On Oct 4, 4:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/4/2011 2:25 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>

> > NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> writes:

PD, the jealous DUNCE, is undeserving of a reply. — NE — P. S.: and
neither he nor Michael have made a contribution to science that can be
stapled to a toothpick!

PD

unread,

Oct 5, 2011, 11:46:25 AM10/5/11

to

I don't need a reply, John. I just get a small dose of satisfaction
knowing that you read every single one of my posts in your threads. And
I know you do. You can't help it. It's attention, and you're starved for
it. You would kill if it were the only way to get attention.

Michael Moroney

unread,

Oct 6, 2011, 3:18:16 PM10/6/11

to

NoEinstein <noein...@bellsouth.net> writes:

>On Oct 4, 3:25 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>>

>> Quantity is *not* an indication of quality. (often, it is an indication
>> of the opposite!)

>Michael: And your contributions to true science are where?

Engineering, rather than pure science.

> P. S.: There are a 100K stupid people for every brilliant one.

And you are certainly a member of the 100K.

Michael Moroney

unread,

Oct 6, 2011, 3:22:46 PM10/6/11

to

Yes, it is amazing how John simply has to reply to every single one of
your posts -- only to say you're undeserving of a reply! OCD in action.

PD

unread,

Oct 6, 2011, 3:33:46 PM10/6/11

to

OCD, combined with a HUGE esteem problem.

He can neither tolerate criticism nor being ignored. He feasts on the
faintest stroke of praise or encouragement like a starving man.
So he is COMPELLED to look at any -- ANY -- response to him, lest he
starve from attention deprivation. When the attention he gets is in the
wrong direction, he feels COMPELLED to cover the offending comment with
his own. It is dirty and he needs to cover it up, with the same
instinctive move that a cat uses in the litter box. He doesn't know WHY
he has to do this, he just knows he HAS TO.

In times of famine when he feels alone, he has to feed his own ego, and
as a result he has inflated himself up in runaway fashion with a fantasy
about being the most important gift to science in the history of humanity.

Deep down, he knows this is true, but to recognize it openly would be to
risk suicide of the ego. He is literally afraid he will die in his own
shame if he is honest with himself. And so he can no longer even look at
himself in the mirror or admit even the smallest mistake except those he
can blame on bad eyes or clumsy fingers.

But one of these days, he will rescue himself. Or he will die this way.

PD

unread,

Oct 6, 2011, 3:41:26 PM10/6/11

to

On 10/6/2011 2:33 PM, PD wrote:

>
> OCD, combined with a HUGE esteem problem.
>
> He can neither tolerate criticism nor being ignored. He feasts on the
> faintest stroke of praise or encouragement like a starving man.
> So he is COMPELLED to look at any -- ANY -- response to him, lest he
> starve from attention deprivation. When the attention he gets is in the
> wrong direction, he feels COMPELLED to cover the offending comment with
> his own. It is dirty and he needs to cover it up, with the same
> instinctive move that a cat uses in the litter box. He doesn't know WHY
> he has to do this, he just knows he HAS TO.

There are children with poor self-images who, when they suffer ridicule
or criticism or any negative reaction at all, teach themselves to say,
"Don't care." They DO care, but they utter this lie as the only coping
mechanism they have. It becomes a reflex to say, "Don't care," EACH AND
EVERY TIME they encounter this.

jon car

unread,

Oct 6, 2011, 3:28:52 PM10/6/11

to

> of airheads." — NE —- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Why the comparison?
You claim to have done the most?
Why would anyone do that if they really have?

be...@iwaynet.net

unread,

Oct 6, 2011, 4:02:49 PM10/6/11

to

Oh look, Muffy! More armchair psychiatry from Paul! I've looked in the
DSM for your OCD but I've come up empty! I guess that means we really
don't care what you have to say. We might be more interested if you
could list your psychiatric and psychological credentials giving some
credibility to your diagnosis.

I may not have credentials, but I DO find it interesting you answer
yourself 10 minutes after posting! Oh wait. I know. You weren't
replying to YOURSELF, but to those "voices" in your head!

True science clearly IS hampered by a culture of stupidity. Feel like a
"leader" now?

