Right and it is just fine and dandy by all you upity ups to post horseshit attacks. Stop the fucking bullshit and stick with physics and everyone would benefit. *************** From prompting Post by Gerb**************** Bullshit comment. Biased bullshit. And I had a few things to say to this asshole before he left with his fucking nose in the air having contributed nothing but bullshit to this forum. Very helpful. Quite a good contributor I would say - huh? What I should take this horse shit from this piss ant? I don't think so. He hasn't shown us shit. He can put up or shut the fuck up. He can kiss my ass. If he's so fucking smart why doesn't he contribute some actual physics? No offence my ass. He is a wotrthless piece of shit with a smart mouth and no fucking brains. He can fuck off to the pseudoscience forum until he comes back and answers my current challenge. Nobody is attempting to prove they are expert other then himself and he did a worthless job at even doing that. Now we should cry for our loss.? Listen, you want to turn this forum into a fucking Relativity only club, that is your perogative. I can certainly assure you that I for one will be gone. Perhaps that is what you need to hear to enhance your grip rather than exercising your censorship that you recently began to use to avoid issues that conflict with your presentation of SRT. That is your best bet then you will no longer be faced with these embarrrassing questions which you haven't been able to answer with any valid physics. Let me suggest you would do better to insure the "Professionals" remain on point and knock off the bullshit attacks. Then others would see true physics being explored and explained. But do not expect me to set back and take bullshit from ignorant assholes, egotistical pricks and smart asses. Now I'll go read your sticky and see how much trouble I am in. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
what about that guy with 777 on the end of his name that thinks he is a robot or something now that is a crack pot!!
Maybe you should read the whole thread, tex. (i.e. the backslash777 thread). It's quite entertaining.
MacM: It is already become a "relativity only club". Have you noticed how many threads lately are about relativity, one way or another? I'd like to see some threads on other aspects of physics. Waves, fluids, electromagnetism, nuclear physics, quantum physics, you know - all those other areas of physics. Why is the sky blue? Why does a boiled egg stand on its end when you spin it? How much energy is there in a tsunami? The forum is full of issues which conflict with my presentation of SRT. Haven't you noticed? You've posted many of them. Have you forgotten again?
Hello well I'm not trying to prove I'm an expert in anything, if I was I'd start a thread up in the physics forum all about the bullshit theory I just pulled out of my ass and claim that it disproves all current understanding of the universe, but not actually show any evidence for it. As for all the other things you said about me, I couldnt agree more. Thanks Prosoothus: Hello Thanks for your comment I totally agree, and I've had plenty of debates like this. Usually with me being the one thats incorrect. Its not the fact people question theories its the fact that even after someone who knows what he's talking about spends time explaining it, they still carry on, then claim to have disproved it, then turn the thread into a huge personal argument.
Interesting how you can make such a remark if you read the Introduction to my work. I completely qualify my views as work in progress with no experimental underpinnings. (although I need to change that now that I have gravity test data that shows GR in error). You are most welcome and deserving. Being patronizing just shows you are weak.
man this is blowing me away,why the insults,brother angry Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Agreed, from a purist standpoint it is wrong. But I think that what he probably meant to say is that when we actually use pi (in a calculation), we use a rational representation of it, using however many sig figs are needed for this case. I have actually come to the conclusion, like a previous poster, that havingthe alternate points of view can be a good thing. It stimulates all of us to think more clearly and more carefully evaluate both the original SR/GR theories, and what is actually being stated by the alternative poster. Admittedly it sometimes goes a bit too far, which I attribute to the fact that some are passionate in their convictions. Yet, in discussing science it should never become personal. Although I have an UG physics degree, I pursued organic chem in grad school, and have thus become a sort of outcast among the physics crowd. Yet, as I always point out, the bonded electron(s) QM equations with the extra terms are just a bit more complex than the free one. It is also not so easy to make as many generalizations in the bonded case, but lets not go there today, and most physicists dont seem to care much for QM bonding theory. Really, Macm and G have forced me to very carefully re-consider SR. Not that I'm necessarily conviced by any means, but it does give one pause to think through what many of us, in the heat of advancing to the next subject, took for granted. (In UG as I remember, there simply wasn't time to critically analyze each and every subject presented)
Also, not to derail the thread, but I wanted to comment on the philosophy idea that was introduced a bit earlier in this thread. Reading that poster's comments, I was immediately reminded of Galilleo. Many years ago I had read a book about GG and his trial. What the book said was that it wasn;t only that he (Galilleo) was challenging chruch dogma, he was also challenging Polemy, Aristotle and the natural philosophers of his day, who, at that time in history, philosophers had pre-eminence over all the other subjects. But, it was exactly this natural philosophy that ridiculed and impeded GG and Copernicus's ideas about the motions of the planets and stars. Later, 18th century organic chemist Suertner encountered similiar opposition from natural philosophers as he was trying to extract alkaloids from plant materials, claiming that these were complex mixes of similiar chemical with varying structures or arrangements (later verified and called isomeres). The philosophers of his day ridiculed his ideas, believing instead in a more orderly, pure and deterministic nature of these materials. (They were more thinking in terms of singular essences and vitality, I suppose). I think that many in science remember these examples, and thus see philosophy as just another top down approach that often gets proven to be wrong. I remember having metaphysial arguments with philosoper types, one recently over what I called the "Demonic theory of disease" vs germ theory. He stated that metaphysically, while germs might be the direct cause of the disease, we could in no way prove that demons were not somehow manipulating germs to accomplish their work. But, I asked him then why we couldn;t equally attribute this to pink unicorns, or gremlins, or purple people eaters. He admitted that we could not rule them out. So, while I think that philosophy does give us some good guidelines for reasoning, it also can go off in strange directions that seem to me to be of little or no use. At the same time I cna understand the philosopher's argument that some times ssientists become too involved with our models, mathematical and otherwise. Philosophers generally ar not trained mathematicians, so the models go beyond their understanding. I was explaining to one philosopher why Quantum bonding is so superior a model to bohr's model of the atom in terms of bonding. He didn;t seem to see much differenece, but I showed him a few cases where the 2 gave different results, and where Bohr's idea became useless. He of course, tried to generalize into words, that is, express it linguistically, which frankly I think becomes too vague. But, scientists use standard terminology and models to intercommunicate our ideas, and I think philosophers give these models more import than we actually give them. We understand that they are just mathematical models. In 20 years the model might be very different, but that's OK by us. I think though it bothers philosophers to some degree. From a practical perspective, I dont use nor rely on philosophy in my daily R & D position and work. and I have patented 11 different molecules and am included on 5 other process patents. All of these new molecules were developed using mathematical models, not philosophical or metapysical reasoning. In school, I have to agree with SL, philosophy was 6 easy credit hours that greatly helped my GPA (aced them all with little effort). But of course, these were both intro classes, and that ws all I was required to take. Historically, we can have ot both ways. At times, philosphy influenced science, but at the same time (for Galilleo and Suertner), science caused philosophers to rethink their ideas about nature. Both have something to contribute.
MacM, Methinks some unkind words were uttered against us. Ah, but the benfits: The sweetest music my tired ears have heard in a very long time is that high pitched and mournful wail, unmistakenably that of a sobbing SR theorist observing his soul dissolving in an absolute zero velocity inertial frame of reference. Geistkiesel
