View Full Version : US $50,000.00 To a Relativist Proving this Challenge Invalid!


MacM
12-21-04, 07:53 PM
Now don't yell at me. I clearly am not going to comment on all the mathematics. But this man is offering all you whizes $50 Grand to show him wrong.

BTW: If you win, I expect a commission. :D

http://members.aol.com/crebigsol/awards.htm

Pete
12-21-04, 10:59 PM
The fine print is interesting.

Rebigsol specifies that to claim the award, the rebuttal must be published in a reputable scientific journal ("registered in the government for circulation before 1994 with total annual subscriptions of no less than 500 every year since then.")

Rebisol also specifies that "Work written to disprove Rebigsol must focus on Rebigsol’s calculations".

This poses a difficulty. Since Rebigsol's claims haven't been published in such a journal, it is extremely unlikely that any paper focussing on Rebigsol's claims will be accepted for publication, regardless of their merit.


Just a thought. I'm obviously not addressing Rebigsol's claims, or even his sincerity... only the practicality of his award.

Nasor
12-22-04, 01:25 AM
Indeed. There's no way a major peer-reviewed journal would publish someone's rebuttal to an internet crackpot, so his prize is fundamentally unclaimable.

Quantum Quack
12-22-04, 01:41 AM
very interesting link, MacM. Although I have not the slightest idea of what all those figures and equations mean it certainly seems to go to town on the issue.

teh very idea of a reverse challenge should appeal to those wishing to really know the subject of SRT.
If after all the work in trying to find fault with his contentions you still can't then you have learned something I guess.

MacM
12-22-04, 08:35 AM
Indeed. There's no way a major peer-reviewed journal would publish someone's rebuttal to an internet crackpot, so his prize is fundamentally unclaimable.

I would tend to agree with everything you say except your assumption that he is a crackpot. That clearly is based on bias and predjudice that anyone in disagreement with Relativists is a crackpot and not on any mathematical evaluation of his presentation.

If it is crackpot then it should be fairly easy for those skilled in mathematics to point that out.

MacM
12-22-04, 08:40 AM
very interesting link, MacM. Although I have not the slightest idea of what all those figures and equations mean it certainly seems to go to town on the issue.

teh very idea of a reverse challenge should appeal to those wishing to really know the subject of SRT.
If after all the work in trying to find fault with his contentions you still can't then you have learned something I guess.

Unfortunately Relativists are convienced that there can be nothing wrong with SRT and therefore it is a waste of time to evaluate any challenges. All challengers are crackpots, regardless of their scientific experience, education and comperable mathematical skills..

Yuriy
12-22-04, 09:10 AM
I red all posted in the cited link materials. Everything from the beginning to the end is pure BS.
It is easy to prove it, to show a lot of errors the author does. It is easy to publish this analysis in any scientific magazine (simply paying for publication let say 10.000 per page; 2-3 pages will be enough to show all nonsense). Problem is, that you never will get the promised money - all crackpot are the same: no matter how accurate, clear and consistent proves of their errors you submit they are responding the same - "You did not address the issue. I won, you lose. I am right, you are wrong. I won, you lose". We saw that many times in our Forum.
So, nobody of professionals will buy that trick with $50.000...

MacM
12-22-04, 09:15 AM
....

I don't think you will get 50 cents much less $50,000.00 for that answer.

chroot
12-22-04, 03:27 PM
And for the 10,000th time, MacM posts another crackpot website and tries to make everyone else debunk it.

- Warren

MacM
12-22-04, 04:35 PM
And for the 10,000th time, MacM posts another crackpot website and tries to make everyone else debunk it.

- Warren

1 - I don't make you do anything. You may choose your normal approach which is to simply make unsupported or false allegations about somebody being a crackpot.

2 - Your assertion this is crackpot is not supported without showing error in his work.

James R
12-22-04, 05:50 PM
MacM:

Do you support this guy's work? Do you agree with him?

MacM
12-22-04, 10:34 PM
I red all posted in the cited link materials. Everything from the beginning to the end is pure BS.
It is easy to prove it, to show a lot of errors the author does. It is easy to publish this analysis in any scientific magazine (simply paying for publication let say 10.000 per page; 2-3 pages will be enough to show all nonsense). Problem is, that you never will get the promised money - all crackpot are the same: no matter how accurate, clear and consistent proves of their errors you submit they are responding the same - "You did not address the issue. I won, you lose. I am right, you are wrong. I won, you lose". We saw that many times in our Forum.

