FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Math
Misunderstanding Bateson
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1189 of 1190 [17848 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 1187, 1188, 1189, 1190 Next
Author Message
jstevh@msn.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 951

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:14 am    Post subject: Re: Loose connectivity, factoring and residues Reply with quote

Tim Peters wrote:
Quote:
[Tim Peters, to JSH, shows that if x is congruent to x_res modulo T,
and x is coprime to T, then every solution for k must satisfy:]

...
4*k^2 = 1 (modulo T) [6]

And that was wrong, based on copying the erroneous:

2*S*k = x_res (modulo T) [3]

from an older post that should have said:

2*x_res*k = S (modulo T)

instead. My apologies for that again.


That's ok. That kind of thing happens to me all the time.

Quote:
...
So you can find two solutions to [6] very easily after all. I don't
know whether they're useful solutions, but you're not going to get
anywhere if [6] isn't satisfied, and the other solutions are hard to
find, so these are worth pursuing.

So there's no mistake, [6] is irrelevant. Then again, those values for k
appear to work as well as any others Wink

Hey, you need to know how to do the analysis to get it to work.

I probably shouldn't even say that much, but I've turned off from
Usenet with current theory and sent it to the military.

So, sorry, no more help from me on this. You're on your own.


James Harris
Back to top
David Moran
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 252

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:27 am    Post subject: Re: Loose connectivity, factoring and residues Reply with quote

Quote:
I probably shouldn't even say that much, but I've turned off from
Usenet with current theory and sent it to the military.

It's statements like this that earn you the title of crackpot. I am not
worried about my job as a mathematician because I've done nothing wrong, as
well as every other mathematician. You can't justify your claims of lying if
you don't know what you're talking about. In less time than you've wasted
posting crap on the internet, I've gotten a degree in Mathematics and
started on another degree in the same field and Meteorology. What do you
have to account for? Being known as a crackpot.

Dave
Back to top
BlagooBlanaa
science forum beginner


Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:28 am    Post subject: Re: MuPAD News Reply with quote

1
"Mate" <mmatica@personal.ro> wrote in message
news:1153051229.741956.16440@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

Vladimir Bondarenko wrote:

.............................................................

Vladimir Bondarenko: The #1 world's CAS human tester


I'd suggest a referendum: is it #1 or #0 ?
This is related to the old dilemma:
do the natural numbers start from 1 or from 0?

Mate
Back to top
ma740988
science forum beginner


Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:01 am    Post subject: Re: maths for programming C++ Reply with quote

stush@rocketmail.com wrote:
Quote:
ma740988 wrote:
Robbie Hatley wrote:

That's it. Any 14-year-old knows those things already.

Simply not true unless you want to program like a 14 year old.
Well said!!
Back to top
jonathan
science forum beginner


Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 25

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:14 am    Post subject: Re: Responding to Brad Guth - ENOUGH! Reply with quote

"OM" <om@all_spammers_WILL_burn_in_hell.com> wrote in message
news:f96mb2huarosg9kvoo78reibdc881n8l5g@4ax.com...
Quote:
...Kids, enough is enough. Brad Guth is a known troll, who's mental
processes are totally corrupted from the fact that he was not only
molested by his father and his uncle at an early age, he actually bent
over and took it *willingly*, and enjoyed the experience. This being
now understood, it should also be understood that he's not a victim,
but a worthless sack of s**t pretending to be intelligent life, and
therefore should simply be killfiled.

...So, with all these facts laid out for you, if you can't put the
retarded bastard into your killfiles, at least remove
sci.space.history from the followups so we don't have to put up with
the responses to his blatherings that you kids keep polluting our
group with. Everyone on ssh that counts has him killfiled, so please
put him out of our misery once again, eh?

Thanks.

OM
--


I find this post to be quite disgusting.

It's like watching a child pluck the wings from a fly.
It's immature and intolerant. And that is being generous.
The only thing your post demonstrates is that your ridicule
of Brad is proportional to your own personal insecurity.

