View Full Version : Persol's Record
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. :D
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.
For the n-th time, space isn't contracting.
Hmmmm?
Originally Posted by Persol as an Altered Statement made by MacM: "James R and Paul T have claimed that a rocket receeding away from earth sees space contract "
That's statement is still true.
Must you alter my statements or misquote me and then argue your on version of what has been said to have anything to say?.
MacM's actual post:"But the problem is that James R and Paul T have claimed that a rocket receeding away from earth sees space contract (indeed the entire universe contracts) but that an earth observer doesn't see distance between him and the rocket contract.
Now that we know you practice deceit and misrepresentation in your responses, we will give your posts due credit.
Originally Posted by MacM in Response to James R: "I do object to the Texas Two Step getting to this point. Even this post has a tone of talking down, while actually (after days of condensending comments - mostly from others not you) about poor old MacM's ability to understand Relativity."
Perhaps that's because you don't listen. When you act like a deaf person, people are going to scream.
It does seem I wasn't the one not listening.
Originally Posted by Persol
Or as someone who speaks english. What EXACTLY about what you just said is a paradox?
: "Funny post indeed.
STATEMENT:
"THE FASTER I MOVE AWAY THE CLOSER I GET".
Now from Webster:
"Paradox":
1 - a statement contrary to common belief.
2 - a statement that seems contridictory, unbelivable, or absurd but that may be true in fact.
Now I would think one that speaks english would know the meaning of english words.
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.
jadedflower
06-18-04, 04:42 PM
What's the point of this little bitching thread where you try in vain to make a point? Just PM the dude.
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.Must you alter my statements or misquote me and then argue your on version of what has been said to have anything to say?.Care to actually back this up? I thought not.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.Gonna back this up either?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.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.So your continued harassment is of little signifigance to meHehe...'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':Originally posted by MacM
02-17-03 Claims 'All light is energy packets released from the Chiral Condensate'
Never made that claim. Say it is possible and have seen research suggesting same.
"The best view todate (in my opinion) is the one called the Chiral Condensate... Understanding the Chiral Condensate will (in my opinion) finally get rid of the ludricrus Theory of Relativity... He added it just as he added the Universal Constant to make the Universe steady state - He was wrong there and I state he was wrong with the VAF. " (02-17-03:Fabric of Space)
"The production of light can be a quantum energy function relative to the Chiral Condensate, your velocity (energy) relative to the light source alters the production of light making it appear constant." (2-17-03:Unmeasurable Time Dilation)
"light production may be generated from the vacuum (Chiral Condensate) by an quantum energy function which would cause the production of light to shift in conjunction with the relative velocity of the observer. Hence the source of the "Appearance" of light velocity being constant." (2/23/03:Propagation of Light)
02-21-03 Claims 'Time is a measure of events created by the flow of kenetic energy.'
Per UniKEF. Not claimed as fact but logical possibility.
You claim UniKEF is true, you claim this is true... don't beat around the bush. At the same time, the sentence makes no damn sense.
02-21-03 Claims to understand reality better then the rest of the posters ('does time affect motion...?')
Also indicated thereafter that I made that statement purposely to piss off ryan. That is not my view and you advance a straw enuendo.
Not enuendo, you have made the comment multiple times to multiple memebers. Saying that you are 'baiting' someone is evern worse.
02-21-03 Claims that '(his theory) is a success'... but is then unavle to explain how the equations work 'Arguable points?')
Have made no such claim. What equations, it is basicaly devoid mathematical support.
"UniKEF gravity was the first success, that lead to other speculations." (2/21/03:Arguable Points?)
Then later you are unable to explain the equations derived. (As seen throught your UniKEF thread)
02-22-03 Claims to understand the 3-clock problem better then scientists
Not so.
You claimed so multiple times to chroot in you UniKEF thread.
And as far as I know the issue of multiple rates (the last version) has yet to be answered. It may have an answer but you haven't yet given it.
It answered by multiple people in multiple ways, and you ignored them and misinterpretted them.
03-01-03 Argues about particle entaglement, and then gives up ('Clocks and Particle Entanglement')
Your argument was not limted to this thred... but that is were you surrendered your view:
"I had not been aware that the entanglement was broken. I had thought that it remained and that one could toggle the pair repeatedly."(3/1/03:Clock & Particle Entaglement)
Then you found a research paper which you didn't understand and started arguing about it again. Your error was then pointed out, and you choose to ignore it.
