Persol's Record

Discussion in 'About the Members' started by MacM, Jun 18, 2004.

  1. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Persol,

    Rather than see another topic pulled of course or cluttered with your crap I've started this thread to let you and others vent their frustrations.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I have deliberately not cited the many unsupported attacks on my person or statements, innuendo and misrepresentations you have made and picked a few of your actual statements regarding the general topic involving Lorentz Contraction.

    Hmmmm?

    Must you alter my statements or misquote me and then argue your on version of what has been said to have anything to say?.

    It does seem I wasn't the one not listening.

    It seems that you are wrong on this issue and I was right.

    You were wrong (and have actually admitted it - congratulations) on the issue of the UniKEF integration being inverse square.

    You were wrong about my comments on Brian Greene's presentation (and others) regarding GR and SR affects of Lorentz Contraction on a Merry-Go-Round.

    I'm sure there have been many others but I'll leave it at these.

    Considering your posts on these topics it would be rather difficult for you to now come back and state you knew all along I was right or that you actually understood these issues.

    It turns out when people stop the BS and actually research or pick up a pencil and go through such issues, I turn out to be correct.

    So your continued harassment is of little signifigance to me. It is giving you a black eye not me.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2004
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. jadedflower observer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,477
    What's the point of this little bitching thread where you try in vain to make a point? Just PM the dude.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Jesus, you can't read then. First:
    "For the n-th time, space isn't contracting" and "from earth sees space contract" are not mutually exclusive. If I use a magnifying glass, the page isn't actually bigger.
    Care to actually back this up? I thought not.
    Gonna back this up either?
    You've got to be kidding me. The discussion which you started (over several different threads might I add) were all about a first chapter relativity problem.
    Hehe...'I dont care, so I created this thread.' Uh huh...


    You're mistakes are heavily documented as is your spamming of UniKEF.
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=22891

    An example of your 'understanding of physics':
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Sorry to have to impose this on the forum but that doesn't work with this guy. He just follows me around wherever I post on any subject and makes false statements and casts innuendos and pretends to be some know it all, never contributing anything to the topic nor supplying any facts to back up his BS claims. :bugeye:
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2004
  8. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Lol, I follow you around? I always thought I read most of what was posted, and responded when I had something to say.

    Your posts are just usualyl fairly stupid, so I have something to say more often. Maybe the chiral condensate is going to your head... lol.
     
  9. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    READERS:

    Couldn't ask for a better example.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I posted just what he posted "For the n=th time, space isn't contracting". There were no further discertation.

    WHAT? I posted your altered version of my statement.

    For anybody actually interested, I'll go find the string and post it here.

    Actually, I changed my mind. That string was long and the following is a more concise presentation of the issue, my statements, and who was correct. The following is an e-mail from a "Ask a Physcists" at UT.
    ***************************************************
    From: "Joe Izen"
    To: "Dan McCoin"
    Subject: Re: Relativity
    Date: Monday, January 26, 2004 5:18 PM

    Dear Sir,

    I recently got into an extended arguement with at least (6) physicists
    and mathematicians over the fact that I stated Brian Greene fouled up in his
    book "the elegant universe" when he gave an analogy of the affects of relativity. (Other books on relativity make the same error)

    He stipulated that there are two people "Bill" and "Bob". Bill crawls along
    the circumference of a merry-go-round (mgr) which is at rest and uses a ruler to measure the distance. Bob crawls along the radial spoke and also measures the radius. Bob doubles his measurement to yield the diameter and they then divide Bill's measurement of the circumference and determine that the value of Pi is 3.141n.

    But then he claimed that when the mgr was set in motion that Bill would get a different measurement and Bob's wouldn't change and the result was that the value calculated for Pi would be different.

    I tried to point out that this is incorrect, that since the measurements were specified as being made by persons moving with the mgr Bill's ruler would also receive the same affect and any SR affect would not be measurable under those circumstances and the value of Pi would not be found to change.

    One scientist argued that GR came into play along the radius and that that caused the geometry (Pi value) to change.

    I repeated my arguement that it didn't matter about SR or GR because whatever affects they might have, persons (rulers) in motion with the mgr would not measure any change.

    Would you please comment on the correct interpretation. Does the measurements change under these circumstances? Also, since it isn't normally referenced in such analogies is it proper to include GR along the radius as part of an arguement regarding the changing Pi affects of Relativity?


    Thank you.


    Dan K. McCoin
    mailto:lmccoin@elp.rr.com


    Your reasoning is correct. They are both measuring proper lengths.

    General Relativistic affects occur only when there is an intense gravitational field.


    Joe Izen
    joe@utdallas.edu
    *********************************************

    Perhaps you missed the point that Paul T, started 2 or 3 of those threads!!!!