You obviously need someone to belittle so as to build yourself up.
But it doesn't work that way. Such disrespectful and hateful posts
only serve to belittle yourself.

I'd killfile you, except that is also a juvenile response
worthy of someone that never matured beyond jr high.

Your killfile list is in truth the list you make of people
you feel superior to. Does that list make you feel
better? Does it make you feel smarter?

Does that petty little list make you the better person?

The answer should be obvious even to you.
Flames work both ways, now I know how it feels
to be you......brrrr. I suddenly need a shower
and lots of soap.



Jonathan

s











Quote:
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
Back to top
Jeff Findley
science forum beginner


Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:10 pm    Post subject: Re: Responding to Brad Guth - ENOUGH! Reply with quote

"jonathan" <Write@Instead.com> wrote in message
news:io3vg.15763$cu1.6963@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Quote:

"OM" <om@all_spammers_WILL_burn_in_hell.com> wrote in message
news:f96mb2huarosg9kvoo78reibdc881n8l5g@4ax.com...
...Kids, enough is enough. Brad Guth is a known troll...

I find this post to be quite disgusting.

It's like watching a child pluck the wings from a fly.
It's immature and intolerant. And that is being generous.
The only thing your post demonstrates is that your ridicule
of Brad is proportional to your own personal insecurity.

While you may not like OM's posting style when it comes to responding to
trolls, I think he's right. Brad Guth is a troll that can't be reasoned
with. Sticking Brad Guth in your killfile is a personal choice, but IMHO,
is an entirely appropriate action.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)
Back to top
sdr
science forum addict


Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 82

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:36 pm    Post subject: Re: The Achilles Heel of String Theory. Reply with quote

EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
Quote:
sdrodrian@sdrodrian.com wrote:

Could I be more specific about what I mean?
Let's try:
NOTHING CAN BE LIMITED TO
"ANY" NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS.

Conversely: Reality consists of ALL possible
dimensions, and is NOT really "3" dimensional:

YOU CAN NOT HAVE MORE
DIMENSIONS THAN ALL OF THEM.

Once you state, "This is 1 dimension above/beyond
ALL OF THEM" you are talking gibberish.

Pure mathematics allows for gibberish BECAUSE pure
mathematics need not have ANY connections with
anything other than itself (its equations balance
themselves alone, using NOT reality but its own set
of imperfect/incomplete/mortal rules/principles).

Quote:
If one abstracts the least single dimension from
ANYTHING it effectively removes that something from
reality. And then you are talking fantasy (science-
fiction).

This is true of anything termed "three-dimensional"
(no purely "3" dimensional anything can really exist).

And it is just as true of ANYTHING and EVERYTHING
assigned ANY (whatever) purely arbitrary "number" of
dimension(s).

.... Reality consists of a never-ending infinity of
possible ways to describe the dimensions of ANY
and EVERY object that exists. There can exist NO
manifold, however complex, which is not already
part of our so-called "3-D" reality (because the
term "3-D" is not a pure description of reality but
merely/purely "short-hand" mathematics--it ONLY
makes sense in mathematics: out in the real world
it is pure gibberish). And every time one attempts to
describe the universe in terms of mathematical
gibberish, one must eventually be forced to pay a
high price indeed for one's blithering foolishness.

In pure mathematics it is quite acceptable to speak
gibberish: Our children often use "(infinity + 1)"
in their "equations" while understanding that while it
may make a kind of perfect mathematical sense, IN
REALITY it's really senseless (meaningless/nonsense).
And this "mathematical gibberish" is not confined to
"(infinity + 1)" or "reality as purely 3-dimensional."

The trick is not being led to believe that
"mathematical gibberish" HAS ANY REALITY.

If one does, then one might begin to sprout on about
time-travel, and "other dimensions," and every other
kind of gibberish in the universe. And then either we
must confine such gibberish-sprouting chaps to the
lunatic asylum as soon as possible or we are all mad.

Trying to advance the process,

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com

RE:

Quote:
Self-evidently, this must include ANY/ALL
"dimension(s)" which EXCLUDE ANY OTHER
"dimension(s)."