Since communication via PE has not yet been accomplished...
In the thread you claimed it had been.
03-03-03 Says 'Length contraction I agree with Relativity'... but later argues about it ('time dilation and length contraction')
I have argued about time dilation but never about length contraction.
Need I mention measurable pi?
03-06-03 Misrepresents a Scientific America article
Have stated what was said in the articles by the writers. You don't like the implications made from it.
The 'implications' were to explain the big bang.They never said anything about c changing in the present.
03-19-03 Misinterprets NASA's quaser velocity measurements ('Relavistic Mass')
Never misinterpreted anything.
You acted as it NASA was surprised by this large c values.
That issue is still open, even after mathematics were developed to sweep the heartburn from Relativity.
They weren't 'developed', they were just demonstrated to you. The math existed before this observation.
The solution is based in the first instance that Relativity is valid and therefore you attempt to prove Relativity via relativity.
Relativity explains it correctly.... that's all it need to do.
05-09-03 Claims 'pi is always the same'
It is about the fact that any affect by any theory be it SR at the circumference or GR in the radius (ryans view) also affects the ruler and hence no measurable change in Pi.
You still miss the point that the radius and circ change by different ratios.
05-09-03 Claims information travels instantaneously... then backs down
Made no such claim.
You forgot about your particle entaglement thread so soon? As for backing down, you just demonstrated that again.
05-09-03 Claims 'The fact is useful information is being transmitted at least billions times faster than c', but then can't provide an example.
Same issue as above and I still say the particles disagree with you and in that light so do I.
You saying so does not make it a fact.
"Understands" the merry-go-round problem, but does not know calculus let alone differential geometry.
OK. Partially true. I have had some calculus 40 years ago but have never used it.
Which is why you still argue about the pi solution. The same basic thing happens in normal mechanics too.
"Has an alternative theory for relativity, that predicts less than relativity"
How many predictions of any signifigance have you ever made? Even one (1)?
Nice try, but that doesn't change the fact that what ryans said is true.
"Talks of physics and meaning of existance in the same sentence. "
Not sure what you are going after here but 0------->(+n)+(-n) crossed my mind. If so that damn well is a physical issue.
That equation is just bull. I could just as easily say 0--->sqrt(666)-sqrt(666)
"Reads only the last line of any refered articles "
Sometimes that is true but far from any majority.
Well you have 2 options. You don't read or you misunderstand. Those two copmbined are the majority.
"Spells relativity, "Relavity"
Now do you really want me to go back through your posts and correct all the typo's I have seen you make.?
Most people make random typos. This is not a random typo as it is in almost all your posts.
What's the point of this little bitching thread where you try in vain to make a point? Just PM the dude.
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:
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: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.
READERS:
Couldn't ask for a better example. :D
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.
I posted just what he posted "For the n=th time, space isn't contracting". There were no further discertation.
Care to actually back this up? I thought not.
WHAT? I posted your altered version of my statement.
Gonna back this up either?
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
*********************************************
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.
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.
Hehe...'I dont care, so I created this thread.' Uh huh...
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.
You're mistakes are heavily documented as is your spamming of UniKEF.
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.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=22891
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.
I posted just what he posted "For the n=th time, space isn't contracting". There were no further discertation.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.
WHAT? I posted your altered version of my statement.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.
To late to pull back you erroneous comments about Relativity now.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.
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 BD but re-opened it so that I could respond to which your list vanished.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.
That string was posted by Persol 13 months ago and is typical of his distortions (sometimes actually outright fabrications) over as many months.Funny how you have yet to point those distortions out.
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.
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.
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'.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
Your attempt to be humorious doesn't alter the fact that your BS list was answered and corrected - i.e. -Vanished.
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.
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 have yet to point those distortions out.
Funny how you apparently chose to not read my response or simply can't read, which is it?
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.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.
Your attempt to be humorious doesn't alter the fact that your BS list was answered and corrected - i.e. -Vanished.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 even going to play your game here. Your list was full of out of context, distortions and fabrications and has already been addressed.Not going to play MY game? My good man, you started this thread. It's only fair play.
Funny how you apparently chose to not read my response or simply can't read, which is it?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.