PD

unread,

Oct 6, 2011, 6:02:09 PM10/6/11

to

On 10/6/2011 3:02 PM, BJA...@teranews.com wrote:
> On 10/6/2011 3:41 PM, PD wrote:
>> On 10/6/2011 2:33 PM, PD wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> OCD, combined with a HUGE esteem problem.
>>>
>>> He can neither tolerate criticism nor being ignored. He feasts on the
>>> faintest stroke of praise or encouragement like a starving man.
>>> So he is COMPELLED to look at any -- ANY -- response to him, lest he
>>> starve from attention deprivation. When the attention he gets is in the
>>> wrong direction, he feels COMPELLED to cover the offending comment with
>>> his own. It is dirty and he needs to cover it up, with the same
>>> instinctive move that a cat uses in the litter box. He doesn't know WHY
>>> he has to do this, he just knows he HAS TO.
>>
>> There are children with poor self-images who, when they suffer ridicule
>> or criticism or any negative reaction at all, teach themselves to say,
>> "Don't care." They DO care, but they utter this lie as the only coping
>> mechanism they have. It becomes a reflex to say, "Don't care," EACH AND
>> EVERY TIME they encounter this.
>
> Oh look, Muffy! More armchair psychiatry from Paul!

No psychiatry claimed. It doesn't take much to understand what goes on
in the minds of children, especially if you've had them.

> I've looked in the
> DSM for your OCD but I've come up empty! I guess that means we really
> don't care what you have to say.

Who is this "we"? Are there several personalities you are speaking for?
Or are you claiming elected representation of some vast horde of people.
I have no objection to you making that statement purely on your own behalf.

> We might be more interested if you
> could list your psychiatric and psychological credentials giving some
> credibility to your diagnosis.
>
> I may not have credentials, but I DO find it interesting you answer
> yourself 10 minutes after posting! Oh wait. I know. You weren't replying
> to YOURSELF, but to those "voices" in your head!

I was adding an additional comment. Do you find the method for doing
that objectionable? How about confusing?

>
> True science clearly IS hampered by a culture of stupidity. Feel like a
> "leader" now?

I'm not claiming leadership of anything. I speak for myself, someone
with some training, background, and experience. You, on the other hand
were saying something about "we".

unread,

Oct 6, 2011, 7:52:58 PM10/6/11

to

> Why would anyone do that if they really have?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear Burt: You have been claiming to understand how the universe
works for decades. Is your following very high? I couldn't care less
what others think of my ego. It is my New Science that best
buttresses me against all detractors! — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Oct 6, 2011, 8:04:12 PM10/6/11

to

> "leader" now?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear BJACOBY: My guess is that PD is a fat couch potato. Fat people
are used to having others think poorly of them. PD has no self
worth. Otherwise he would not constantly attack anything and
everything having merit. Some inferior people, like Paul Draper, wish
to elevate themselves by running others down. PD has made that an art
form. He is the "Don Rickles" of these science groups! It is HE who
can't resist following me. In my five plus years on this group, I
have not once replied to a "new post" made by PD. But he has replied,
negatively, to every one of mine. So, who has the compulsions? The
inferior minds, of course! — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Oct 6, 2011, 8:17:55 PM10/6/11

to

On Oct 6, 6:20 pm, "G=EMC^2" <herbertglazi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My kinds went to U of Mass and it was very reasonable 25 years ago. It is all greed today.They did not need to take out A loan. Will GOPer bankers give out loans for college? Besides doctors what is the best for students to take to get a jobs TreBert

Dear TreBert: From the tone of your reply, I suspect you realize the
futility of higher education for the masses. Doctors should be
limited to niches of expertise allowing them to get a degree (called
anything you like) in no more than four years, including internship.
The sheer TIME required to become an MD makes those grads feel worthy
of incomes far too high. If four years was all that is required,
there would be four times as many "doctors" making 1/4 as much money,
each. The cost of everything... medical would start going down.
Doctors are so much in demand, that when they screw up, they keep
their jobs and their insurance. Under my plan, when a doctor screws
up, he or she will be unlicensed. But there will be qualified people
right there to fill the voids. — NoEinstein —

Michael Moroney

unread,

Oct 6, 2011, 9:24:11 PM10/6/11

to

NoEinstein <noein...@bellsouth.net> writes:

>Michael: If I was... "among your number", then why are you attacking
>my greatly superior position?