PLEASE RE-READ this thread from the original post!

"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/tree/browse_frm/thread/207d22acd7b50bab/9004a8405b2b8dd7?q=rodrian+%22The+Achilles+Heel+of+String+Theory%22&hl=en&rnum=1&lnk=ol


"

Quote:
String theory is marvelous mathematics. But if ANY
part of it depends on the existence of Santy Claus,
then it has NO connection with reality PERIOD. And
since string theory can only balance its equations
by piling on extraneous (e.g. impossible)
"dimensions" it is pure FICTION--"pure/absolute."

I am assuming that the possibility exists that
there are more than 3 spatial dimension.

And I am telling you there ain't nothin' that ain't
made up of all the innumerable (look up that word in
a book called The Dictionary) dimensions of our
reality.

IF SOMETHING LACKS EXISTENCE IN ANY
DIMENSION (or part thereof) IT CANNOT EXIST.
(And if something exists in one or more dimension
than those of our reality... then those so-called
other "dimensions" are superfluous: PURE FANTASY.)

String Theory is pure mathematics ONLY. Get over it.
Rejoice, in fact. Now you won't have to waste your
life trying to figure out how string theory governs
life!

RE:

The Achilles Heel of String Theory.

The instant the term "dimensions" ["the number of
elements in a basis of a vector space," "the quality
of spatial extension] is used in any text to describe
anything which might exist apart from our reality
(universe)... you can be certain it is a science-
fiction text, and NOT science (as "the systematic
study of reality").

I don't mind the use of fantasy in mathematics because
mathematics concerns the harmonizing of equations in
the same manner that a science-fiction story must be
purged of story-line self-contradictions (anomalies).
My objection is when either mathematics or science-
fiction tries to pretend that it has a greater hold on
reality THAN does reality.

One can say that a hollow sphere has two dimensions,
but that does not remove such a sphere from our
reality. And in the same way ALL imagined manifolds
("a topological space in which every point has a
neighborhood that is homeomorphic to the interior of a
sphere in Euclidean space of the same number of
dimensions") can never exist apart from our reality.

The confusion, if there is any, arises from the purely
mathematical convenience of speaking about our reality
being a "3" dimensional reality. Whereas no purely
three-dimensional object could possibly exist "in
reality."

It's not really a matter of the gimmick we observe in
animation where the RoadRunner runs into the "reality"
of a painting, which painting then seen from behind
proves to "really" be nothing more than a "two-
dimensional" painting. The fact is that even
theoretically it would be hard to conceive of anything
being even one-dimensional:

Imagine a one-dimensional wall... From where would one
even "see" such a wall? Certainly if we are NOT
looking at it dead-on we are using other dimensions
than its merely one to "see it" (since we would have
to look at it from a little to the side).

Throw a left-hook and freeze your punch in mid-air:
Your floating arm is describing an impossible
journey through an infinite number of (certainly
more than just three) dimensions! And thus too any
circumference such as the earth's...

And because all it would take would be a very tiny
"little" ... no huge human eye could ever see it. (And
we are talking strictly theoretically here.)

The wall itself would have to be infinitesimally
tiny. Impossibly tiny. Let's say that a Planck's
Length is the smallest thing (and that there are no
lengths as small as a Planck's Length to our Planck's
Length, although I do not know of any objection to
that). Then the wall would have to be a Planck's
Length AND the observing eye would also have to be a
Planck's Length and be looking at it perfectly head-on
because if it were but even the smallest fraction to
any side it would have to look at it from a second,
third, or additional dimension. [You can see why it's
much more easy to just look at a comic strip and
believe the fiction that it's a two-dimensional
drawing... even though we know that no true purely
two-dimensional object can exist in our reality.]

HINT: It's your mind agreeing to "go along with"
the fiction that the comic strip/painting/photo
graphic is two-dimensional.