Persol,
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not going to play MY game? My good man, you started this thread. It's only fair play.
Why do you suppose I have started this thread? Bcause you have continued to butt in my discussions with your BS.
Funny how you continue to say things like this about distortions and mistakes in relativity, yet have not yet pointed them out.
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.
Once again your response is along the lines of 'I already did that'... yet it oddly seems to have 'vansihed'.
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?
If you are going to complain about me, atleast try to back it up. Making false claims will get you nowhere.
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.
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.Then point out where JamesR says that space is contracting.
Why do you suppose I have started this thread? Bcause you have continued to butt in my discussions with your BS.One man's BS is another mans mocking of MacM's mistakes.
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.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?
Persol,
Originally Posted by MacM
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.
Then point out where JamesR says that space is contracting.
It has already been done. Go read the thread.
Why do you suppose I have started this thread? Because you have continued to butt in my discussions with your BS.
:One man's BS is another mans mocking of MacM's mistakes.
Or one fools lack of understanding.
: 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.
: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?
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?
You still don't get it do you. I am done chasing your ass around proving your BS is BS.LMAO. So you started a thread because you want to say 'I dont like you, youre an idiot, I cant back my statements up'?Folks want the truth they can simply click your referenced link and read my already lengthy responses.What the hell are you going on about? Wheere is this link and email?
Persol,
: You still don't get it do you. I am done chasing your ass around proving your BS is BS.
:LMAO. So you started a thread because you want to say 'I dont like you, youre an idiot, I cant back my statements up'?
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.
: Folks want the truth they can simply click your referenced link and read my already lengthy responses.
:What the hell are you going on about? Wheere is this link and email?
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.
From now on we stay on topic.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
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.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.
You seem to be completely avoiding the topic. You have yet to:
point out where JamesR says that space is contracting.
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
Lets put some numbers on the table:
Assume c = 3E8 m/sec
V1 = 0.9999999 c = 2.99999970E8 m/sec and,
V2 = 0.99999999 c = 2.99999997E8 m/sec
Gamma 1 = 1/4.47213595E-4
Gamma 2 = 1/1.41421356E-4
That is a ratio of Gamma 2/ Gamma 1 = 1/0.3162277658
The difference in velocity is only 27 m/sec.
If I therefore accelerate 54 m/sec for one sec I will have a velocity increase stipulated between V1 and V2.
Assuming my distance from earth was 10 B Ly at V1 (that includes contraction) I would see earth as (3.162277658 B Ly + 1 L sec) away when I reach V2. That is a spatial decrease of 6.837722342 B Ly decrease in 1 sec.
Now I already know you will scream "Time Dilation". Go ahead, at V2 time dilation is such that 1 sec is actually 7,071 seconds earth time. So while I shouldn't I'll give you time dilation and still claim that if spatial contraction in Relativity is as you claim then in one second (or 7,071 seconds) moving AWAY from earth I would see earth move CLOSER by 967,009 Lyr!!!
Note this is Light YEARS per Second.
MacM:
That looks approximately correct to me.
Do you have any particular scientific problem with that conclusion, or only a gut feeling that you just don't like it?
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.
Funny they are not showing in your thread. Any such extractions of statements would also be out of context and meaningless.
As for your email, GR doesn't come into account... and I never said it did.
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.
As for measured Pi changing, we showed you and explained to you that it did.
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. :p
jadedflower
06-19-04, 04:56 PM
paranoia haunts these forums. and pettiness (sp?)
paranoia haunts these forums. and pettiness (sp?)
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.
jadedflower
06-19-04, 05:03 PM
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!
Dreamwalker
06-19-04, 05:08 PM
I was tempted to read it, but somehow I thought "better not". But it is something personal anyway or am I mistaken?
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!
I don't blame you and unfortunately I don't expect this or anything to 'settle' it. It could be settled if others actually took a look and saw the sort of BS he has spread for a year but they won't, nor would I.
But he like giving me a hard time so this is just a bit of tit-for-tat. :D
jadedflower
06-19-04, 05:13 PM
BD means comic books in Portuguese.
Sorry, I didn't know what else to say.
Hmm...
Have fun :D
I was tempted to read it, but somehow I thought "better not". But it is something personal anyway or am I mistaken?