That's not "attacking", OCD Man, that's laughter!

And "superior" ? Well, compared to some of the other kooks around here,
well, maybe...just maybe...

jim

unread,

Oct 6, 2011, 9:51:30 PM10/6/11

to

On Oct 6, 9:24 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:

Well, since the idiots that work believe that DNA analyzers are
not laboratory
equipment, the people who know how electronics and optics actually
work
had to atomic clocks, usb, and GPS.

Since the idiots at Apple Computers believe that Boot Strap Code
is Electronics,
the people who know how electronics actually works invented
lasers, holograms, and optial networks.

Since the idiots at GM believe that Chrysler makes cars, rather
than Tourists maps of Manhattan,
the people who how know idiot GM works invented Wind Turbines,
Cyber Batteries,
Digital Photography, 3D Digital TV, and Orbital Solar Energy
anyway.

jim

unread,

Oct 6, 2011, 11:26:01 PM10/6/11

to

On Oct 6, 3:18 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:

> NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> writes:
> >On Oct 4, 3:25 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> >wrote:
>
> >> Quantity is *not* an indication of quality. (often, it is an indication
> >> of the opposite!)
> >Michael: And your contributions to true science are where?
>
> Engineering, rather than pure science.

Well, since it's only mathematicians, that believe there is such a
thing as pure science, the people who know post pyramid
computations
work, have already founded computer science,

The people who now engineering works have been to the moon and back
several times now, and now working on controlled fusion, laser
technology,
nanotechnology, DNA Technology, Self-Replicating Machines, and
post CRT publishing technology,

Loirbaj

unread,

Oct 7, 2011, 6:11:18 AM10/7/11

to

Darwin123 said,

You don't have any areas of expertise.
Your previous posts indicate that you have no knowledge,
background, or skills. Therefore, you can't have expertise.

Loirbaj said,
This poster Darwin123 is a troll to several groups
including Creationism and Atheism. His habit is to
drop in, make hyperbolic undocumented claims,
then skip out on replies.

The latest claims of his,
A complete Pakicetus found with every bone in place.
Java Man did not consist of bones from different
creatures and from greatly different time frames.
Archaeoraptor was not a faked fossil, he said.

He has also lied about direct quotes from Darwin,
said that 'Camels have no sweat glands', and too
many other bogus claims to enumerate, here.

Androcles

unread,

Oct 7, 2011, 6:42:13 AM10/7/11

to

"Loirbaj" <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:b41a41f3-fee1-4667...@m15g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...

Blind Judas, aka Darwin123, actually believes the tripe he writes
and expounds upon it. That doesn't qualify him as a troll. A real
troll posts garbage he doesn't believe himself with the intent of
maliciously provoking anger. Blind Judas is merely stupid.

hanson

unread,

Oct 7, 2011, 12:38:41 PM10/7/11

to

.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHA....

hanson wrote:
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... Here is a much better one.
And from Rosen, the Darwinian himself, about himself:
** Rosen, the gelded Jewish stallion**, wrote:
||R|| I have OCD, obsessive, compulsive disorders.
||R|| I previously talked this over with neoNazis in my work
||R|| place, believe it or not. These people run the laboratory
||R|| as though it were a stud farm for gentile white Aryans
||R|| with German backgrounds. They had no interest in
||R|| science, nor any real talent in that direction.
||R|| === I was quite willing to be their gelded stallion, ===
||R|| doing their work. I mean, they can pretend to guide
||R|| scientists & rise as high as they want in the management
||R|| center. However, I know that when Easter comes around,
||R|| they are going to organize a pogram and kill the Jews.
||R|| There is no need to castrate me because I do not even
||R|| want to have children. I am faithful to my wife who is sterile.
>
"Loirbaj", ya gotta love, him! Rosen is funny and grotesquely
hilarious in his attempts to prove that = Jewish shit don't stink =.
Thanks for the laughs, guys.... ahahaha... ahahahanson