And if no purely one-, or purely two-, or even purely
three-dimensional object can exist in our reality,
then any talk of the existence of ANY-numbered-
dimension is also nonsense... whether in or outside
our reality. And if you can't see this, you're not
really very smart, no matter how clever you may be
(and not even though you be even as clever as a
checkers-playing computer).

The same thing with "time," which is strictly a notion
in the human mind. In reality the universe consists of
changes (most of which are oscillations, an electron's
or a satellite's orbit). If the universe is considered
to be "one thing," it may be possible to say it runs
through a time-line from beginning to end; but the
universe is not really "one thing" (in fact, it is not
possible at this point in human history to point to
anything which is absolutely "one thing" except we use
the term loosely as a point of reference). Therefore
each item (with the proviso that each item consists of
sub-items each with its own "time"), each item has its
own "time" apart from the "time(s)" of every other
item in the universe. [Set ten identical tops spinning
at the same time and most of them are all likely to
stop spinning at the same time, all things being
equal. But we're really talking coincidence here,
since nothing demands that they--or all the tops in
the universe--be set spinning at the same time.]

Strictly on principle, because energy is neither
created nor destroyed, some scientists may be
therefore obliged to believe that "time" fluxes
between the objects/items of the universe, neither
going forwards nor backwards in sum. But thereby
they also being forced to give up the notion of
"time" as we're known it to this time. [Others see
in this the sinister absence of enough anti-matter
to harmonize the "timing' of the universe... and
suspect that time indeed does go marching on.]

This is why not all the atoms of a given element in
the universe decay at once. But one thing is true: The
matter of atoms which may have decayed may again be
reconstituted into their original form inside a star's
furnace or explosion. And then where does that leave
the time-line of matter that has gone from old age
(and even death) back to youth!

In any case, our description of time is always quite
superficial. And we usually limit such a description
to a small fraction of a number of related changes, as
the notion of a "past" (or a "future") are merely
conveniences we use to "make sense to ourselves" of
the human condition: In "Caesar's time" he was both
child and man, but what we conveniently agree to
overlook is that Caesar is still right here "in our
own time" as well, just in some other form than either
child or man. And yet every last atom that was Caesar
is still here with us.

see: http://physics.sdrodrian.com
Back to top
Scott Hedrick
science forum beginner


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 36

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:12 am    Post subject: Re: Responding to Brad Guth - ENOUGH! Reply with quote

"jonathan" <Write@Instead.com> wrote in message
news:io3vg.15763$cu1.6963@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Quote:
I find this post to be quite disgusting.

Then you shouldn't have posted it. Duh.
Back to top
levine555@yahoo.com
science forum beginner


Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:48 am    Post subject: Re: Don't cha wish ur gf was hot like me Reply with quote

fiercy02@yahoo.com のメッセージ:

Quote:
http://uc.gamestotal.com/i.cfm?p=aboutuc&ref=gssspat
Anna Ohura and Dolores can share bras once Anna goes through the
debigulator. I put this picture in my last print zine.
If anyone wants my old zines I can mail it to them. I have posted my
home
address publically before but maybe that is unwise. If you want the
zine in
a computer file format then I can do that.
As far as my boobs,
http://gc.gamestotal.com/i.cfm?p=aboutgc&ref=gssspat
this page is as much as you will see of them.
Without a bra, I think my boobs might resemble pastry tubes. A very
rude guy
saw my boobs the first time and said they were bananas. He must have
been
fed a steady diet of Playboy to be that rude to me. No other guy was
rude to
me like that.

Why do you have to link the guy to his feeder ? Feeding doesn't have
the same meaning as creating a heart.
Thinking of that hard would sadden one more.
Back to top
scarlson@sas.org
science forum beginner


Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:40 pm    Post subject: Re: Responding to Brad Guth - ENOUGH! Reply with quote

Brad Guth is clearly a "true believer" and who will find a way to morph
any data to fit his dogma. As such, it is a waste of time to engage
him. But this kind of post is way over the line. It is not funny, it
is not helpful and it adds nothing to the debate. The market place of
ideas can be a rancorous place, but fair-minded reasonable people
always keep to within reasonable limits of decorum.

