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 » Physics
absolute zero
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 228 [3408 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  1, 2, 3, ..., 226, 227, 228 Next
Author Message
Spirit of Truth
science forum beginner


Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:48 am    Post subject: Re: Information and the Aether Reply with quote

"The TimeLord" <mathnphysics-not@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.20.05.52.05.386490@bellsouth.net...
Quote:
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 11:48:57 -0400, "Laurent" <cyberdyno1@lycos.com> wrote
in <_L6dnSn2q_SYMJyiXTWJig@comcast.com>:

[...]
The aether is what makes the magnetic, electric and gravitational fields
react to each other and other phenomena (charge, mass...) the manner in
which they do, as autopoeisis occurs.

"Autopoeisis" is not a word. Cf
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/autopoeisis

[...]

As far as the rest of the stuff is concerned, I think it's
been explained ad nauseum that the aether concept is self-
contradictory. Also, since Relativity explains things better
than the aether concept, the aether concept should be dis-
carded.

Perhaps, but out of sync reality IS false, so the basics of Relativity
are missing something somewhere

Spirit

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!

Quote:
// The TimeLord says:
// Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us!
Back to top
The TimeLord
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 12 Jun 2005
Posts: 182

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:52 am    Post subject: Re: Information and the Aether Reply with quote

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 11:48:57 -0400, "Laurent" <cyberdyno1@lycos.com> wrote
in <_L6dnSn2q_SYMJyiXTWJig@comcast.com>:

[...]
Quote:
The aether is what makes the magnetic, electric and gravitational fields
react to each other and other phenomena (charge, mass...) the manner in
which they do, as autopoeisis occurs.

"Autopoeisis" is not a word. Cf
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/autopoeisis

[...]

As far as the rest of the stuff is concerned, I think it's
been explained ad nauseum that the aether concept is self-
contradictory. Also, since Relativity explains things better
than the aether concept, the aether concept should be dis-
carded.

--
// The TimeLord says:
// Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us!
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
sdr
science forum addict


Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 82

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:52 pm    Post subject: Re: The Achilles Heel of String Theory. Reply with quote

EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:

Quote:
I cannot agree that "social agreement ... makes [things] sensible".

Please talk it over with your dog. And you'llassie I'm right.

Quote:
Additionally, that which is not sensible may nevertheless be real. Many
wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation are not sensible, and were
unknown prior to the invention of certain machines. Nevertheless, they
are real.

I think you're confusing cotton candy with radiation:

All that existed before man existed. And all
that will exist after Man will exist. But nobody
made change for a dollar before Man, and no-
body will laugh at a good joke after Man (nor
at a bad one, smarty pants). --SDR

Quote:
The same may hold true for spatial dimensions in excess of 3.

May I speak with your dog? I think it might be
more sensible...

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

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

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

PLEASE RE-READ this thread from the original post!

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."

Quote:
Additionally, there is an underlying
assumption that human senses can
completely discern all existing dimensions,
which is an unproven assumption.

This happens when you come in late into the
conversation: You are assuming that there are
such things as mathematical dimensions in
the universe apart from "our" three!

No, not quite. 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 SOMETING 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 superflous: 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!

Quote:
? I have no strong opinion on whether such
dimensions are real.

Then prey tell, what be U doing in this conversation?

Quote:
I concede that they are not presently sensible. I
hold open the possibility that, with unknown technology, they may become
sensible.

What about ghosts? And pixies? And gods? And
those beings that consist only of unglued eyes with ears
stuck to them...?

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
Back to top
dda1
science forum Guru


Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 5:24 pm    Post subject: Re: Moving Dimensions Theory!! Rock On!! - The Fucking Troll is Back Reply with quote

drelliot@gmail.com wrote:


<snipped>

aren't you the fucking troll who posted few months back claimig that
you are a "researcher" at Stanford only to be exposed as a fraud? Of
course you are, do you think we forgot, shithead?

You are in dire need of serious therapy, kook.
..
Back to top
sdr
science forum addict


Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 82

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 5:21 pm    Post subject: Re: The Achilles Heel of String Theory. Reply with quote

EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
Quote:
In sci.physics.electromag Bill
Hobba <rubbish@junk.com> wrote:

Rest of usual very long winded
semantic junk snipped.

I too think that this is semantics.

Yup, this is indeed "the study of meaning."
Unless your usage is the reprehensibly vulgar
"propaganda."

Quote:
The definition of reality, for
example, limits the possibilities.

If we do not define reality... we are mad.
It is our social agreement on the purpose/use
(et al) of things (including ourselves)
which makes them sensible.

Think of a dog's brain, and what he makes of
the items in his master's house: Since most of
those items have no "dog use" they must not
register as they do to us. Therefore your dog
must think that you live in a heap of trash, a
clean, a synthetically perfumed dump. (Which
is why most dogs puzzle eternaly over their masters'
objection to their crapping all over the place, I'm
sure: "It's just a dump, forheavens'sake! Wolf!")