Thanks for responding at least. It is personal in that his BS is getting very old. This lays it out for anybody that might actually care to know his persona when he is posting against you, etc. HE is a troll and misrepresents your statements and beliefs and then ridicules you over his own distorted versions of what has been said.
Just keep it in mind if he comes across on one of your posts.
BD means comic books in Portuguese.
Sorry, I didn't know what else to say.
Hmm...
Have fun :D
:D My screwup.
jadedflower
06-19-04, 05:16 PM
the best type of person to ignore, then, ain't he?
the best type of person to ignore, then, ain't he?
I would agree but he persists and continues to clutter up discussions and draws others off topic as well.
Dreamwalker
06-19-04, 05:33 PM
Thanks for responding at least. It is personal in that his BS is getting very old. This lays it out for anybody that might actually care to know his persona when he is posting against you, etc. HE is a troll and misrepresents your statements and beliefs and then ridicules you over his own distorted versions of what has been said.
Just keep it in mind if he comes across on one of your posts.
Ok, I΄ll remember it :D
§outh§tar
06-19-04, 05:41 PM
I for one don't care and I say this should be moved to the Cesspool pronto!
jadedflower
06-19-04, 05:44 PM
I say; who cares where it goes??
The issue here is that MacM continues to post about topics he doesn't understand, implying that something is 'wrong' with them.
Then when it's explained to him his miracously knew it all along. Yet he continues to make the same mistakes over and over. Then he gets pissed off when I point out a mistake.
The result, I make fun of him.
Dreamwalker
06-19-04, 05:53 PM
Twisted this is, me thinks I will take distance from this conflict and create my own opinion...
Well, he's just done it again:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=37287&page=3
The issue here is that MacM continues to post about topics he doesn't understand, implying that something is 'wrong' with them.
Then when it's explained to him his miracously knew it all along. Yet he continues to make the same mistakes over and over. Then he gets pissed off when I point out a mistake.
The result, I make fun of him.
Actually he is pissed because he makes stupid statements that I ultimately cram down his throat.
Actually he is pissed because he makes stupid statements that I ultimately cram down his throat.Lol. Yet AGAIN... statements like.... what?
delta and differential are the same?
Twisted this is, me thinks I will take distance from this conflict and create my own opinion...
Good strategy. Note his latest episode was in my posting a formula from a College Physics book which used the differential calculus triangle symbols. I replicated the formula using dt and dt for delta. He and one other like him have spent the entire day argueing about this as being prima-facia evidence against me.
I explained I don't type HTML symbols and the dt, ds are understood. But oh, no. Rant and rave. :D
Like it really makes a shit.
Lol. Yet AGAIN... statements like.... what?
delta and differential are the same?
Being understood and being the same are not synomynous, twit.
For people who don't know calculus. ds/dt is a very specific thing called a derivative. Delta-s/delta-x is simply an average. These are two completely different things, yet MacM continued to argue that they were the same until I posted a link for him.
Then he said "I knew it all along". Ironically fits the pattern I just stated he used:The issue here is that MacM continues to post about topics he doesn't understand, implying that something is 'wrong' with them.
Then when it's explained to him his miracously knew it all along. Yet he continues to make the same mistakes over and over..
Well, he's just done it again:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=37287&page=3
The infamous delta guys. I love this he just keeps proving my point.
Note: There was no mention of the fact that they claimed the velocity IS NOT an average velocity. I told them it was, they attacked me and my knowledge.. Which is all they ever really do. They don't contribute jsut pick and bitch. I then posted a quote from the College Physics book which confirmed my statement "Instantaneous Velocity is an "Average" velocity.
I do think not know that vs using dt instead of HTML symbols is actually a much larger flaw.
There was no mention of the fact that they claimed the velocity IS NOT an average velocityCare to back this up... because I didn't say it. I made a clarification about ds and delta-s... and you said I was wrong and posted a bunch of garbage.I do think not know that vs using dt instead of HTML symbols is actually a much larger flaw.What the hell are you going on about. Saying delta-s and ds are two completely different things."Instantaneous Velocity is an "Average" velocity.Instantaneous velocity is a special type of average velocity. Considering I never actually disputted that, you really should stop accussing me of it.
The simple fact is I posted a very short clarification:There is no lim ds/dt.
You either have:
ds/dt
or
delta-s/delta-t with delta-t going to zeroYou then decided to explain how I was wrong. Unfortunately for you, I wasn't.