The way to defeat someone in a debate is to smother them with kindness
and respect. Destroy their arguments with a systematic dispassionate
appeal to the facts. But whatever you do, don't give them any hook to
come back at you no matter how much you loath them. Personal attacks
always injure the reputation of the attacker in a forum like this. They
generate sympathy for the object of the attack and allow that person to
instantly take the high ground in the debate. Remember, you can't get
into a mud-throwing contest without getting mud on you!

OM now has as little credibility in the mind of any fair-minded reader
of this forum as does Mr. Guth. If he wants to improve his reputation
there's just one road to take---the high road!

Shawn Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and Executive Director
Society for Amateur Scientists



OM wrote:
Quote:
...Kids, enough is enough. Brad Guth is a known troll, who's mental
processes are totally corrupted from the fact that he was not only
molested by his father and his uncle at an early age, he actually bent
over and took it *willingly*, and enjoyed the experience. This being
now understood, it should also be understood that he's not a victim,
but a worthless sack of s**t pretending to be intelligent life, and
therefore should simply be killfiled.

...So, with all these facts laid out for you, if you can't put the
retarded bastard into your killfiles, at least remove
sci.space.history from the followups so we don't have to put up with
the responses to his blatherings that you kids keep polluting our
group with. Everyone on ssh that counts has him killfiled, so please
put him out of our misery once again, eh?

Thanks.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
Back to top
a_plutonium@hotmail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 1063

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:38 pm    Post subject: 10^120 to tile Universe & gravity 10^40 Re: mass and space functionality equals charge Re: gravity a fictional force Reply with quote

a_plutonium@hotmail.com wrote:

Quote:

Don't go overboard on an analogy and resemblance. The Ampere-Maxwell
law I refered to was just a resemblance.


The Ampere-Maxwell law shows us how the term "functionality" is used to
reconcile charge as mass and space. Mass creates space and charge is
space & mass. So charge can be mathematized much like Ampere-Maxwell
law mathematizes magnetic field, electric field and current. One
creates the other and is a function of the other. Charge, mass and
space are all three functions of one another and create one another.

Quote:
Keep in mind, all I needed was to reconcile how Coulomb force could be
gravity if the Cosmic matter we see is all the pieces of the last six
electrons of 231Pu Atom Totality.

We know electrons repel one another, so I had to reconcile why the Sun
and Earth attract and not repel. Why galaxies attract and not repel as
pieces or fragments of the last 6 electrons of the Atom Totality. I
have to reconcile how electron pieces only attract.

I did this reconcilation by using "mass bends space". Sun and Earth and
galaxies are pieces or fragments of the last electrons of the Atom
Totality. So why do they not repel.

So I solve it with "mass bends space" and that charge = mass +
functionality of space.

**Another argument**. There could be a different argument to reconcile.
One could say that electrons come in two types. The ball type or the
dot-cloud type. And electrons repelling would occur if you bring close
together 2 or more ball types of electrons. The ball type is a
collapsed wavefunction or ground-state-electron. The dot-cloud is the
uncollapsed wavefunction, the type most electrons are found in. In this
viewpoint, one could say that there is a little bit of energy or force
between Ball state and Electron-Dot Cloud state and this difference is
what we call and see and observe as gravity. It would appear to us as
only attractive not repelling. And it is a form of the Coulomb force
itself where we replace charge with mass.

Perhaps both viewpoints are the same thing. The viewpoint of "mass
bends space" and the viewpoint that electrons are both ball type and
dot cloud type.


Summary of the above:

It has the ring of truth. Starting with the obvious logic. If we are to
believe there is a Unification of Forces in physics, that all forces
are one force. That one force is Coulomb force. Then StrongNuclear and
WeakNuclear combine to form a NuclearCoulomb. Where does that leave
gravity? It is a fictional force because it already has the
"mathematical form" of Coulomb when we replace charge with mass. There
would have to be an "antigravity" to combine with gravity, but gravity
already has a Coulomb mathematical form so there is no antigravity.