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---

Y.Porat

unread,

Oct 7, 2011, 1:37:15 PM10/7/11

to

On Oct 3, 10:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/3/2011 3:05 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In my efforts to locate new posts by others that are within my
> > primary areas of expertise, I replied to Harald (see below). Harald
> > was playing the deferential student by posting on

> > sci.physics.research. Such site is primarily where na ve grad

> > students ask others to help them understand things, because they
> > aren t smart enough to figure anything out for themselves.
> > Moderators, like Jonathan Thornburg, love their seeming intellectual
> > superiority and become defensive and resentful of any person who
> > actually knows how science works.
>
> > Mr. Thornburg s bone-of-contention is that accepted science has
> > somehow ruled out the existence of an ether. For nearly half a
> > century the arguments raged between the science shallows whether or
> > not there is a luminiferous ether that acts as the medium for the
> > propagation of light waves (sic!). The majority of those arguments
> > centered on explaining the nil results of the 1887 Michelson-Morley
> > experiment. No one before yours truly was sharp enough to realize
> > that the ether must NURTURE light on its course, and will never
> > perpetually drag (slow) the passage of light. Note: If the latter
> > happened, there would be no life in the universe, because the stellar
> > energy couldn t get very far from any star till the light velocity
> > reached ZERO.
>

> Your ignorance of historical facts is exceeded only by your easy and
> confessed willingness to make lies up to fill in the holes.'
>
> Please note further your unwillingness to abide by a newsgroup's charter
> before submitting to it. See for example the charter for
> sci.physics.research noted below.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> For more information see the sci.physics.research charter at
> >>http://www.astro.multivax.de:8000/spr/spr.html

-----------------
and that exactly why the ordinary
sci.physics

is much more interesting vivid
and INNOVATIVE !!!
9you can jsut check what are the achievements and innovations of this
humble ng
and the pompous farthing smell of
mold there in sci.research
(of course even here there is a lot of nonsense as well yet
even if among all that nonsense
you find one of a thousand making a
breakthrough it is worth all the other work invested here )
in short
the mood in that sci.research is
something like in paradise (OF FOOLS ..) and crooks and suckers !!!)
or that of peace and quite of a cemetery ...of Parrots )

Y.Porat
------------------

-----------------------------

PD

unread,

Oct 7, 2011, 2:55:52 PM10/7/11

to

On 10/6/2011 7:04 PM, NoEinstein wrote:

>
> Dear BJACOBY: My guess is that PD is a fat couch potato.

:)
Your guesses are as reliable as your feeble stabs at doing science, John.

eric gisse

unread,

Oct 7, 2011, 6:41:22 PM10/7/11

unread,

Oct 9, 2011, 11:41:14 AM10/9/11

to

That is one pathetically weird quote from
our Darwin123. I notice that yesterday
he came to ATCreationism and repeatedly
claims that 'Loirbaj is a QUEER'. I cried
myself to sleep from that one. Political
correctness ends...where liberals are
concerned. LOL

NoEinstein

unread,

Oct 9, 2011, 11:52:56 AM10/9/11

to

> --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to n...@netfront.net ---- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Hanson: "Laugh, and the world laughs with you!" Ha, ha, HA! —
NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Oct 9, 2011, 11:49:45 AM10/9/11

to

On Oct 7, 6:42 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics.September.
2011> wrote:
> "Loirbaj" <Rhodi...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message

Androcles: You are mostly right. My understanding of a troll is
someone, for whatever reason, who replies OFF SUBJECT to get some
message seen by others. A 'spammer' finds addresses of those who
might be interested in something being offered, and sends emails to as
many of those people as possible. Trolls are the ones wishing to
change the subject off of what the original post names. There are
few, if any, spammers on the science groups. — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Oct 9, 2011, 12:01:13 PM10/9/11

to

PD, the jealous DUNCE, is undeserving of a reply. — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Oct 9, 2011, 11:59:33 AM10/9/11

to

> ------------------------------ Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear Y Porat: There is wisdom in your unproofed replies! Google
should REMOVE all moderators from any of their groups. The "power"
quickly goes to the moderators' heads, while those GOOGLE shallows are
enjoying their... "free lunches" too much to care... — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

unread,

Oct 9, 2011, 11:28:16 AM10/9/11

to

> > And you are certainly a member of the 100K.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear Jim: Please proof read what you send. I sense that you are much
smarter than your 'text' sometimes implies. If you haven't guessed, I
am 100% in favor of allowing ENGINEERS to solve the world's problems
rather than letting the IDIOTS in academia study everything under a
microscope, yet never seem to be able to see the forest for the tree!
Michael showed a slight bend from negativity when he suggested I
'might be' "superior" to some of the readers. In recent replies of
yours, you are way "superior" to most on these groups. What is your
background? An engineer, I'll bet. — NoEinstein —

