Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 Page 2 of 3 [45 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3 Next
Author Message
Y.Porat
science forum Guru

Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:39 am    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD)

Eric Gisse wrote:
 Quote: Y.Porat wrote: Eric Gisse wrote: Y.Porat wrote: Eric Gisse wrote: Y.Porat wrote: --------------------------- Hi gisse it s a long time i didnt learn some physics from you . It has been a long time since you learned any physics from anyone, much less me. ---- so that is why i whant to startl;earning from you i saw Paul Draper was explaining something about the E/Gama idea it was not too clear to me may be you can explain something about it ?? Like what? it is the first time i saw from him that strange combination of E and Gama at the same side of those formulas of energy and i wonder why he was doing that strange combination he refuses to explain it to me so may be you can ?? Mabey because you aren't making any sense. Be more specific. ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a quote from PD:

quote:
 Quote: PD I'm still unsure about mass. Is it just inertia by a different name? Is there a difference between inertia and mass?

Inertia is historically defined as the m in F=ma.
The problem is, this definition of m is observer-dependent. The same F,

applied to something that is stationary and something that is moving
close to 1, does not produce the same a. F/a is what has been
historically called "relativistic mass", which rises as the object's
speed. One can "fix" this by changing m to be F/(gamma*a), so that m is

now constant, but then it loses its meaning as inertia.
 Quote: Both photons and electrons have energy.

-------------------------
EOQ

it is from PD not from me !!

so how is it that the gama was moved from the mass side
to the Force side ??
(iow th e gama is not attached anymore to the mass??!!)

TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru

Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999

 Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:49 am    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD) Y.Porat wrote: [...] F = dp/dt. What is p in relativity? What is dp/dt?
Y.Porat
science forum Guru

Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:20 am    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD)

Eric Gisse wrote:
 Quote: Y.Porat wrote: [...] F = dp/dt. What is p in relativity? What is dp/dt? ----------------------

what ever p is it contains mass
yet i dont see the relevance of that to the gama location problem

it is that the gama factor does not necesarlily has tobe attached
just to the mass!!
it is actually even a more general insight that i started ti use
vastly
ie

if you have a set of multiplication of physical entities
it is not ;sacredly must be in the 'conventional ' ORDER

for example
if you have a formula with a set of A B C D muliplication
it is comualtive (as the law of algebra)
ie it can be presented as A C B D or D B C A or whateven order
of multiplication
and if you have
E= A B C D
it can be presented as

E/B = A C D etc etc
so if you have the gama in th e formula
IT MUST NOT BE ATTACHED ONLY TO ONE ELEMENT FOREVER!!
just because some stupid people attached it i once just to one element
!!

hope i started to be more clear !!

ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru

Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:51 am    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD)

Y.Porat wrote:
 Quote: Eric Gisse wrote: Y.Porat wrote: [...] F = dp/dt. What is p in relativity? What is dp/dt? ---------------------- what ever p is it contains mass

Why are you confused as to the definition of relativistic momentum. Are
you saying you have been whining for years about concepts that involve
relativity when you have no functional understanding of it?

 Quote: yet i dont see the relevance of that to the gama location problem

Probably because you don't know what I'm talking about.

 Quote: please note the main issue

Your woeful ignorance is the main issue.

 Quote: it is that the gama factor does not necesarlily has tobe attached just to the mass!!

Fascinating insight for someone who doesn't know what he is talking

[...]

 Quote: hope i started to be more clear !!

Yes - you used algebra. Congratulations. I am impressed that your
engineering education involved stuff taught in highschool. Now, do you
think you can handle single dimensional calculus and the definition of
relativistic momentum?

What is the definition of relativistic momentum? Differentiate it with
respect to time. What do you get? It will look strikingly familiar...