    If it was the first Chapter of Relativity, then you and some others have a long way to go since you all lchose to argue against my post. Ultimately howver, I was shown correct by James R and Pete. To late to pull back you erroneous comments about Relativity now.

    Nope I did because you once more stuck your nose into a thread and starting spouting BS as usual. Now folks are going to see what I mean by your post below. Thanks.

    For those that might actually go see Persol's thread you will see there are no documented mistakes. Only claims of mistakes being made by one that clearly lack common sense and solid physics understanding.

    At one time I did spam UniKEF here but James R., started the UniKEF Analysis thread and I try to keep UniKEF discussions there. I have already shown numereous times that it is you and a few others that repeatedly raise the issue of UniKEF. As I have said I will defend it and myself. If you don't want to hear about it then don't raise the issue and don't make unsupported BS statements about it.

    An example of your 'understanding of physics':[/quote]

    I'll not waste space by duplicating your BS list but hope others will actually go to the thread you posted where they can see that James R., closed that thread because of your BS but re-opened it at my request so that I could respond and to which your list vanished.

    I was going to post my responses but I am not going to waste the time and effort. That string was posted by Persol 13 months ago and is typical of his distortions (sometimes actually outright fabrications) over as many months. My responses are below James R's post about locking the thread.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2004
  10. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    And your point is? You specifically mentioned space contracting. I specifically said 'it doesn't'. I also supported JamesR's claim that it appears to.

    Now if you see a problem in those statements, point it out.
    Altered my ass. You made two different comments in that line, which DID contradict each other.
    1) a rocket receeding away from earth sees space contract
    2) the entire universe contracts

    Cutting away the extra part of the sentance which I wasn't addressing is not an 'altered version'.

    My comment was that #1 is right. #2 is wrong. If you disagree then explain why... otherwise stop complaining. At the very least point out what I said which you didn't... oh.... wait... that didn't happen. Poor Mac is seeing things again.
    Yeah, you can show these any time you wish. I've been waiting for you to show me this for the last year. You have yet to do it. Hell, I was kinda enough to make alist of errors you have made about modern physics... you can't even point out one.
    Huh? My list vanished? Funny how it is still there.

    That thread is ripe with examples from me and others of things you've said which are just plain wrong and in some cases contradictory. You weren't able to mount a good defence in that thread... I doubt you'll be able to do it here.

    Funny how you have yet to point those distortions out.
     
  11. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I will point out that my statements were "Relative velocity between 'A' and 'B' mandates that "IF" 'A' sees spatial contraction 'B" sees spatial contraction. Both see it OR neither sees it. Which many argued about but ultimately I was shown correct. You also seem to want to ignore my other comments that I personally don't believe in spatial contraction (according to Relativity) at all.

    This is typical of your half assed misrepresentations of my statements and positions.

    Well maybe you don't see the impropriety of taking things out of context and misrepresenting what they mean. The comment addressed the fact that I was referring only to 'A' and 'B' and it was pointed out that 'A" (rocket) sees the entire universe contract. I was agreeing with that statement and pointing out that it was the 'A', 'B' relationship I was concerned about and not the complete view of 'A'.

    Already explained. You chose to try and create an issue where there is none. What I see is somebody completely wasting everybody's time with BS.

    Your attempt to be humorious doesn't alter the fact that your BS list was answered and corrected - i.e. -Vanished.

    Interesting choice of words. Back on the farm "ripe" has the meaning of "Stinks". I couldn't agree more.

    Not even going to play your game here. Your list was full of out of context, distortions and fabrications and has already been addressed.

    Funny how you apparently chose to not read my response or simply can't read, which is it?
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2004
  12. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Mac, you are talking about spacial contraction. Infact, you just used that term again. In relativity, space 'appears' to contract. I made the correction... you got all pissy.
    Um... no. You 'answered' it, mostly by saying things along the lines of 'you made that up'. I then went and found your exact wording for you... not much room to negotiate at all here MacM.
    Not going to play MY game? My good man, you started this thread. It's only fair play.
    Funny how you continue to say things like this about distortions and mistakes in relativity, yet have not yet pointed them out.

    Once again your response is along the lines of 'I already did that'... yet it oddly seems to have 'vansihed'.

    If you are going to complain about me, atleast try to back it up. Making false claims will get you nowhere.
     
  13. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Persol,

    Ok, I'll lighten up and attempt to discuss this with you. In the unbelievable possibility that you really don't know what you did.

    1 - I had already stated "I didn't personally believe in spatial contraction (Per Relativity)

    2 - I had commented on contraction being "Perception" vs "Reality", others wanted to claim "Perception" is "Reality". I chose to not argue the point.