For people who don't know calculus. ds/dt is a very specific thing called a derivative. Delta-s/delta-x is simply an average. These are two completely different things, yet MacM continued to argue that they were the same until I posted a link for him.
Then he said "I knew it all along". Ironically fits the pattern I just stated he used:
OK Asshole. What about my statement that I didn't get your complaint in your first post. You merely stated it was not a correct formula. I told you it came from the college text. You argued and posted a link which again showed my same formula using the same triangle delta in my text. It was only then that your complaint made sense.
I then acknowledge the difference. Something you have only done once in 1 1/2 years you have been posting your BS. You finally admitted that you were wrong on the UniKEF Integration being inverse square. That is the only error you have ever acknowledged (and it isn't the only error(s) you have made).
You argued and posted a link which again showed my same formula using the same triangle delta in my text.You miss the point still. You are arguing about differentials and how velocity is calculated, yet you obviously don't know the difference between deltas and differentials.Something you have only done once in 1 1/2 years you have been posting your BS.Actually, I admit I am wrong alot on these forums. It's just that I've only once arguing something wrong with you. (and it isn't the only error(s) you have made). So any day now you can point them out. I'm still waiting.
Care to back this up... because I didn't say it.
You are right. It was Paul T. But you immediately chimmed in and began to support Paul T in your attacks.
I made a clarification about ds and delta-s...
You did not jpost a clarification. You posted an attack ridiculing me by simply stating the formula was incorrect. Had you specified your complaint in the first instance I could have noted the clarification and moved on with the topic. BUt just as you do here you do there and that is latch onto something and run it for pages after page. That is what this thread is for so others can see your habit. Thanks for cooperating.
and you said I was wrong and posted a bunch of garbage.What the hell are you going on about. Saying delta-s and ds are two completely different things.Instantaneous velocity is a special type of average velocity. Considering I never actually disputted that, you really should stop accussing me of it.
I clarified that above and earlier I used the term "they". I didn't state you said it but it certainly could have been misconstrued.
The simple fact is I posted a very short clarification:You then decided to explain how I was wrong. Unfortunately for you, I wasn't.
I can only hope others might be sufficiently courious to go see the actual flow of events. Once your point was deciphered from the BS attacks linked with it, I acknowledged the clarification but "NO" you want to just go on and on about how I don't really know anything. That is OK. Your opinion has very little weight in any case.
You are right. It was Paul T. But you immediately chimmed in and began to support Paul T in your attacks.You idiot... I pointed out a mistake in your formula. THAT WAS ALL. Stop being a paranoid little brat.
Understand that delta-s and ds are different, and be clearer in the future. That's it.
You miss the point still. You are arguing about differentials and how velocity is calculated, yet you obviously don't know the difference between deltas and differentials.
Same old Persol. Beat a dead horse. My posting was explained but you still want to argue about what I know or don't know. Do you have esp?
Actually, I admit I am wrong alot on these forums. It's just that I've only once arguing something wrong with you.So any day now you can point them out. I'm still waiting.
Good. then by this statement we must assume you now agree that the description according to Brian Greene (and others) about how Pi changes with a merry-go-round was in error and Pi doesn't change in the description they give.
Also we should assume that you now agree that Relativity creates Paradoxes. Particularily with regard to spatial contraction.
You idiot... I pointed out a mistake in your formula. THAT WAS ALL. Stop being a paranoid little brat.
Understand that delta-s and ds are different, and be clearer in the future. That's it.
Ditto on being clearer on your clarifications and don't disguise them as personal attacks.
Ditto on being clearer on your clarifications and don't disguise them as personal attacks. How in the hell is:There is no lim ds/dt.
You either have:
ds/dt
or
delta-s/delta-t with delta-t going to zero a personal attack. God damn you are paranoid.
Persol,
My post acknowledging the correctness of your clarification.
:I'll stand corrected. My book also shows the "triangular" delta s, etc.
However, since I don't do symbols in HTML and 'd' is often used to represent delta I posted it in its easier form. My error since it infers a dfferent mathematical process when combined with the 'lim'.
That should have been the end of the issue. However, in your normal fashion we then have.
:Once again, d is NOT delta. You can now kindly apologize for once again saying arguing something as if you understand it.
A personal attack.
:NOBODY who understands what a differential is does.
More.