Gravity is merely the smallest Coulomb force. Electrons have 2 ways of
representation. They can be either a complete ball or they can come in
a dot-cloud where each dot is a tiny fragment of the electron.
Electrons can transition from ball to dot-cloud, easily transition.
Electrons moving in a wire in electricity are mostly "ball electrons".
Electrons in a animal or plant are mostly dot-clouds.

So that gravity is the smallest form of the Coulomb force and is the
difference between an electron as a ball or as a dot-cloud.

The night sky that we see as galaxies, stars, planets and other astro
bodies are merely the electron-dot-cloud of the last 6 electrons of
231Pu. We are inside a gigantic Atom Totality and the planet Earth and
the Sun and Milky Way galaxy are tiny fragments of those last 6
electrons. The force of gravity that we "think we see" is merely the
Coulomb force of electrons in a dot-cloud-representation rather than in
a ball.

In all the past literature of astronomy and physics is mention that the
Universe if completely tiled by matter would be 10^120 protons. That if
we filled the entire Universe with matter of protons it would take
10^120. Now the force strength between gravity to Coulomb is about
10^40 weaker. These numbers are not coincidence that to completely tile
the Universe full is 10^120 and the Coulomb force is 10^40 stronger
than gravity.

Summary of my summary (hate it when I do this): there is only one force
in all of Nature. It is the Coulomb force. Any other force that exists
has to come in pairs where the combination is a overall Coulomb.
Gravity does not come with an antigravity. Gravity is the Coulomb force
and is the smallest Coulomb unit of force. Gravity is the difference
between the electron being in a ball form or being in a dot-cloud form.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Back to top
OM
science forum beginner


Joined: 01 Jul 2005
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Responding to Brad Guth - ENOUGH! Reply with quote

On 19 Jul 2006 07:40:19 -0700, scarlson@sas.org wrote:

Quote:
OM now has as little credibility in the mind of any fair-minded reader
of this forum as does Mr. Guth. If he wants to improve his reputation
there's just one road to take---the high road!

....Yeah, right. If your "forum" is anything but sci.space.history, I
could care less. If you're speaking of ssh, you're obviously clueless
as to my level of credibility. And even if you aren't, you've proven
yourself totally clueless by claiming that your tactic will work with
an obvious lunatic like Guth. The day logic works on Guth is the day
some Bibble thumper will go preach gospel to Charlie Manson and get
him to repent, convert, and begin study to become an ordained prison
minister for the Catholic Church.

[Shakes head in utter dismay at the idiocy of some people while
perched on their own soapboxes]

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
Back to top
Secret237@Verizon.net
science forum beginner


Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Responding to Brad Guth - ENOUGH! Reply with quote

I disagree with most of this:

<<Brad Guth is clearly a "true believer" and who will find a way to
morph
any data to fit his dogma. As such, it is a waste of time to engage
him. >>

True, it is a waste of time to engage him in pretty much any way,
although the fact that he changes information and highlights irrelevant
facts, does not make him a true believer in anything except himself.

<<But this kind of post is way over the line. It is not funny, it
is not helpful and it adds nothing to the debate. The market place of
ideas can be a rancorous place, but fair-minded reasonable people
always keep to within reasonable limits of decorum. >>

I do not see this as true, if Guth can post his totally absurd
nonsense, then why can't we post anything we want, as long as it's
true ??
When I ( everyone ) say(s) Guth is a kook, it is simply true, what's
wrong with that ?? Therefore calling Guth a kook is reasonable.

<<The way to defeat someone in a debate is to smother them with
kindness
and respect. Destroy their arguments with a systematic dispassionate
appeal to the facts. But whatever you do, don't give them any hook to
come back at you no matter how much you loath them. >>

The world is not as rosy as you seem to think, some do not respond to
this kindness and respect by being humble. I do not believe this is
possible with Guth because just mentioning the facts, gives him a hook
to reply. He will not see the facts no matter how many times or ways
they are shown to him. Simply things like "no stars" in the photos
he "will" not understand. You will notice how I used the word
"will" not understand, this is because he can understand it, but he
chooses not to, NO MATTER WHAT. Even if you were to put him on the
Moon with any camera equipment he asks for, when he cannot produce
stars behind a fully lit astronaut in a bright white suit, he will come
up with some type of reason as to why someone else is to blame, or just
use his lack of results as "Proof" that we never set foot on the
Moon even though he was just there. In other words, simply crazy.