 Quote: ATB Y.Porat --------------------
Y.Porat
science forum Guru

Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 7:25 am    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD)

Eric Gisse wrote:
 Quote: Y.Porat wrote: Eric Gisse wrote: F = dp/dt. What is p in relativity? What is dp/dt? ---------------------- what ever p is it contains mass Why are you confused as to the definition of relativistic momentum. Are you saying you have been whining for years about concepts that involve relativity when you have no functional understanding of it? yet i dont see the relevance of that to the gama location problem Probably because you don't know what I'm talking about.

if you what just tio fight and not discuss you will get a fight
if you what to discuss than leave aside your phychologic war

*** because it does not impress anyone!!***

2 why do you take the issue to obfuscation?
we are dealing in cases in which it is bovious and unquestionable that
there is
a gama factor in it
and at this time i am not letting you take this out of the track in
order of
psycholocic war and obfuscation

if your initial perpous of your intervention is just to abuse me
than let every one know it obviously
that you ddint come here at the first place in order of discussion
iow you came as a personal enemy -come what come may !!!
got it ??
if you want to go on discussion letes stick to known formulas in which
trh egama factor is in its front and obviiously

like the
E = gama m c^2

am i alowed to present it as

E/gama = mc^2
yes or not ??

i dont say i invented new physics
i only say it is a betetr interpretation of that formula !!
and proper understanding of it
has far going imjpact on other issues of physics that are
wronginterpretated
and leading to other nonsensr physics like virtual particles without
mass
or mas that is inflating with velocity etc .

***which is far from common knowlwdge !!!***

TIA
Y.Porat
ps just beleive me that i could just now fill you with personal
insults and abuse
yet since you seemed to be ready to discuss i still refrain from doing
it !!

Y.P
-------------------------------
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru

Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:14 am    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD)

Y.Porat wrote:
 Quote: Eric Gisse wrote: Y.Porat wrote: Eric Gisse wrote: F = dp/dt. What is p in relativity? What is dp/dt? ---------------------- what ever p is it contains mass Why are you confused as to the definition of relativistic momentum. Are you saying you have been whining for years about concepts that involve relativity when you have no functional understanding of it? yet i dont see the relevance of that to the gama location problem Probably because you don't know what I'm talking about. if you what just tio fight and not discuss you will get a fight if you what to discuss than leave aside your phychologic war *** because it does not impress anyone!!*** 2 why do you take the issue to obfuscation?

....because giving you the answer is no fun. I'm attempting to make you
think...if only a little.

 Quote: we are dealing in cases in which it is bovious and unquestionable that there is a gama factor in it

Your grasp of the obvious is firm on this fine day. May it last for
many more.

 Quote: and at this time i am not letting you take this out of the track in order of psycholocic war and obfuscation if your initial perpous of your intervention is just to abuse me

You are a slow learner because if you had actually paid attention you
would realise I'm not in full out abuse-the-idiot mode.

 Quote: than let every one know it obviously that you ddint come here at the first place in order of discussion iow you came as a personal enemy -come what come may !!! got it ?? if you want to go on discussion letes stick to known formulas in which trh egama factor is in its front and obviiously like the E = gama m c^2 am i alowed to present it as E/gama = mc^2 yes or not ??

Congratulations. You understand algebra.

Then again...if you have to ask if dividing by a nonzero quantity is
OK, mabey your grasp of algebra isn't so firm. Who knows!

I see we have moved on from F = ma onto another boring and trivial
topic which you also do not understand.

 Quote: i dont say i invented new physics

It must be a Tuesday then.

 Quote: i only say it is a betetr interpretation of that formula !! and proper understanding of it has far going imjpact on other issues of physics that are wronginterpretated and leading to other nonsensr physics like virtual particles without mass or mas that is inflating with velocity etc .

How fortunate are we to have you then! Why bother doing the experiments
when we can just ask you for the answer. Does it matter to you that you
are wrong...or are you just doing pretend-physics where you can't be
wrong?

 Quote: ***which is far from common knowlwdge !!!*** TIA Y.Porat ps just beleive me that i could just now fill you with personal insults and abuse

Insults and abuse sting more when they are delivered in a fashion that
doesn't make the person delivering them a moron. Such as what happens
to you when you scream at me in your very own barely literate fashion.