And we have seen as many times the unsupported fiat and claims that people simply don't understand. (which of course is no answer what-so-ever scientifically to the issues raised).


So, nobody of professionals will buy that trick with $50.000...

His requirement is that you get your proof published. It says nothing about him agreeing with your proof. You are dealing with mathematics. Mathematics are either correct or in error. Talk is cheap. He committed to mathematics. Lets see you do the same.

Well, you claim there is not one correct thing in his work. You should therefore find it rather easy to point out specific mathematical errors rather than speaking from ahigh as with authority.

James R
12-22-04, 10:57 PM
I've read as far as the first equation set of section 1 of his "reward" paper. That equation set is wrong. No need to go any further.

I won't bother trying to get the money, since I'm sure this crank won't pay up.

MacM
12-22-04, 11:05 PM
I've read as far as the first equation set of section 1 of his "reward" paper. That equation set is wrong. No need to go any further.

I won't bother trying to get the money, since I'm sure this crank won't pay up.

Anybody can simply state he is wrong. It would be more professional if you were to show where and how he is wrong.

idiot
12-23-04, 11:54 PM
anyway, poincare(!) worked on srt...it can't have mathematical errors

Quantum Quack
12-24-04, 12:09 AM
My two cents worth:

You know I have been in conflict with SRT for nealy 2 years at this forum and I have finally come to the conclusion that it is totally valid. The reason why it is being subjected to challenges is simply that not many people know how to apply it's principles correctly and expose the theory to ridicule. I have yet to meet any one including all participants at this forum who knows how to apply SRT properly.
So suffice to say that until it is applied properly it will always attract criticism and be considered as flawed when in fact it is the application of SRT that is flawed due to the ignorance of the exponents of SRT.
This is not to say that I in any way know how to apply it as I am just as ignorant as any one. But the glaring problems that seem to continuously crop up are simply becasue the theory is being misunderstood by every one, from teacher to pupil.
I would even go further that Albert E. even misinterpreted his own understanding as he attempted to accomodate conventional thinking into his theory. [which I might add is teh mistake that every one seems to be making]
From what I have just realised even E=mc^2 is not always kept in mind when working with SRT when in fact it is this very formula that proves SRT to be correct. I would suggest that if in the application of SRT we forget that E=mc^2 must remain true at all times then we may inadvertantly be corrupting the use of a theory that we are attempting to use.
Yuiry is indeed in another thread attempting to show just this. And how important it is to keep SRT valid regards E=mc^2

The thread title is "Mass and Rest mass"

James R
12-25-04, 06:29 AM
Anybody can simply state he is wrong. It would be more professional if you were to show where and how he is wrong.

Can't you see his mistake?

He uses x=ct and x'=ct', which are only true for a specific case (light). But the Lorentz tranformations won't transform to a light-like reference frame.

Paul T
12-25-04, 09:59 AM
As usual, MacM fails to realize the crackpotery content of his link. Let's try to show him with some simple calculation.

Based on x=ct and x'=ct' Rebigsol changed Lorentz's transformation:


(1) x' = g [x - vt], and
(2) t' = g [t - (v/c<sup>2</sup>)x]
both to:


(3) x' = x*sqrt[(c-v)/(c+v)]
Consider a spaceship (x'-t' frame) passes earth (x-t frame) at t=t'=0 and x=x'=0. The ship moves at velocity 0.6c relative to earth. An event occurs at x=1 light second and at t=1 second. What is x' and t'?


Standard LT (equation 1) gives x' = 1.25*[1c sec - 0.6c*1sec] = 0.5 light second and t' = 1.25*[1 sec - 0.6*1 sec] = 0.5 sec.

Rebigsol's equation (3) gives x' = 1c sec sqrt[(1-0.6)/(1+0.6)] = 0.5 light second and t' = 0.5c sec/c = 0.5 sec, the same as LT's result!

Now, let's change the event time to t=0 (x remain the same - 1 light second).