<<Personal attacks always injure the reputation of the attacker in a
forum like this. They generate sympathy for the object of the attack
and allow that person to
instantly take the high ground in the debate. Remember, you can't get
into a mud-throwing contest without getting mud on you! >>

Few if any of the personal attacks on Guth, that I have seen, have
injured the reputation of the attacker, because they have been true.
Fighting him and attacking him are the correct thing to do because he
is wrong and he chooses to attack people who are and have done things
in order to explore space peacefully. I have no sympathy for Guth.
Just like Buzz Aldrin and Seible ( who cares how that name is spelled
), Aldrin was just.
Of course with Guth we are only talking verbally here.

<<OM now has as little credibility in the mind of any fair-minded
reader
of this forum as does Mr. Guth. If he wants to improve his reputation
there's just one road to take---the high road! >>

I don't know what the high road is.
It may be true that OM has little credibility, but he is right when he
says we should ignore Guth and not reply to him at all, Guth does not
respond to an argument in a rational way, therefore there is no way to
gain anything by replying to him or engaging into a discussion with
him, Guth just goes off on a tangent.
Back to top
Amadeus Train-Owwell Zirc
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 507

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:11 pm    Post subject: Re: 10^120 to tile Universe & gravity 10^40 Re: mass and space functionality equals charge Re: gravity a fictional force Reply with quote

per "nuclear electrons" check-out the Moon model
on 21stcenturysciencetech.com.

a lot of your stuff has poetry but, unfortunately, little prosaicry.

as for why there is no "opposite of entropy,"
there are two things that I can think of
-- aside from akin to your thing,
wherein "every thing *else* must come in pairs" --
a)
there is negentropy in some considerations, and b)
there's the half of Universe that is antimatter,
as in the Alfven cosmology, not Bigger Banger.

Quote:
Gravity is merely the smallest Coulomb force. Electrons have 2 ways of
representation. They can be either a complete ball or they can come in
a dot-cloud where each dot is a tiny fragment of the electron.
Electrons can transition from ball to dot-cloud, easily transition.
Electrons moving in a wire in electricity are mostly "ball electrons".
Electrons in a animal or plant are mostly dot-clouds.

Summary of my summary (hate it when I do this): there is only one force
in all of Nature. It is the Coulomb force. Any other force that exists
has to come in pairs where the combination is a overall Coulomb.
Gravity does not come with an antigravity. Gravity is the Coulomb force
and is the smallest Coulomb unit of force. Gravity is the difference
between the electron being in a ball form or being in a dot-cloud form.

--it takes some to jitterbug!
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/Amplitude.W05.pdf
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/figs/plate01.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2006/3322_ethanol_no_science.html
http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/howthenation.pdf
Back to top
Scott Hedrick
science forum beginner


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 36

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Responding to Brad Guth - ENOUGH! Reply with quote

<scarlson@sas.org> wrote in message
news:1153320019.850566.152290@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
OM now has as little credibility in the mind of any fair-minded reader
of this forum as does Mr. Guth. If he wants to improve his reputation
there's just one road to take---the high road!

Well, here's the high road for you: <plonk>
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1189 of 1190 [17848 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 1187, 1188, 1189, 1190 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:24 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Math
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts pre-fourier piecewise continuous function simple misunder... Chris1171 Undergraduate 1 Sun Jan 15, 2006 6:06 pm
No new posts Eric Davis's misunderstanding of the Higgs origin of inertia Jack Sarfatti Particle 0 Mon Aug 22, 2005 11:14 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 3.8411s ][ Queries: 13 (3.8058s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]