 Quote: yet since you seemed to be ready to discuss i still refrain from doing it !! Y.P -------------------------------
Y.Porat
science forum Guru

Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:48 pm    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD)

Eric Gisse wrote:
 Quote: Y.Porat wrote: if you what to discuss than leave aside your phychologic war we are dealing in cases in which it is bovious and unquestionable that there is a gama factor in it Your grasp of the obvious is firm on this fine day. May it last for many more.

while we have
E=gama m c^2 th egama is obvious
cant you speak for a change without some sumatguying??

just simpl e talking. with no over smatings.
----------
 Quote: and at this time i am not letting you take this out of the track in order of psycholocic war and obfuscation if your initial perpous of your intervention is just to abuse me You are a slow learner because if you had actually paid attention you would realise I'm not in full out abuse-the-idiot mode. like the E = gama m c^2 am i alowed to present it as E/gama = mc^2 yes or not ?? Congratulations. You understand algebra.

so
we agree that it is alowed
nomore questions

thank you
yet i am not sure that in order to shoot a rabit
you dont have to use cannons.....!

ie sometimes it is much smarter to use the minimal tools to make
a good point or even an innovation

E/gama= m has a revolusionary meaning]
just in case you ddint notice

anyway
Y.Porat
--------------------------
>
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru

Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:21 pm    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD)

Y.Porat wrote:

[...]

For future reference, this is a list - not necessairly all-inclusive -
of a lot of tools that you can use:

* Subtraction
* Multiplication
* Division
* Multiplying a form of 1
* Adding a form of 0.
* Integration
* Full derivatives
* Partial derivatives...
Y.Porat
science forum Guru

Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:47 am    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD)

Eric Gisse wrote:
 Quote: Y.Porat wrote: [...] For future reference, this is a list - not necessairly all-inclusive - of a lot of tools that you can use: * Addition * Subtraction * Multiplication * Division * Multiplying a form of 1 * Adding a form of 0. * Integration * Full derivatives * Partial derivatives... -----------------------------------------

??????
do you think anyone undersatnd what is that mumbling???
do youknow what do you want

you alrady agreed with me that
E=gama m c^2
can be written as
E/gama = mc^2

yetit seems that you are unable to grasp the real meaning of that bew
insight !!

that in order of shooting a rabit you dont need cannons!!
that is one of the sighns of intelligence:

it is to use th e minimal toos in order of making a maximal
innovation

now it is obvious that you didnt get the physics innovation
physics i s not only algebra nor sophysticated mathematics

it is*** first of all *** understanding of physics!!

and if you cant understand that revolutionary innovation that was not
done
along the last 100 years by anyone except me
i will explain it to you privately

btw i called it :
'The third Porat postulate ' and it i srecorded in Google
a few years ago

PD used it without mentioning the name of its innovator!
that could be forgivable

but later he involved himself with a lie:
ie that it was done 100 years ago
**without being able to substanciate his calim (of 100 years) untill
this moment

2 may be ask PD he will explain it to you ........

ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru

Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:48 pm    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD)

Y.Porat wrote:
 Quote: Eric Gisse wrote: Y.Porat wrote: [...] For future reference, this is a list - not necessairly all-inclusive - of a lot of tools that you can use: * Addition * Subtraction * Multiplication * Division * Multiplying a form of 1 * Adding a form of 0. * Integration * Full derivatives * Partial derivatives... ----------------------------------------- ?????? do you think anyone undersatnd what is that mumbling??? do youknow what do you want

Of that list, I wonder how many you have mastered. I'm betting you have
a firm grasp on four of them...

 Quote: you alrady agreed with me that E=gama m c^2 can be written as E/gama = mc^2

Congratulations, you sucessfully used algebra.

[...]

 Quote: btw i called it : 'The third Porat postulate ' and it i srecorded in Google a few years ago

Each one is more worthless than the next, by the way.

[...]
Golden Boar
science forum Guru

Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 651

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:57 pm    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD)

Y.Porat wrote:
 Quote: Eric Gisse wrote: Y.Porat wrote: Eric Gisse wrote: Y.Porat wrote: [...] For future reference, this is a list - not necessairly all-inclusive - of a lot of tools that you can use: * Partial derivatives... ----------------------------------------- ?????? do you think anyone undersatnd what is that mumbling??? do youknow what do you want Of that list, I wonder how many you have mastered. I'm betting you have a firm grasp on four of them... you alrady agreed with me that E=gama m c^2 can be written as E/gama = mc^2 Congratulations, you sucessfully used algebra. [...] btw i called it : 'The third Porat postulate ' and it i srecorded in Google a few years ago Each one is more worthless than the next, by the way. ------------------------------------- there are a few explaantions to your answer: 1 you dont understand the importance of waht i did 2 you are a personal enemy that no matter waht i do you wilol try your best to kill me ! as dda 1 as Wake as phineas as varvey ie all those pomontous scientists that no one will remember after they had gone (and you bet that soemtimes they will be gone ...) no about posibility No 1 i am the first person in the history of science that DETACHED THE GAMA FACTOR FROM MASS !!! could you beleive it ??