Standard LT (equation 1) gives x' = 1.25*[1c sec - 0.6c*0] = 1.25 light second and t' = 1.25*[1 sec - 0.6*0 sec] = 1.25 sec.

Rebigsol's equation (3) gives x' = 1c sec sqrt[(1-0.6)/(1+0.6)] = 0.5 light second and t' = 0.5c sec/c = 0.5 sec, not the same as LT's result! Of couse not, since in his equation time is not independent, but connected to x according to t = x/c, which is only a special case. This shows that Rebigsol's equation (3) is not the same as LT's (1) and (2). Equation (3) is just a special case for (1) and (2) for one specific event, that is an event occurring at x at time t=x/c. However, an event's x and t are not necessary connected in that way.

I think I have just wasted my time. MacM will, as usual, tell us that "I am right you are wrong, I win you lose!" :D

Prosoothus
12-25-04, 12:19 PM
Quantum Quack,


You know I have been in conflict with SRT for nealy 2 years at this forum and I have finally come to the conclusion that it is totally valid.

That's very dissapointing considering that SR is based on the assumption that the speed of light is constant for all inertial observers, and this assumption has never been tested anywhere except on the surface of the Earth, stationairy in the Earth's gravitational field. If you where to assume that Einstein's frame-dragging concept is correct, which would mean that the Earth drags spacetime around, and if you were to assume that the speed of light is only equal to c relative to Einstein's "spacetime", then SR would not only be counterintuitive, but superfluous as well.

Quantum Quack
12-25-04, 04:22 PM
Pros, and not only that no one can really say why light is invariant when time is relative.

Light can not be invariant if light is not absolute in time.
So is time relative to or for our photon?

Roman
12-25-04, 06:48 PM
Check this out (from the site):

The derivation leading to the formulation of Lorentzian transformation in special relativity is actually a duplication of* an* ancient* “miracle”* in* algebra: 2x-x=0, 2x=x, 2=1.

You cannot go from 2x=x to 2=1 since dividing by x is dividing by zero (as 2x-x=0, x=0) and results in zero over zero.

idiot
12-25-04, 08:23 PM
acho que tem a ver com a deformacao do espaco

Prosoothus
12-26-04, 08:08 AM
Quantum Quack,


Pros, and not only that no one can really say why light is invariant when time is relative.

Light can not be invariant if light is not absolute in time. So is time relative to or for our photon?

In my opinion, time is always constant and is never relative. Let's not forget that clocks do not measure time, they only measure the speed of specific physical reactions. If there are specific physical reactions that are inert, or completed isolated, from other internal or external interactions, then a clock measuring those reactions can also be said to be measuring time. However, how can anyone say that a specific physical reaction is not being influenced by internal or external forces? For example, can anyone really say that none of the physical or electrical components of an atomic clock which is travelling through a gravitational field are not influenced by that field?

Yuriy
12-26-04, 08:51 AM
idiot,

hvelapery sheidzleba!

MacM
12-26-04, 10:48 PM
As usual, MacM fails to realize the crackpotery content of his link. Let's try to show him with some simple calculation.

MacM hasn't commented on his work.


I think I have just wasted my time. MacM will, as usual, tell us that "I am right you are wrong, I win you lose!" :D

See you are indeed wrong again.

Now go collect your $50K.

Starman
12-26-04, 11:02 PM
Anybody can simply state he is wrong. It would be more professional if you were to show where and how he is wrong.

MacM I found someone who said he was wrong. Of course he was on a different forum. Here is a link to A thread I posted on another forum read what they said.

I go by the name Abstruse there.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=57763

They moved the thread to Debunking but I originally posted it in the general physics part of the forum and then they locked it. So it sure looks like some scientists are very quick to reject new ideas and they are quick to label people as heretics.

Starman
12-26-04, 11:12 PM
Quantum Quack,



In my opinion, time is always constant and is never relative. Let's not forget that clocks do not measure time, they only measure the speed of specific physical reactions. If there are specific physical reactions that are inert, or completed isolated, from other internal or external interactions, then a clock measuring those reactions can also be said to be measuring time. However, how can anyone say that a specific physical reaction is not being influenced by internal or external forces? For example, can anyone really say that none of the physical or electrical components of an atomic clock which is travelling through a gravitational field are not influenced by that field?