:" I don't type HTML I used 'd' for delta.
:To quote you, "bullshit". If that's all it was you would have know what I meant when I typed it and wouldn't have gone and flown off to left field.
:The point is that you really don't know. If you didn't then you would have found no problem with the comment
You dumbass. It WAS cautionary. ALL that I said was the above quote. You are the idiot that decided to argue it.
On and on. Now you want to argue about who is argueing. :D
However, since I don't do symbols in HTML and 'd' is often used to represent delta Mac, are you still arguing the above... because it is still wrong.
And just you saying this, is proof you don't actually understand. This isn't an attack... this is fact. Everything else was AFTER your response filled with multiple 'bullshits'.
What a waste, I'll just go back to making fun of you. I'm not arguing this point with you anymore. Paranoid quack.
Persol,
: However, since I don't do symbols in HTML and 'd' is often used to represent delta
:Mac, are you still arguing the above... because it is still wrong.
And just you saying this, is proof you don't actually understand. This isn't an attack... this is fact. Everything else was AFTER your response filled with multiple 'bullshits'.
I am not the one argueing. Perhaps you can explain why you chose to not present my full statement. Since it recognizes the difference and your clarification.
:I'll stand corrected. My book also shows the "triangular" delta s, etc.
However, since I don't do symbols in HTML and 'd' is often used to represent delta, I posted it in its easier form. My error since it infers a different mathematical process when combined with the 'lim'.
:What a waste, I'll just go back to making fun of you. I'm not arguing this point with you anymore. Paranoid quack.
About time you withdraw. PS: Just so you know. This thread is going to be here and everytime you butt in with your BS it will show up here.
I don't mind actual corrections or clarifications but your attacks (after 1 1/2 years) is another matter.. I'm not paranoid and really care less about your opinion but I do care about certain topics and your tendancy (deliberate) to destroy such discussions is the purpose of this review.
I am not the one argueing. Perhaps you can explain why you chose to not present my full statement.LMAO. Even if you present the full statement, it is STILL wrong. I just trimmed it to show only part of the error. If you want to get techincal you have two errors in as many sentances.
"However, since I don't do symbols in HTML and 'd' is often used to represent delta, I posted it in its easier form."
d in NEVER used to represent delta in physics, which is the error in this sentence. You 'posted in easier form' just componds the error and doesn't add anything... hence the reason I didn't quote it.
"My error since it infers a different mathematical process when combined with the 'lim'."
It actually doesn't infer any different mathematical process when combined with lim. You DO NOT combine ds with lim AT ALL.
So couple comments you've made, all of which are unsupported (to be kind, I'll leave out your still present misunderstanding of calc/diff-eq):
Since [my full statement] recognizes the difference and your clarification.
Ditto on being clearer on your clarifications and don't disguise them as personal attacks
I clarified that above and earlier I used the term "they". (They, even though only 1 person said it?)
you immediately chimmed in and began to support Paul T in your attacks.
(and it isn't the only error(s) you have made).
I decided to stop on this page. These are all things you haven't been able to back up... because they are false. You took a simple correction of the use of limits and deltas/differentials, and decided to argue the point... even though you were wrong. Then you say I'm 'dragging the issue out' when you say I'm wrong and I respond with further proof.
My god! What a quack!
Readers:
Interesting.
What would you think this statement means?
:"My error since it infers a different mathematical process when combined with the 'lim'."
:It actually doesn't infer any different mathematical process when combined with lim. You DO NOT combine ds with lim AT ALL.
I do believe my statement says it was incorrect to use the ds in the 'lim' format. And you aren't being picky and continueing on and on?
Perhaps it would be more grammatically correct to have said
"My error since it infers a different mathematical process than combined with the 'lim'."
What a joke.
Humor me. Is he being picky or not?
"My error since it infers a different mathematical process than combined with the 'lim'."And what mathematical process would that be?
It's not a 'different process'... it's just plain wrong. You won't see lim ds/dt anywhere in your book.
So I take it that you will never use d to represent delta again?
And what mathematical process would that be?
It's not a 'different process'... it's just plain wrong. You won't see lim ds/dt anywhere in your book.
So I take it that you will never use d to represent delta again?
Probably not a true statement. However, if trying to talk with those that like to ignore content in favor of detail, I will be sure to point out my usage. (However, I now have the HTML Code and can post a true triangular delta symbol Great.