Reality is all. And we can hardly go about
thinking everything at the same time, now can we!

Quote:
Additionally, there is an underlying
assumption that human senses can
completely discern all existing dimensions,
which is an unproven assumption.

This happens when you come in late into the
conversation: You are assuming that there are
such things as mathematical dimensions in
the universe apart from "our" three! This is a
bum assumption [that our reality is confined
to three dimensions] ... but if you go back up
this thread of posts you will eventually reach
the part where I point out your insanity (that's
my job). And then you too shall be cured!

Quote:
I'd appreciate comments on these observations
by the OP.

OP
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com


Quote:
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow

A nation of wolves will make a bloody mess of any/all
governments proposed for them. ---S D Rodrian



..
..
..
Back to top
T Wake
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 5:19 pm    Post subject: Re: Moving Dimensions Theory!! Rock On!! Reply with quote

<drelliot@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152201145.304114.325940@a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
Hello All,
Please respect that Moving Dimensions Theory is just a theory.
I look forward to feedback and insights regarding its logic.

Can I bill you for the time?
Back to top
Archie Leach
science forum beginner


Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 2:45 pm    Post subject: Re: I invite any and all to plonk me, both in life and on Usenet. Reply with quote

Jeff…Relf <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote:

Quote:
Hi Duckie, You told me:

Thats really got to you. You hate the fact that people think you're not
worth listening too. Do the girls in the coffee shop smile sweetly
while they tare at their feet waiting for the looney to go away?

I'm not as social as all that. I don't hang out in coffee shops or bars,
and I invite any and all to plonk me, both in life and on Usenet.

I invite you to go plonk yourself.

Quote:
Miranda, for example, is a very sexy/intelligent woman
who used to keep her stuff in my room, the landlord/tenants complained
several times about it so I told her repeatedly, for weeks on end,
to move here stuff out... eventually I tossed it all out.
She wasn't mad at me for that,
but she bitched at her boyfriend Shawn; who, in turn, bitched at me.
I'm simply not allowed to have frequent guests who aren't on the lease.
As for sex, I can take it or leave it,
it's just not that big of a deal anymore.
Kids might be nice, but I can barely afford rent as it is,
and working more hours doesn't really appeal to me.

A little concept you may or may not have heard of:

TMI
Back to top
T Wake
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 5:44 pm    Post subject: Re: I invite any and all to plonk me, both in life and on Usenet. Reply with quote

"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Jul_4_S2V8@Cotse.NET...
Quote:
Hi Duckie, You told me:

Thats really got to you. You hate the fact that people think you're not
worth listening too. Do the girls in the coffee shop smile sweetly
while they tare at their feet waiting for the looney to go away?

I'm not as social as all that. I don't hang out in coffee shops or bars,

I am sure you don't. That would require at least a basic level of personal
hygiene.

Quote:
and I invite any and all to plonk me, both in life and on Usenet.

If you want to be "plonked" why post? Why not just write text files on your
PC and pretend the whole world has kill filed you?

<snip pointless crap>
Back to top
sdr
science forum addict


Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 82

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 3:37 pm    Post subject: Re: The Achilles Heel of String Theory. Reply with quote

Virgil wrote:
Quote:
In article <1152073768.049686.46360@j8g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
sdrodrian@sdrodrian.com wrote:

Bill Hobba wroteth:
"S D Rodrian" <sdr@sdrodrian.com> wrote in message
news:44AAB880.2040906@sdrodrian.com...
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").


HINT: If it exists inside our 3-D reality, there is no
need for it to exist outside it.

As you have referred to reality in terms of dimensions, your "3
dimensional reality" is, by your own assessment, relegated to science
fiction.

"One cannot say, 'Him pulled the trigger!'"
--But, gee, Boss: You just said it!

The term "dimensions" is not only used in science and
mathematics but commonly. As in, "the dimensions of
this box are not enough." (I also need a sandwitch.)

But my point stands: It is ALWAYS an absurdity
when anyone limits (sets a number to) "dimensions."
And the number (which number) is irrelevant.

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
Back to top
yt56erd
science forum Guru


Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 313

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 9:28 am    Post subject: Re: I invite any and all to plonk me, both in life and on Usenet. Reply with quote

Jeff...FuckingRetard Relf wrote:
Quote:
Hi Duckie, You told me:

You are a stupid tit. you cant even work out how to reply to posts
properly. you ignorant cunt.

Quote:
I'm not as social as all that. I don't hang out in coffee shops or bars,
and I invite any and all to plonk me, both in life and on Usenet.

you arent fucking social because you are a parasitic leech with no
fucking social skills. no one likes you. you think this makes you cool
but it just marks you are a fucking pathetic looser.