    3 - You made no such correction. You made a simple statement " For the n-th time space isn't contracting".

    4 - In consideration of the above 1-3 your statement has no meaning. It implies that I have assumed some position which is in error. I had already made my view known and I was presenting the view as proposed by those in support of Relativity as to what their view meant.

    Sorry but that is bull. You posted no such quotes. If you have ever posted anything it would be like your other extracted and/or out of context posts.

    Why do you suppose I have started this thread? Bcause you have continued to butt in my discussions with your BS.

    Funny how you could have responded to my topics and not have read either what I said or the conclusions of others in the thread. The thread you posted was about the contraction paradox. Are you saying I was wrong. Go ahead and I'll point you to more than one that certainly has mathe over your head that ultimately (after a long disagreement) now agree that my description was correct. (Although James R., agrees he doesn't like the term Paradox). I really don't understand why snce being a paradox says nothing about being invalid but only that it appears absurd but is true.

    Odd indeed since I just looked at the thread you posted and referenced where you attacked me with a long list of BS and my response was there no less than an hour ago.

    Do you really think others won't go look for themselves just because you say my responses have vanished?

    I would agree if it were true but it isn't. You have a long history (over a year) of butting in with BS, distortions, mis-quotes, innuendo, etc.
     
  14. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Then point out where JamesR says that space is contracting.
    One man's BS is another mans mocking of MacM's mistakes.
    So, are you ever going to get around to actually posting these distortions, errors, and misquotes you've said I made... or are you just going to keep whacking off?
     
  15. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Persol,

    It has already been done. Go read the thread.

    Or one fools lack of understanding.

    You still don't get it do you. I am done chasing your ass around proving your BS is BS. You have been dragging discussions off topic for over a year. But thanks for showing the folks exactly what I intended about your postings.

    Folks want the truth they can simply click your referenced link and read my already lengthy responses. No need to repeat them here. I'll only note that you seemed to have glazed over the referenced e-mail and the m-g-r issue without comment. I posted it here since it wasn't part of my original responses to your list.

    You said "Back it up". I have. Now what do you have to say?
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2004
  16. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    LMAO. So you started a thread because you want to say 'I dont like you, youre an idiot, I cant back my statements up'?
    What the hell are you going on about? Wheere is this link and email?
     
  17. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Persol,

    Not at all. I posted this thread because you have for over a year been posting BS in response to my posts and attempt to drag the discussion off topic over nonsense. From now on we stay on topic.

    The link is the one to your post that you were so proud of claiming your list of MacM's errors. You seem to have forgotten that my responses to that list are already posted. No need to re-argue what has been responded to.

    The e-mail is a cut and paste of the reply to my question regarding the m-g-r issue. Anyone that wants to re-submit my question describing the debate that was ongoing can do so and request his confirmation of his answer. His e-mail is posted.
     
  18. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    You seem to be completely avoiding the topic. You have yet to:
    point out where JamesR says that space is contracting.
    post these distortions, errors, and misquotes you've said I made
    And yet you seem to forget that after you posted your response, I and several others found specific quotes for you.

    As for your email, GR doesn't come into account... and I never said it did. As for measured Pi changing, we showed you and explained to you that it did.
     
  19. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Here is ne and there ar many more but I will not waste my time again chasing your false allegations.

    http://www.sciforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=597677


    Funny they are not showing in your thread. Any such extractions of statements would also be out of context and meaningless.

    You are correct, it was Ryans. And I never said it did either, nor does "Joe" the physicists. So what is your point. The question posed to "Ask a Physicist" included all the errors that you and others were making.

    You explained to me. LOL :bugeye: In theory it changes when properly described. The issue was never that Relativity doesn't claim it changes but that you and others refused to acknowledge Brain Greene's error (and other books) in the description. As described it was in error and Pi does not change. Or do you want to go through it again. I have time to tutor a little if you really need it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. jadedflower observer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,477
    paranoia haunts these forums. and pettiness (sp?)
     
  21. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104

    Yep. I couldn't agree more. But that is the reason for this thread. Others need to see the petty BS that has been thrown around for over a year now.

    I hope you can see by his continued pursuit of misrepresented statements and demands for proof; which have been available to all anyhow, simply clutters up discussions and draws them off topic.
     
  22. jadedflower observer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,477
    you're assuming I'm going to read any of this. In fact, you're assuming anyone at all is actually going to bother going throught it all... Nothing personal mate, but I don't think anyone else cares. Good luck setteling it!
     
  23. Dreamwalker Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,205
    I was tempted to read it, but somehow I thought "better not". But it is something personal anyway or am I mistaken?
     

Share This Page