We have proven that Gravity as we know it will influence an Atomic clock. When we take two Identical Atomic Clocks together at sea level and take one of the clocks to a high altitude say orbit and then bring it back to the clock at sea level they reflect different times.

MacM
12-26-04, 11:20 PM
We have proven that Gravity as we know it will influence an Atomic clock. When we take two Identical Atomic Clocks together at sea level and take one of the clocks to a high altitude say orbit and then bring it back to the clock at sea level they reflect different times.

Right and when you take an atomic clock and a theoretically accurate pendulum grandfather clock and synchronize and calibrate them at sea level and then move them to Denver, Colorado, the atomic clock increases tick rate and the GF clock slows down. Both clocks are subject to external influences and neither can be shown to be measuring time but only marking time at some frequency.

Changing the frequency of such measurements does not change time itself but only our measurement of it.

MacM
12-26-04, 11:24 PM
MacM I found someone who said he was wrong. Of course he was on a different forum. Here is a link to A thread I posted on another forum read what they said.

I go by the name Abstruse there.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=57763

They moved the thread to Debunking but I originally posted it in the general physics part of the forum and then they locked it. So it sure looks like some scientists are very quick to reject new ideas and they are quick to label people as heretics.

HeHe. You might go back there with my "Relative Velocity" requires concurrent tick rates of clocks and the debacle that that causes with time dilation, on that forum. It got me banned. :D

Post

Starman
12-26-04, 11:32 PM
HeHe. You might go back there with my "Relative Velocity" requires concurrent tick rates of clocks and the debacle that that causes with time dilation, on that forum. It got me banned. :D

Post

About the clock, could the effect be explained by the fact that the curviture of space is less at a higher altitued due to space being less and less distorted the further you get away from the Earth?

MacM
12-26-04, 11:43 PM
About the clock, could the effect be explained by the fact that the curviture of space is less at a higher altitued due to space being less and less distorted the further you get away from the Earth?

I think you missed the point. The two clocks react oppositely to the change in gravity (GR). So which clock if any should you use to claim Relavistic affects of time and not just meaurement changes of time?

So which clock tells you your aging?

Starman
12-27-04, 12:09 AM
So which clock tells you your aging?

Both depending on your location.

Time is only reletive to the observer.

I
think you missed the point. The two clocks react oppositely to the change in gravity (GR). So which clock if any should you use to claim Relavistic affects of time and not just meaurement changes of time?

I would guess it would be the clock that was taken to a high altitude and returned to sea level.

The clock at sea level is the frame refference. What is measured is the effect of gravity on the clock.

MacM
12-27-04, 12:48 AM
Both depending on your location.

Time is only reletive to the observer.

I

I would guess it would be the clock that was taken to a high altitude and returned to sea level.

The clock at sea level is the frame refference. What is measured is the effect of gravity on the clock.

Which clock do you propose supports the theory of Relativity. One speeds up the other slows down?

Paul T
12-27-04, 05:49 AM
Right and when you take an atomic clock and a theoretically accurate pendulum grandfather clock and synchronize and calibrate them at sea level and then move them to Denver, Colorado, the atomic clock increases tick rate and the GF clock slows down. Both clocks are subject to external influences and neither can be shown to be measuring time but only marking time at some frequency.

Changing the frequency of such measurements does not change time itself but only our measurement of it.

Hahaha, MacM...what's a silly idea again. Didn't we discuss about this before? You haven't gotten any idea about it, have you? I guess not. Poor MacM. Think again. I am not even interested to give any further comment on this post.

MacM
12-27-04, 08:34 AM
Hahaha, MacM...what's a silly idea again. Didn't we discuss about this before? You haven't gotten any idea about it, have you? I guess not. Poor MacM. Think again. I am not even interested to give any further comment on this post.

We actually notice that your comments have no scientific merit and fail to address this most obvious quirk in the assumptions being made regarding SRT and GR.

Prosoothus
12-27-04, 11:00 AM
Starman,


We have proven that Gravity as we know it will influence an Atomic clock. When we take two Identical Atomic Clocks together at sea level and take one of the clocks to a high altitude say orbit and then bring it back to the clock at sea level they reflect different times.

