You talk a lot. That, after all, is the clincher. Someone who spends considerable time on a forum arguing with other posters You said this. This is you.
Its called being able to explain your point of view and justify it. Try it some time, rather than one line responses which don't respond to anything. Good job on quote mining. If you bothered to actually understand what I said I was commenting that someone who comes to an internet forum with a new model of physics or the like and then spends vast amounts of time pushing it and then defending it on the forum is a hack. If they believed their work was good and valid they'd put that time into writing it up for a journal and getting it published. Someone who avoids journals and sticks to putting their work on forums is basically admitting they can't pass peer review. I am not here pushing my work. I rarely go into any detail about it. My work is published in journals. Instead I come here to talk about things other people have done, not my pet ideas. You have come here and proclaimed you've found a mistake in relativity and that its easy to see. So why aren't you submitting it to journals and getting published and becoming famous? Why are you struggling to justify your claims to people like me, who you consider 'too primitive'? If I'm not able to understand your work, so you claim, submit it for peer review. But you don't. Why? Because you are all to aware it wouldn't pass. Instead you have to reply with 1 line responses and quote mine my posts. Quote mining is bad enough normally but to quote mine my posts when you're talking to me is just idiotic. Do you think I'd forget what I said?! Yet another sign you're a hack and desperate to make it appear you're intelligent but you fail so badly its laughable.
Jack isn't really talking to you, I think. He thinks he's playing to a cast of thousands of lurkers he imagines to be silently reading the thread and hanging off his every word. Showboating to searchbots. Sad.
Horseradish. You were stuck on this board for more than 3 hours on March 17. Pete has it right - you are showboating to imaginary hordes for purpose of self adulation. I suspect that you cannot help yourself, however, and urge you to seek professional help before you injure yourself or others.
I wouldn't think his posts here have inspired that many people to hang on his every word. I don't deny that I sometimes reply with the mindset of not trying to convince the other person but more for the benefit of the causal reader. Sometimes you know that the other person simply can't be convinced but at the same time it feels important that you provide a response so that people who aren't in the know don't fall for their nonsense. That's partly why I spend so much time in pseudo, some people there desperately try to make their posts seem like science and the lay reader might not be able to tell the difference. Jack likes to throw in words like 'decidable' and 'transfinite' in the hopes of giving the impression he's versed in them but his use of them isn't correct and its hard to spot that if you don't know enough of the topic at hand. I am not a logic and set theory person but I know enough to see neither is he. My (I admit) overly long posts take me less than 20 minutes to type. Its the product of years spent on the internet and having agile fingers*. If Jack can't spend 20 minutes to justify his claims then perhaps he shouldn't be making them. * Despite being left handed I only type with one finger on my left hand and two on my right. Weird...
I have no problem with taking a long time to make a post...it is the denial that I find troublesome. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! *makes a note to spend more time in pseudo*
Actually, even if Jack_ spent 10 hours a day for a week to type a single post which gave undeniable, absolute airtight logic of the proof of the inconsistency of special relativity and set theory it would be time well spent. Such results would be worthy, seperately, of being papers which would change the face of both maths and physics forever. Such work would make the impact of Einstein's 1905 work look tiny by comparison. Writing a paper of even 20 pages can take months and that's after you've done the basic work which needs to then be written up. 10 hours/day for 7 days is 70 hours (and I didn't even need a calculator!) and I'd love to have work which would be so quick to write up. And so Jack_'s entire 'I don't have much time' is nonsense. For the investment of very little effort, compared to most published work, he could (if he's right) go down as probably the greatest contributor to mathematics and physics ever. Assuming of course he is right. Which he isn't. And hence my comments about how people who post on forums that they've proven everyone in academia wrong are showing they know deep down they haven't, else they'd spend the time needed to write posts here to write a paper and send it to a journal. Oh and if Jack_ thinks I spend a lot of time writing posts here I spend, every day, at least 5 times longer on research. And my research has passed peer review Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
I once wrote a 35 page graduate math paper on crystals. It took a bit of time to do that. I agree with you. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Still spend some time doing research as well. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It doesn't matter how much time Alphanumeric does or doesn't choose to spend here, your comment is just plain f'in rude, off-topic and totally uncalled for. What gives?
Well, Stonophi's comment was directed toward Jack. Not that this should alter your assessment of whether it was rude and uncalled for.
Well I'm pretty sure I noticed someone not too long ago attacking Alphanumeric on pretty much the same grounds and essentially calling him a psychopath on the verge of slashing his own or someone else's throat, just because he was making long posts debunking some idea. Then seeing the posts and responses in the context I read them, I assumed that's what Stoniphi was doing here. So if I misunderstood who was attacking who, I'm sorry. But I'm even more sorry to see personal attacks on that level whether on Jack or anyone else, that's just not cool. You can call a guy obsessed, deride the posts they've made here or elsewhere, point out the flaws in someone's thinking, etc., but it's real malicious to be going into personal details about the life of someone you don't even know, and treating them like they should be stripped of their rights and institutionalized just because they make posts you don't like. I haven't been a big fan of Jack's behaviour since he arrived here either, I find his posts incredibly arrogant and presumptuous, he proclaims himself the intellectual saviour of the world and then demonstrates basic misunderstandings of the same theories he supposedly already disproved. But calling him a psycho out to kill someone just isn't an acceptable response.
High there, funny person. :wave: Don't read much do you, or is it just the comprehension part that you have trouble with? In my world, if someone takes a swing at you, you defend yourself or get used for a doormat. I don't do doormat, not for your little friend and not for you either. I note that the stuff folks like you criticize others for (with significant elaboration and some feeble cussin') is what you write yourself. (re-read your above post) I don't really have to spell out how you make yourself look by doing that, do I?
My cuss words didn't discuss any details about your personal life. There's no reciprocity here, you're insulting people you don't know about their personal lives, I don't think that's a respectable approach. Not up to me to defend the folks who are allegedly going to hang themselves according to you, but no one else could be bothered to speak up so I told it like it is.
Uh yeah, whatever, funny person. Like I asked before - is it the reading part that you don't get or just the understanding part? No you don't, you are flattered by recieving the attention that you crave and are merely being coy about it. Don't get all hot and bothered though, I participate elsewhere much more than I do here. I did call you out on a little lie though, as that was easy - the time stamps on your posts are right up at the upper righthand corner of each post. Check it out sometime - you too will be able to see when soemone else puts up their posts. Then, when you have mastered this skill, you shall have learned, Grasshopper. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
77 off-topic posts have been moved from this thread to a new one, here: [thread=101005]Yet another thread about Jack's issues with relativity[/thread]. If you wish to discuss Jack's educational level and/or issues with relativity, please go there, or use one of the many other threads where Jack is discussing relativity. This thread is about Pi.