PD

Thomas Heger

unread,

Oct 10, 2011, 1:34:12 AM10/10/11

to

> enjoying their... "free lunches" too much to care... ï¿½ NoEinstein ï¿½

What has google to do with the UseNet?
As far as I know, the UseNet is build into the protocol set of the
internet, like the e-mail service. Only, the internet is much older than
google.

Google only copies parts of the Usenet and calls that google.groups.

TH

NoEinstein

unread,

Oct 10, 2011, 7:54:00 PM10/10/11

to

> > enjoying their... "free lunches" too much to care... — NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

PD, the jealous DUNCE, is undeserving of a reply. — NE —

NoEinstein

unread,

Oct 10, 2011, 7:56:51 PM10/10/11

to

On Oct 9, 7:14 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:

Has anyone named Michael ever contributed anything for the betterment
of the world? Perhaps you should "row your boat ashore." It is
sinking fast! — NE —

NoEinstein

unread,

Oct 10, 2011, 7:57:39 PM10/10/11

to

On Oct 9, 7:21 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:

Has anyone named Michael ever contributed anything for the betterment

NoEinstein

unread,

Oct 10, 2011, 7:58:20 PM10/10/11

to

On Oct 9, 7:23 pm, Michael Moroney <moro...@TheWorld.com> wrote:

> NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> writes:
> >Dear Michael: Is your IQ in the top .00001 percent?
>
> One thing is for certain. You are far, far from that elite group.

Has anyone named Michael ever contributed anything for the betterment

NoEinstein

unread,

Oct 10, 2011, 8:03:32 PM10/10/11

to

> > enjoying their... "free lunches" too much to care... NoEinstein

>
> What has google to do with the UseNet?
> As far as I know, the UseNet is build into the protocol set of the
> internet, like the e-mail service. Only, the internet is much older than
> google.
>
> Google only copies parts of the Usenet and calls that google.groups.
>

> TH- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear Thomas: I'm a generalist who preceded the IT generation. I
couldn't care less what the USENET is or what Google does or doesn't
do. But if you would like to comment regarding the subject title,
initial post, I will certainly read and comment on what you say.
Thanks. — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Oct 10, 2011, 7:53:35 PM10/10/11

to

Michael Moroney

unread,

Oct 11, 2011, 12:21:18 AM10/11/11

to

NoEinstein <noein...@bellsouth.net> writes:

>On Oct 9, 7:14 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:

>> Hahaha! Thanks for the laugh!

>Has anyone named Michael ever contributed anything for the betterment
>of the world? Perhaps you should "row your boat ashore." It is
>sinking fast!

The man who was named after a toilet makes a feeble attempt to make fun
of my first name?

PD

unread,

Oct 11, 2011, 8:10:16 AM10/11/11

to

On 10/10/2011 7:03 PM, NoEinstein wrote:

> Dear Thomas: I'm a generalist who preceded the IT generation. I
> couldn't care less what the USENET is

You couldn't care less about the Usenet you're using?

PD

unread,

Oct 11, 2011, 9:40:30 AM10/11/11

to

On 10/9/2011 10:41 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

>
> Dear Loirbaj: Welcome! It is strange how the majority of the many
> readers of my posts never make a reply.

How do you know they're there, then?
In some circles, imagining things for which you have no evidence is
called a delusion.

eric gisse

unread,

Oct 11, 2011, 1:49:59 PM10/11/11

to

PD <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in news:j71bn3$2jb$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

----------------

X-Trace: posting.google.com 1318291412 5055 127.0.0.1 (11 Oct 2011 00:03:32
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:03:32 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com

----------------

He thinks Google Groups == USENET. But he is an idiot, and we both already
knew that.