I'm just implying that an atomic clock that is moving through a gravitational field may be influenced by that field as well.

2inquisitive
12-27-04, 03:36 PM
Mac, do you believe terms 'gravitational field' and 'gravitational force' or attraction
mean the same thing? I don't. To me, a gravitational field is like a magnetic field, it
exists whether it is acting on an object that inters that field or not, say like the
magnetic field between two powerful magnetics that are separated by one meter.
A steel ball placed halfway between the two magnetics (or gravitationally equal planets) would feel little force from either, but it would still be within each's field.
A grandfather clock would feel no gravitational force if placed in a 'neutral' area
between planets, but the fields would still exist and affect the tick rate of the atomic
clocks. The 'intensity' of the field would be relative to the strength of the sources (planets
or magnets) but would have nothing to do with the measured force of gravity on an
object in that location. I therefore believe clock rates are determined by the intensity
of the gravitational field they are in and acceleration, say by a rocket engine, has not
been proven to have the same affect on clock rates. Mechanically, g-forces due to
gravity and acceleration from a rocket engine may be equivalent, but I question whether the effects on time are the same. JMHO.

MacM
12-27-04, 05:24 PM
Mac, do you believe terms 'gravitational field' and 'gravitational force' or attraction mean the same thing? I don't.

Nor would I. I'm sure we see the field differently but the force only exists on an object placed in the field.


To me, a gravitational field is like a magnetic field, it exists whether it is acting on an object that inters that field or not, say like the magnetic field between two powerful magnetics that are separated by one meter.

A steel ball placed halfway between the two magnetics (or gravitationally equal planets) would feel little force from either, but it would still be within each's field.

True to some extent but you have to recall that the tidal forces between such fields could be enormous and actually pull mass apart while only a theoretical Lagrange point would be neutral.


A grandfather clock would feel no gravitational force if placed in a 'neutral' area between planets, but the fields would still exist and affect the tick rate of the atomic clocks.

The 'intensity' of the field would be relative to the strength of the sources (planets or magnets) but would have nothing to do with the measured force of gravity on an object in that location.

Again I think you should recall that the tidal forces could be great while the net force toward either massive object was balanced for the mass at a Lagrange point. i.e - an atom caught between binary black holes, etc.

As to the affects on clocks I would agree. Now one must decide what it is that is changing. If Relativity doesn't predict that all clocks change equally then we are not talking about clocks actually measuring time but are merely marking time intervals with a frequency and it is this measurement process that is changing and not time perse'.


I therefore believe clock rates are determined by the intensity of the gravitational field they are in and acceleration, say by a rocket engine, has not been proven to have the same affect on clock rates. Mechanically, g-forces due to gravity and acceleration from a rocket engine may be equivalent, but I question whether the effects on time are the same. JMHO.

I would be inclined to agree that it is actaully still an unknown. I would repeat that the changing tick rate of an atomic clock still doesn't prove that time has changed but that only our mearurement has changed.

Starman
12-27-04, 05:54 PM
Which clock do you propose supports the theory of Relativity. One speeds up the other slows down?

The clock that is taken to a high altitude speeds up. The clock at sea level remains constant as a frame reference.

If both clocks are affected by the experiment then that would have to do with dimensional space effected by an homogenous field.

The clock that supports SR is the one taken to a high altitude? :rolleyes:

MacM
12-27-04, 06:26 PM
The clock that is taken to a high altitude speeds up. The clock at sea level remains constant as a frame reference.

If both clocks are affected by the experiment then that would have to do with dimensional space effected by an homogenous field.

The clock that supports SR is the one taken to a high altitude? :rolleyes:

Starman:

You still missed the issue. BOTH clocks are moved to the higher elevation. One slows down the other speeds up. :rolleyes: Indeed.

Starman
12-27-04, 06:37 PM
Starman:

You still missed the issue. BOTH clocks are moved to the higher elevation. One slows down the other speeds up. :rolleyes: Indeed.

Has this been observed? And if so how is this possible?

Persol
12-27-04, 06:56 PM
This is one of MacM's strawmen.

The pendulum clock is effectively powered by gravity, and doesn't keep the same tempo in different gravity even when observing it from the same frame of reference. The atomic clock does not have these issues.