PS: Does anybody have a listing of HTML Codes that work here?
PS: Does anybody have a listing of HTML Codes that work here?
Silly question. You should ask what HTML codes do not work here.
Silly question. You should ask what HTML codes do not work here.
Ok. I see below it is turned off. So what codes do you use to post symbols and formulas?
MacM,
I would agree but he persists and continues to clutter up discussions and draws others off topic as well.
Who or what is Persol that people simply get "drawn off topic" by him? And what is more, what are you saying about readers then if you suppose that they are so easily mislead??
And furthermore, if you feel drawn off topic by Persol's posts -- well what does this say about *your* communication and argumentation abilities?!
If you don't like somebody or their way of thinking, don't answer their posts.
If you find them too annyoing to bear it, report them to the mods, or put them on your ignore list.
Other people have just the same right to be here as you.
For crying out loud, once heavy words and ad-hominems are starting to fall, you know that it is high time to think what is going on. Calm down.
If you begin to call the other person bad names, then you thereby show that you are not willing to keep the communication at a certain level of politeness.
If someone calls me bad names, I give up communicating with them -- because it's pointless to talk to such a person.
Okay?
RosaMagika,
Who or what is Persol that people simply get "drawn off topic" by him? And what is more, what are you saying about readers then if you suppose that they are so easily mislead??
And furthermore, if you feel drawn off topic by Persol's posts -- well what does this say about *your* communication and argumentation abilities?!
If you don't like somebody or their way of thinking, don't answer their posts.
If you find them too annyoing to bear it, report them to the mods, or put them on your ignore list.
Other people have just the same right to be here as you.
For crying out loud, once heavy words and ad-hominems are starting to fall, you know that it is high time to think what is going on. Calm down.
If you begin to call the other person bad names, then you thereby show that you are not willing to keep the communication at a certain level of politeness.
If someone calls me bad names, I give up communicating with them -- because it's pointless to talk to such a person.
Okay?
Wise comments, RosaMagika.
MacM is a very "sensitive" person, particularly if his thinking ability being criticized. When this happen, he get very nervous and he would usually start to calling name and use all those "anatomical words" to support his argument.
MacM,
If you begin to call the other person bad names, then you thereby show that you are not willing to keep the communication at a certain level of politeness.
If someone calls me bad names, I give up communicating with them -- because it's pointless to talk to such a person.
Okay?
Thanks. I think I have decided to do just that. If his post become personal attacks, I will not respond at all but to insure others I am doing that I may post a simple "I do not respond to messages containing personal iinuendo".
What do you think.?
RosaMagika,
Wise comments, RosaMagika.
MacM is a very "sensitive" person, particularly if his thinking ability being criticized. When this happen, he get very nervous and he would usually start to calling name and use all those "anatomical words" to support his argument.
HeHe. You and I have had a simular problem of late. Where your posts alter my statements and you argue your version. That I can deal with but when such arguements start to deteriorate into unfounded personal attacks I tend to return the favor. That doesn't make me sensative. I'll note that you also seem to be sensative to some of the names I returned to you.
Advice. If you don't like being called names don't attack others. Keep your communication at an appropriate level.
Other than being fruitless, I see no reason not to. It is deserved. However, I will treat your future comments the same as I now will anyothers containing such irrelevant commentary.
Thanks. I think I have decided to do just that. If his post become personal attacks, I will not respond at all but to insure others I am doing that I may post a simple "I do not respond to messages containing personal iinuendo".
What do you think.?
But then you have to prove this "personal innuendo", and that's a tedious task to do. Also, by calling it a personal innuendo, you're basically preparing to start a flame war.
It's not like discussions here a matter of life and death.
And respect is not earned by acting like a victim, neither by acting like an opressor.
That's just what I think ...
But then you have to prove this "personal innuendo", and that's a tedious task to do. Also, by calling it a personal innuendo, you're basically preparing to start a flame war.
It's not like discussions here a matter of life and death.
And respect is not earned by acting like a victim, neither by acting like an opressor.
That's just what I think ...
I agree with your assessment. Thanks.
I agree with your assessment. Thanks.
I'm glad if I can help. :)
MostyMath
03-08-07, 05:05 PM
I can feel the maturity with which all of you are approching this topic.
Especially when the topic is three years old.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.