Personally I don't see why he thinks he should be proud he doesn't
understand something. Or maybe I just think its' funny since I'm
professionally employed in the IT industry.

hanson

unread,

Oct 11, 2011, 9:35:54 PM10/11/11

to

... WOOOAAHHH... ahahahaha... ahahahahaha.....
>
"erictum gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
-- Paul PD <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
--- "Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote:
----- John Armistead aka NoEinstein wrote:

"Y.Porat"wrote:
Re: True Science is hampered by the culture of stupidity.
... and that exactly why the ordinary sci.physics NG is

much more interesting vivid and INNOVATIVE !!!

In this humble ng s.p., there is no pompous farthing
and and no smell of mold like there is in sci. physics.
research. --- (of course even here in s.p. there is a
lot of nonsense as well) but in short the mood in that
sci.research is something like in paradise OF FOOLS
and crooks and suckers !!!) ... or that of peace and

quite of a cemetery ...of Parrots )
>

John Armistead aka NoEinstein wrote:
Dear Y Porat: There is wisdom in your unproofed replies!
Google should REMOVE all moderators from any of their
groups.

Dear Heger: I'm a generalist who preceded the IT
generation. I couldn't care less what the USENET is.
>>
Paul wrote:
John, you couldn't care less about the Usenet you're using?

You don't want communism, do you, John?
>>

Erictum Gisse wrote:
He thinks Google Groups == USENET. But John is an idiot,

and we both already knew that.

Personally I don't see why John thinks he should be proud

he doesn't understand something. Or maybe I just think its'
funny since I'm professionally employed in the IT industry.
>

hanson wrote:
... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... Great thread!... ahahaha...
||| Erictum says||| "maybe I just think its' funny since I'm
||| Erictum says||| professionally employed in the IT industry"
... AHAHAHAHAHA.. do you now, Erictum, do you.... ahaha..
IT, information technology... So, do you have a paper route
now?. That is an essential part of IT. It's tailor-made for you.
Thanks for the laughs, erictum.... ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
BTW, you surely have consistency, erictum. The above
post of yours fits right along with your previous posts.
Here they are:
>
=== 8-Oct-2011 ==
>
Erictum wrote:
<http://tinyurl.com/Draper-n-hanson-view-exchange>
still should have been ignored, Paul, because of
how much of a pain it is to decipher what the hell
hanson is talking about.
>
hanson wrote:
ahahaha... but, Prof. Paul Draper understands and
has no problems whatsoever... and neither does
anybody else all the way to Porat, Brad Guth, Jeff
Relff, John Armistead NE & Mitch Raemsch/jon car
... none of whom feel any pain in deciphering my tripe,
except for YOU, the Erictum.... ahahahaha... ahaha...
>
Erictum, you are a lazy, intellectual hypochondriac, ...
>
You shine more and more light onto the fact why
you did not get a BSc, even after you polished the
college bench for NINE (9) years and why they
kicked you out. -- If you contine with your attude
that you just exhibited towards Prof. Draper, and
if you behave like that towards your foreman &
supervisor, in your "Shiny new job & shiny new
apartment in a New state",.. then you will get fired
like you were from your 1st job in 2010...
>
Erictum, you should always also remind yourself
of the contents of the following posts that describe
you quite accurately:
>
=== 5-Oct-2011 ====
>
Paul Stove wrote:
Hanson was attempting to lead Draper towards this in this
thread. Oscillating mass...
>
Erictum wrote:
Nice self immolation. Idiot.
Citing hanson as if he has anything worth listening to.
Double idiot.
[snip rest, unread]
Turns out I don't really care what you think after all.
Back to the killfile, Stowe.
>
hanson wrote:
Erictum, the stress of your "Shiny new job & shiny
new apartment in a New state" already shows up
glaringly in your posts. Pity. --- Learn, Erictum, learn
what and how Paul Stowe thinks and presents.
Paul's mentation gave him a brilliant career as an
executive in the Nuclear Power Generation Industry,
a position which you will never achieve, given your
track record & your attitude in your own Erictum. Pity.
>
=== Sept 28 -2011 ===
>
Rock Brentwood <federat...@netzero.com> wrote:
"It's the Light Cone, stupid."
>>
"erictum gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
It'll likely generate more useful discussion than
in this shithole.
>
hanson wrote:
Well, so much for the usefulness of SR... ahahaha..
>
... and Gisse, YOU appear to be the piece of shit that
fell into that hole, right out of your own Erictum... ahaha...
>
Are you that angry because your "Shiny new job & shiny
new apartment in a New state" turned out to be the real
shithole for you?... Lower your expectations, Eric,
and you'll be much better off... Thanks for the laughs
though... hahahahaha.... ahahahanson
>