Niether disagree with what relativity says and they both behave as physics predicts.

Starman
12-27-04, 07:15 PM
This is one of MacM's strawmen.

The pendulum clock is effectively powered by gravity, and doesn't keep the same tempo in different gravity even when observing it from the same frame of reference. The atomic clock does not have these issues.

Niether disagree with what relativity says and they both behave as physics predicts.

Thank you for the insight ;)

MacM
12-28-04, 01:23 AM
Thank you for the insight ;)

Persol calls it a strawman. I call it obvious. If clocks measure time then something is wrong here. Since we know that the pendulum clock has the opposite reaction to an atomic clock under GR considerations, one must now ask what clocks, if any, are actually measuring time and are we looking at time change or merely measurement change.

My post is not an arguement that stands as any proof, but it begs the question that they choose to ignore. There is nothing that says the frequency of an atomic cock is any more related to passage of time than a timex with a weak battery. They are all processes and processes are affected by external enfluences.

Clocks do not even prove time exists in the form claimed much less that time is being dilated. You have only proven that some clocks will slow down and others will speed up according to Relativity.

This can very well just be frequency markers on an unchanging universal time.

Quantum Quack
12-28-04, 02:33 AM
This can very well just be frequency markers on an unchanging universal time.
Which SRT on closer inspection actually declares is a universal change rate of v=c.

Starman
12-28-04, 07:00 PM
Persol calls it a strawman. I call it obvious. If clocks measure time then something is wrong here. Since we know that the pendulum clock has the opposite reaction to an atomic clock under GR considerations, one must now ask what clocks, if any, are actually measuring time and are we looking at time change or merely measurement change.

My post is not an arguement that stands as any proof, but it begs the question that they choose to ignore. There is nothing that says the frequency of an atomic cock is any more related to passage of time than a timex with a weak battery. They are all processes and processes are affected by external enfluences.

Clocks do not even prove time exists in the form claimed much less that time is being dilated. You have only proven that some clocks will slow down and others will speed up according to Relativity.

This can very well just be frequency markers on an unchanging universal time.

The 24 hour clock is a measurement of the rotation of the Earth. One complete rotation per 24 Hours. Is the time of Rotation the same at all altitude's?

Would this not be a test for time dilation?

MacM
12-28-04, 08:47 PM
The 24 hour clock is a measurement of the rotation of the Earth. One complete rotation per 24 Hours. Is the time of Rotation the same at all altitude's?

Would this not be a test for time dilation?

Time of rotation is the same but velocity is different, as is distance traveled.

However the rotational velocity of earth at the equator would be 0.000001544c. That equates to a change from 1.00 down to 0.99999999999761542 as a relavistic change between the pole and the equator.

Or a time change of one second in 13,323 years, 5 months, 9 days, 2 hours 58 minutes and 48 seconds. (using 365 days per year and no leap year or seconds counted). Or about 45 times more accuracy than current atomic clocks.

Also trying to measure time due to rotational velocity would also require precise gravity measurement and calculations for GR affects since the earth is not a sphere but an oblate spheroid with varying density of mantles.

Starman
12-29-04, 07:59 AM
Time of rotation is the same but velocity is different, as is distance traveled.

However the rotational velocity of earth at the equator would be 0.000001544c. That equates to a change from 1.00 down to 0.99999999999761542 as a relavistic change between the pole and the equator.

Or a time change of one second in 13,323 years, 5 months, 9 days, 2 hours 58 minutes and 48 seconds. (using 365 days per year and no leap year or seconds counted). Or about 45 times more accuracy than current atomic clocks.

Also trying to measure time due to rotational velocity would also require precise gravity measurement and calculations for GR affects since the earth is not a sphere but an oblate spheroid with varying density of mantles.

Interesting, I would say that time is effected by what we know as Gravity or Static Cling. I use this term because it seems to me that if space is energy and the Earth is traveling through an energy field would it not create a static energy on the surface of the planet?

Could this explain the attraction of all matter and the generation of an electromagnetic field?

lil miss demosthenes
12-29-04, 10:16 AM
If he used less obnoxious colors and disjointed font sizes, had a proper domain branching from his own site instead of AOL’s, and sounded less like an immature overrated seven-year-old, maybe those looking at the site at first glance would be more easily swindled.