Quote:
Miranda, for example, is a very sexy/intelligent woman
who used to keep her stuff in my room, the landlord/tenants complained
several times about it so I told her repeatedly, for weeks on end,
to move here stuff out... eventually I tossed it all out.

what the f*** does that have to do with you inviting her to plonk you.
you frigging idiot.

Quote:
She wasn't mad at me for that,
but she bitched at her boyfriend Shawn; who, in turn, bitched at me.

well, he is obviously as much of a pathetic cunt as you are. i would
have broken your wortheless jaw and fingers.

Quote:
I'm simply not allowed to have frequent guests who aren't on the lease.

so what? what the f*** did any of that have to do with your ridiculous
"plonk" comment. seriously, how fucking stupid are you?

Quote:
As for sex, I can take it or leave it,

whatever.

Quote:
it's just not that big of a deal anymore.
Kids might be nice, but I can barely afford rent as it is,
and working more hours doesn't really appeal to me.

well if you were actually decent at your frigging job you would get
paid more than minimum wage. as it stands, people on welfare get
more...
Back to top
Jeff…Relf
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 114

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 2:24 am    Post subject: I invite any and all to plonk me, both in life and on Usenet. Reply with quote

Hi Duckie, You told me:

Thats really got to you. You hate the fact that people think you're not
worth listening too. Do the girls in the coffee shop smile sweetly
while they tare at their feet waiting for the looney to go away?

I'm not as social as all that. I don't hang out in coffee shops or bars,
and I invite any and all to plonk me, both in life and on Usenet.
Miranda, for example, is a very sexy/intelligent woman
who used to keep her stuff in my room, the landlord/tenants complained
several times about it so I told her repeatedly, for weeks on end,
to move here stuff out... eventually I tossed it all out.
She wasn't mad at me for that,
but she bitched at her boyfriend Shawn; who, in turn, bitched at me.
I'm simply not allowed to have frequent guests who aren't on the lease.
As for sex, I can take it or leave it,
it's just not that big of a deal anymore.
Kids might be nice, but I can barely afford rent as it is,
and working more hours doesn't really appeal to me.
Back to top
T Wake
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:52 pm    Post subject: Re: Taking the time to actually understand what I write. Reply with quote

"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Jul_3_7rFX@Cotse.NET...
Quote:
Hi Tom Davidson, You told T_Wake:

Are you *encouraging* him to keep up the string of logical fallacies ?
As if he needs any encouragement...

I know your head hurts and all,
but you might benefit from taking the time to actually understand what I
write
instead of just calling me silly names.

Hi Maroon.

What names did he call you? I call you lots of names, mostly accurate but I
will admit I am probably off base with the diagnose of your mental
disorders.

Quote:
Of course I may not have the time or desire to explain it to you,
but you should at least hold off judgement
until you've made some serious effort.

Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:27 pm    Post subject: Re: Taking the time to actually understand what I write. Reply with quote

In article <Jeff_Relf_2006_Jul_3_7rFX@Cotse.NET>, Jeff’ĶRelf
<Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote:

Quote:
Hi Tom Davidson, You told T_Wake:

Are you *encouraging* him to keep up the string of logical fallacies ?
As if he needs any encouragement...

I know your head hurts and all,
but you might benefit from taking the time to actually understand what I write
instead of just calling me silly names.
Of course I may not have the time or desire to explain it to you,
but you should at least hold off judgement
until you've made some serious effort.

You first.

--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE".
Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
PWNER of Vert and TomGee since 2006
"I don't know that much math." - tomgee; 2 April 2006
"I don't claim to know what I'm talking about" - tomgee; 10 May 2006
PWNED

"Puddlefuck tou are on my kill file. Good bye" - Vert admits he cannot
calculate \gamma for a photon and admits defeat - 2nd July 2006
PWNED

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Back to top
tadchem
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 1348

PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:08 am    Post subject: Re: Taking the time to actually understand what I write. Reply with quote

Has it *yet* occurred to you that many here in the physics groups do
not care what you write because it fails to convey any physics?

You are usually involved in a personal confrontation with T Wake, who
seems to be the only one who can tolerate you for long.

Please get off the physics groups - at least until you try to learn a
little real physics (not that lame 60's 'New Age' metaphysics and
pseudoscience you have been spewing).

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 228 [3408 Posts] Goto page:  1, 2, 3, ..., 226, 227, 228 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:17 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Regression equation using absolute errors draccarlawpet Math 3 Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:39 pm
No new posts Maxwell's equation suggests absolute space and defy TWO N... guskz@hotmail.com Relativity 14 Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:46 pm
No new posts "Measuring Our Absolute Velocity" Klim Relativity 1 Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:57 am
No new posts "Measuring Our Absolute Velocity" Klim Particle 0 Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:57 am
No new posts "Measuring Our Absolute Velocity" Klim New Theories 0 Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:56 am

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: 0.1486s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0779s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]