Y.Porat

unread,

Oct 11, 2011, 11:08:40 PM10/11/11

to

On Oct 3, 10:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/3/2011 3:05 PM, NoEinstein wrote:

> Such site is primarily where naïve grad

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > students ask others to help them understand things, because they
> > aren’t smart enough to figure anything out for themselves.
> > Moderators, like Jonathan Thornburg, love their seeming intellectual
> > superiority and become defensive and resentful of any person who
> > actually knows how science works.
>

> > I’ve easily disproved 75 plus percent of the status quo physics.
> > There is no intellectual hierarchy placing sci.physics.research over
> > wherever I happen to be replying at the moment. In short: No one in
> > science can hold a candle to me!
>
> > Fortunately, my
> > accomplishments won't be limited by the status quo dunces, like you,
> > once my New Science is widely accepted. When that happens, you will
> > be one of the first... moderators to be let go!
>
> John, it's useful for you to see how recognizable you are. And since you
> are internet-incompetent and cannot click a link or do a web search if
> your life depended on it, I will directly quote copyrighted material
> below for your easy consumption. Notice how high you rank on the
> crackpot scale.
> =====================================================
> The Crackpot Index
> John Baez
>
> A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to
> physics:
>
> 1. A -5 point starting credit.
>
> 2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
>
> 3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
>
> 4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
>
> 5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite
> careful correction.
>
> 6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the
> results of a widely accepted real experiment.
>
> 7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those
> with defective keyboards).
>
> 8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
>
> 9. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally
> misguided (without good evidence).
>
> 10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if
> this were evidence of sanity.
>
> 11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying
> how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you
> worked on your own.)
>
> 12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know
> personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear
> that your ideas will be stolen.
>
> 13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or
> finds any flaws in your theory.
>
> 14. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly
> defining it.
>
> 15. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at
> math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone
> to express it in terms of equations".
>
> 16. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is
> "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
>
> 17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established
> theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they
> occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
>
> 18. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein,
> or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided
> (without good evidence).
>
> 19. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a
> "paradigm shift".
>
> 20. 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot
> index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying
> that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)
>
> 21. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
>
> 22. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or
> claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good
> evidence).
>
> 23. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if
> they were fact.
>
> 24. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or
> imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
>
> 25. 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking
> about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)
>
> 26. 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never
> actually explaining it.
>
> 27. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
>
> 28. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of
> the orthodoxy".
>
> 29. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly
> disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that
> Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by
> reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
>
> 30. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was
> groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
>
> 31. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an
> extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
>
> 32. 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent
> time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk
> you out of your theory.
>
> 33. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to
> Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
>
> 34. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is
> engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its
> well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
>
> 35. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a
> modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
>
> 36. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally
> appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is.
> (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists
> who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
>
> 37. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving
> no concrete testable predictions.
>
> © 1998 John Baez
> b...@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.eduhttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

------------------
while John Baez himself is another crackpot parrot
mathematician that consider himself a physicist
iow
another walking disaster for advance in science
while
PD as well (and his little ass leek er - Gisse
and alike )
is not much less a dishonest disaster !!

Y.Porat
-----------------

Darwin123

unread,

Oct 11, 2011, 10:59:53 PM10/11/11

to

On Oct 4, 11:26 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > > PD, the jealous DUNCE, is undeserving of a reply. NE
>

> > Wasn't talking to you, John. Notice who I replied to.- Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -
>

> PD, the jealous DUNCE, is undeserving of a reply. — NE —

You gave him two replies to PD saying that he didn't deserve a
reply even before I even got a chance to reply to him even once.
So who is the DUNCE?