Not to be extremely critical or bitchy, but the presentation just doesn’t strike a chord.

I know that is completely unrelated, but I just came here, and this thread looked like it was active again, so I’m sorry if this was a late post [beside the fact that it is completely random and off a tangent].

edit> I just realized it could be a total satire. I know, I'm slow.

QuarkHead
12-29-04, 05:43 PM
edit> I just realized it could be a total satire. I know, I'm slow.

Saddest thing is, lil miss, it ain't a satire. These chaps really beleive this stuff

MacM
12-29-04, 07:31 PM
Saddest thing is, lil miss, it ain't a satire. These chaps really beleive this stuff

You bet. Care to actually try to answer the issue raised? :D

lil miss demosthenes
12-29-04, 07:57 PM
You bet. Care to actually try to answer the issue raised? :D

Sure =)

QuarkHead
12-30-04, 01:06 PM
Sure =)

Try it,lil miss. Better "men" than you have failed!

By the way - your by-line is really clever. Like it a lot.

lil miss demosthenes
12-30-04, 02:33 PM
#include < inabilitytocontainlaughter.h > /* this header file includes killQuarkhead() and befriendQuarkhead() functions */

main() {

void propername(); // prototype

printf("Call me demie."); // everyone needs to know this

if(quarkhead == idiot) { // I hope he really knows what the fuck he talks about

printf("Also, that was a very silly attempt at sarcasm when I was in a laconic mood."); // meaning my “Sure =)” at MacM
propername(); // a consequence for your actions

}
return wtf?;
}

void propername()
{
char x;
cout << “what is her name?”; // her being me, in case you really are an imbecile
cin >> x;

if(x == ‘lilmiss’) // ugh how aristocratic
{
killQuarkhead();
return deadbody; // yes, and return all of your fortunes too after you’re dead
}

if(x == ‘demie’)
{
befriendQuarkhead(); /* if you’d actually want to be friends with a blabbering girl who has virtually no clue what she’s doing, including this piece of erroneous code */
return hilbert space; // would you prefer a Banach space?
}
return 0;
}

Your results:
Line 1: Forbids the use of undeclared connotation ‘men’
Line 2: Warning! Referring to the global variable ‘demie’!
Line 2: Forbids comparison between this variable and the locally declared variable ‘clever’ in any conditional statement.
General error; abort: There are simply too many errors for this compiler to list out. Actually, there are only three, but most compilers equate three with infinity and there's no fucking thing you can do about it. There is something seriously wrong with your program. Please consider shooting yourself in the head. Thank you. PS: Are you a Windows coder? Thought so. You deserve something worse than shooting.

Bite me.

It's a good thing I've stopped programming. Just look at my syntax.

QuarkHead
12-31-04, 02:47 PM
Well now _ re our earlier exchange -I've found this. Maybe you have thought a bit about it (or not)

This is a massively offensive piece of nonsense. You are entitled to be angry with your own life. But why throw it into others

If you are disappointed with what you find here, change it. e.g. start a new intelligent thread, or join in on something other than a personal level

(you started your membership by regretting the level of discussion. Raise it or go elsewhere)

lil miss demosthenes
12-31-04, 03:48 PM
I don't think it's offensive at all. It's a matter of how you look at it, QuarkHead. If it has offended you, cry about it. None of the killQuarkhead()/befriendQuarkhead() functions were meant to be taken seriously. Of course, if you really did take it seriously, I would deem you quite daft.

Of course I would love to change it around here. But who would listen to me? I'm mathematically incompetent, I'm 13 - younger than most people here - which would lead to contempt, and most of all, I have very limited time. Even if I wanted to reply to someone in depth, I would most certainly be pulled away and leave it very half-done [backfiring certain things]. This is due to coursework and my attempts to preserve my teetering health.

All in all, why should I be the only one to have any obligation to alter the way things have always worked around here? Members founded this place, they run it, they post in it. Everyone needs to work to bring any type of progress. If no one cooperates with me, my efforts would only be futile.

QuarkHead, I urge you to lay off whatever stressing work you have. Because it is starting to affect your humor-sensing portion of the brain.

Good luck to everything, mate.