No, you moron, it is simple algebra.

If E = gamma.m.c^2, then is is quite obvious that,

E/gamma = m.c^2
E/m = gamma.c^2
E/c^2 = gamma.m
E/(m.c^2) = gamma
E/(gamma.m) = c^2
E/(gamma.c^2) = m

All the above are just different forms of the same equation.

 Quote: if not bring evidence that anhyone else did it before me !! it is not just algebra it is deep understanding of physics

No, It is simple algebra you idiot, something which you obviously don't
understand.

 Quote: it takes a few seconds to write it but it takes 60 years to do it !!! in our case it took 100 years !!

It might take you 100 years, but most people could do it in a second.

 Quote: and if you dont get it untill now it has a revolutionary imppsct on the advance of science because once peoeple understand that say relativistic mass' or inertial; mass versus rest mass etc etc --- innonsensr physics it is just nonsensr mathematics and i already ayed tha tone of the big problems of modern physics is that amthematicians with no physics touch took over physics

This is you misunderstanding the concept of "rest", which you show by
saying that the photon has a"rest" mass. In other words you are saying
that photons have a speed of 0.

 Quote: they (and you) think tha tthe more pompous amthematics junglarigs you do the bigger physicist you are !! now what is killing you and others is : how isit that a moron person like Porat could do so 'easily' a breakthrough in physics as by just moving the gama factor from one side to another side !!

The only breaktrough was in your skull and it seems to have given you
brain damage.

 Quote: but you dont get thqt by that dead simple deed i broke a 'solid paradigm' that was rooling 100 years and was wrong !! ie that the gama factor belongs ONLY to the mass entity

No, it does not, and no one said it does.
It is also used in length contraction and time dilation.

 Quote: it is amazing that no one ever took the posibility that the gama does not belong at all to the mass !!

Who ever said that gamma belong to mass?

 Quote: do you know why ??

Because they never thought that in the first place.

 Quote: may be because it was initially accidentally ,written next to the mass !!

It was not initially written next to mass at all. Do some research.
Here's a hint, it's called the Lorentz factor.

 Quote: (just as stupid as that !!!) btw you was right that we cant use the E/Gama while gama is zero!! but we dont to it actually !! we uase it only *close to zero* if it is zero .....????? it deos not apply to the photon !!

You don't say!

 Quote: the photon is a special exceptional case !!! evenonly onthe mathematical reason that it is a limit case evenmathematically *the gama factor does not apply to the photon

You don't say!

 Quote: that is another insight that i was pumping a long time ago and is mor eand more being recognized now again

It has always been known you idiot!

gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

If v=c, then we get, gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - 1) = 1/sqrt(0) = 1/0

It has always been obvious that gamma does not apply to the photon.

 Quote: you and orhers do not got it yet that in order to shoot a rabit-- you dont need cannons and the simpler the better (provided it is not oversimplified i think Einstein said that .......) 3 olease help PD to bring sunstantiated evidence that the detwchement of the gama factor from the mass (while there are mass and gama in a formula!)-- was done 80 years ago !!! at the case of E/Gama = mc-- the only other nonparroting alternative is to attache it to the ..... energy and it make much physics sense!! if you dont get it i will explain itagain !! btw even in case there is such evidence than i am not so stoopid as you put it because i did it independantly !! ATB Y.Porat --------------
Golden Boar
science forum Guru

Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 651

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:57 pm    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD)

Y.Porat wrote:
 Quote: Eric Gisse wrote: Y.Porat wrote: Eric Gisse wrote: Y.Porat wrote: [...] For future reference, this is a list - not necessairly all-inclusive - of a lot of tools that you can use: * Partial derivatives... ----------------------------------------- ?????? do you think anyone undersatnd what is that mumbling??? do youknow what do you want Of that list, I wonder how many you have mastered. I'm betting you have a firm grasp on four of them... you alrady agreed with me that E=gama m c^2 can be written as E/gama = mc^2 Congratulations, you sucessfully used algebra. [...] btw i called it : 'The third Porat postulate ' and it i srecorded in Google a few years ago Each one is more worthless than the next, by the way. ------------------------------------- there are a few explaantions to your answer: 1 you dont understand the importance of waht i did 2 you are a personal enemy that no matter waht i do you wilol try your best to kill me ! as dda 1 as Wake as phineas as varvey ie all those pomontous scientists that no one will remember after they had gone (and you bet that soemtimes they will be gone ...) no about posibility No 1 i am the first person in the history of science that DETACHED THE GAMA FACTOR FROM MASS !!! could you beleive it ??

No, you moron, it is simple algebra.

If E = gamma.m.c^2, then is is quite obvious that,

E/gamma = m.c^2
E/m = gamma.c^2
E/c^2 = gamma.m
E/(m.c^2) = gamma
E/(gamma.m) = c^2
E/(gamma.c^2) = m

All the above are just different forms of the same equation.

 Quote: if not bring evidence that anhyone else did it before me !! it is not just algebra it is deep understanding of physics

No, It is simple algebra you idiot, something which you obviously don't
understand.

 Quote: it takes a few seconds to write it but it takes 60 years to do it !!! in our case it took 100 years !!

It might take you 100 years, but most people could do it in a second.

 Quote: and if you dont get it untill now it has a revolutionary imppsct on the advance of science because once peoeple understand that say relativistic mass' or inertial; mass versus rest mass etc etc --- innonsensr physics it is just nonsensr mathematics and i already ayed tha tone of the big problems of modern physics is that amthematicians with no physics touch took over physics

This is you misunderstanding the concept of "rest", which you show by
saying that the photon has a"rest" mass. In other words you are saying
that photons have a speed of 0.

 Quote: they (and you) think tha tthe more pompous amthematics junglarigs you do the bigger physicist you are !! now what is killing you and others is : how isit that a moron person like Porat could do so 'easily' a breakthrough in physics as by just moving the gama factor from one side to another side !!

The only breaktrough was in your skull and it seems to have given you
brain damage.

 Quote: but you dont get thqt by that dead simple deed i broke a 'solid paradigm' that was rooling 100 years and was wrong !! ie that the gama factor belongs ONLY to the mass entity

No, it does not, and no one said it does.
It is also used in length contraction and time dilation.

 Quote: it is amazing that no one ever took the posibility that the gama does not belong at all to the mass !!

Who ever said that gamma belong to mass?

 Quote: do you know why ??

Because they never thought that in the first place.

 Quote: may be because it was initially accidentally ,written next to the mass !!

It was not initially written next to mass at all. Do some research.
Here's a hint, it's called the Lorentz factor.

 Quote: (just as stupid as that !!!) btw you was right that we cant use the E/Gama while gama is zero!! but we dont to it actually !! we uase it only *close to zero* if it is zero .....????? it deos not apply to the photon !!

You don't say!

 Quote: the photon is a special exceptional case !!! evenonly onthe mathematical reason that it is a limit case evenmathematically *the gama factor does not apply to the photon

You don't say!

 Quote: that is another insight that i was pumping a long time ago and is mor eand more being recognized now again

It has always been known you idiot!

gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

If v=c, then we get, gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - 1) = 1/sqrt(0) = 1/0

It has always been obvious that gamma does not apply to the photon.

 Quote: you and orhers do not got it yet that in order to shoot a rabit-- you dont need cannons and the simpler the better (provided it is not oversimplified i think Einstein said that .......) 3 olease help PD to bring sunstantiated evidence that the detwchement of the gama factor from the mass (while there are mass and gama in a formula!)-- was done 80 years ago !!! at the case of E/Gama = mc-- the only other nonparroting alternative is to attache it to the ..... energy and it make much physics sense!! if you dont get it i will explain itagain !! btw even in case there is such evidence than i am not so stoopid as you put it because i did it independantly !! ATB Y.Porat --------------
Randy Poe
science forum Guru

Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:12 pm    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD)

Y.Porat wrote:
 Quote: i am the first person in the history of science that DETACHED THE GAMA FACTOR FROM MASS !!! could you beleive it ?? if not bring evidence that anhyone else did it before me !!

gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

There you go. No mass in sight.

- Randy
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru

Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:30 pm    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD)

Randy Poe <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:

 Quote: Y.Porat wrote: i am the first person in the history of science that DETACHED THE GAMA FACTOR FROM MASS !!! could you beleive it ?? if not bring evidence that anhyone else did it before me !! gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) There you go. No mass in sight. - Randy

Is that the sum total of his hypothesis? f*** me, this is UG level
stuff. Porat, you are a cretin.

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru

Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:11 pm    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD)

Y.Porat wrote:
 Quote: Eric Gisse wrote: Y.Porat wrote: Eric Gisse wrote: Y.Porat wrote: [...] For future reference, this is a list - not necessairly all-inclusive - of a lot of tools that you can use: * Partial derivatives... ----------------------------------------- ?????? do you think anyone undersatnd what is that mumbling??? do youknow what do you want Of that list, I wonder how many you have mastered. I'm betting you have a firm grasp on four of them... you alrady agreed with me that E=gama m c^2 can be written as E/gama = mc^2 Congratulations, you sucessfully used algebra. [...] btw i called it : 'The third Porat postulate ' and it i srecorded in Google a few years ago Each one is more worthless than the next, by the way. ------------------------------------- there are a few explaantions to your answer: 1 you dont understand the importance of waht i did

I guess "it isn't important to anyone but yourself" isn't the answer
you were hoping for.

 Quote: 2 you are a personal enemy that no matter waht i do you wilol try your best to kill me !

Oh the melodrama!

 Quote: as dda 1 as Wake as phineas as varvey ie all those pomontous scientists that no one will remember after they had gone (and you bet that soemtimes they will be gone ...)

Who will remember you when you finally kick the bucket? Your family,
sure. Physicists? Not a chance. People here might wonder where you went
but nobody will really care.

You don't hear people mourning traveler, do you? He was equally sure
all of physics is wrong...

 Quote: no about posibility No 1 i am the first person in the history of science that DETACHED THE GAMA FACTOR FROM MASS !!!

For fucks sake. You did some algebra and you think it is a deep
insight?

 Quote: could you beleive it ?? if not bring evidence that anhyone else did it before me !!

It is like saying "bring me evidence someone stepped on this exact spot
on this here sidewalk!"

You are staggering down a well-traveled path.

 Quote: it is not just algebra it is deep understanding of physics it takes a few seconds to write it but it takes 60 years to do it !!! in our case it took 100 years !! and if you dont get it untill now it has a revolutionary imppsct on the advance of science

You have got to be shitting me. Do you honestly believe you have
discovered something deep by doing a little algebra? Congratulations,
you divided by gamma - you have accomplished nothing.

I accomplish more by lifiting a cheek and releasing gas.

[...]

Yawn.

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 Page 2 of 3 [45 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3 Next View previous topic :: View next topic
 The time now is Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:06 pm | All times are GMT
 Jump to: Select a forum-------------------Forum index|___Science and Technology    |___Math    |   |___Research    |   |___num-analysis    |   |___Symbolic    |   |___Combinatorics    |   |___Probability    |   |   |___Prediction    |   |       |   |___Undergraduate    |   |___Recreational    |       |___Physics    |   |___Research    |   |___New Theories    |   |___Acoustics    |   |___Electromagnetics    |   |___Strings    |   |___Particle    |   |___Fusion    |   |___Relativity    |       |___Chem    |   |___Analytical    |   |___Electrochem    |   |   |___Battery    |   |       |   |___Coatings    |       |___Engineering        |___Control        |___Mechanics        |___Chemical

 Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post Similar Topics Question about Life. socratus Probability 0 Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:01 pm Probability Question dumont Probability 0 Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:38 pm Question about exponention WingDragon@gmail.com Math 2 Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:13 am question on solartron 1260 carrie_yao@hotmail.com Electrochem 0 Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:11 am A Combinatorics/Graph Theory Question mathlover Undergraduate 1 Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:30 pm