Y.Porat

unread,

Oct 11, 2011, 11:22:21 PM10/11/11

to

--------------------
That Michael Moroney is another example for gangsters parroting
shameless dishonest pigs on the net
a shameless crock **and thief** !!
that will for example
fuck themselves with the Higgs Bosons
W and Z virtual messengers particles with or without mass and
alike

a walking disaster for advance of science
not much less than clergy gangsters of
500 years ago !!
yet all those pigs have to remember:

YOU CANT CHEAT EVERYBODY - FOREVER !!

Y.Porat
--------------------

PD

unread,

Oct 12, 2011, 10:04:57 AM10/12/11

to

On 10/11/2011 10:08 PM, Y.Porat wrote:

> while John Baez himself is another crackpot parrot
> mathematician that consider himself a physicist
> iow
> another walking disaster for advance in science
> while
> PD as well (and his little ass leek er - Gisse
> and alike )
> is not much less a dishonest disaster !!
>
> Y.Porat
> -----------------
>

Well, Porat, considering that you have absolutely no idea what physics
is, what physicists do and how they do it, and what the proper product
of physicists is, then your response doesn't surprise me at all.

NoEinstein

unread,

Oct 12, 2011, 12:06:59 PM10/12/11

to

On Oct 7, 1:37 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 3, 10:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10/3/2011 3:05 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>

> > > In my efforts to locate new posts by others that are within my
> > > primary areas of expertise, I replied to Harald (see below). Harald
> > > was playing the deferential student by posting on

> > > sci.physics.research. Such site is primarily where na ve grad

> > > students ask others to help them understand things, because they
> > > aren t smart enough to figure anything out for themselves.
> > > Moderators, like Jonathan Thornburg, love their seeming intellectual
> > > superiority and become defensive and resentful of any person who
> > > actually knows how science works.
>

> > > Mr. Thornburg s bone-of-contention is that accepted science has
> > > somehow ruled out the existence of an ether. For nearly half a
> > > century the arguments raged between the science shallows whether or
> > > not there is a luminiferous ether that acts as the medium for the
> > > propagation of light waves (sic!). The majority of those arguments
> > > centered on explaining the nil results of the 1887 Michelson-Morley
> > > experiment. No one before yours truly was sharp enough to realize
> > > that the ether must NURTURE light on its course, and will never
> > > perpetually drag (slow) the passage of light. Note: If the latter
> > > happened, there would be no life in the universe, because the stellar
> > > energy couldn t get very far from any star till the light velocity
> > > reached ZERO.
>
> > Your ignorance of historical facts is exceeded only by your easy and
> > confessed willingness to make lies up to fill in the holes.'
>
> > Please note further your unwillingness to abide by a newsgroup's charter
> > before submitting to it. See for example the charter for
> > sci.physics.research noted below.
>
> > >> For more information see the sci.physics.research charter at
> > >>http://www.astro.multivax.de:8000/spr/spr.html
>
> -----------------

> and that exactly why the ordinary
> sci.physics
>

> is much more interesting vivid
> and INNOVATIVE !!!

> 9you can jsut check what are the achievements and innovations of this
> humble ng
> and the pompous farthing smell of
> mold there in sci.research
> (of course even here there is a lot of nonsense as well yet
> even if among all that nonsense
> you find one of a thousand making a
> breakthrough it is worth all the other work invested here )

> in short
> the mood in that sci.research is

> something like in paradise (OF FOOLS ..) and crooks and suckers !!!)

> or that of peace and quite of a cemetery ...of Parrots )
>

> Y.Porat
> ------------------
>
> ------------------------------ Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Dear Y.Porat: True, so true!! — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

NoEinstein

unread,

Oct 12, 2011, 12:45:05 PM10/12/11

to

Yes, Y.Porat. You do deserve to "win" some of the time. Hang in
there! — NE —

NoEinstein

unread,

Oct 12, 2011, 12:49:11 PM10/12/11

to

Folks: PD should go to Sweden and teach the Nobel Prize in Physics
Committee about physicists. That committee is far more... "clueless"
than Y.Porat! Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —