A Few Questions Concerning Inertia

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by gluon, Feb 18, 2009.

  1. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Well, there is an edge to the inertial system I'm on right now, it's called the earth's surface.
    The edge of visible motion is a little different story - there are two for a start.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. gluon Banned Banned

    Except friend, you are not thinking in relativistic terms.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Vkothii Banned Banned

    You mean, I'm only thinking I'm on an inertial surface?
    (one at a time)
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Are you in free-fall when you are standing on the surface of the Earth?
  8. gluon Banned Banned


    On a cosmological de-witt interpretation, then yes.
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Stop being a te-witt.
  10. gluon Banned Banned

    James, i will stop, if you moderate accordingly, as in...

    oh... lets say, internet-bulllying?
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    When you post this kind of rubbish in a forum containing people who actually know some physics, you can hardly complain when they have a laugh at your expense.

    One of your problems, gluon, is that you're constantly disrespecting the time and effort that postgraduate physics students and actual physicists have put into actually learning physics and gaining their qualifications. Some people here have spent years gaining the knowledge and expertise they have, and they have degrees hanging on their walls that prove they have met the professional standards required. You, on the other hand, are a pretender. You pretend you're advanced in physics, but you barely know the basics, if that. But worse than that, you have the front to actually put your own "knowledge" above that of people who have actually done the work, studying and learning and practicing and teaching. When you are corrected, you make childish accusations of "bullying". But it is clear that subtle direction doesn't work with you. You keep insisting you're right even when qualified people hit you over the head with your errors. You pretend you are at their level, but everyone can see you're a joke. If you had any self respect, you'd either ask these people to teach you, or you'd have the respect to go away until you can return actually knowing something about what you want to discuss.
  12. gluon Banned Banned


    I have shown this work to a physicist, and yet, you have the audasity to speak for these so-called PhD students, which sometimes i am suspicious of. You can't even know physics verh well, if you cannot see that there was no mistakes in this thread, par one.

    I am publishing this paper in three months, then we shall see who the fool is.
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    This paper? What paper? In which journal?
  14. gluon Banned Banned

    There is no journal yet; My friend gave me a substantial ammount of money to do two things with, with only one of those things i could choose, and under thus conitions:

    1) If i used his \(X\) amount of money to write a book, he would need no return of a physical review, whether by a single scientist or a congress of scientists,

    But i changed my mind, and my investigation into the psyche, a very cliche subject considered woo-woo here, made me realize i needed to make a change. That change should valuably noticed, since no one here [[apart from me]] has studied quantum consciousness to the degree in which most here can argue. As big-headed as this is, inexorably leads us to one truth. That truth being, is that i was right, and you are too cowardly to admit it, and alphanumeric was to subtle to admit it. So you and him, are compatable in so many ways.

    The paper, is titled:

    On a New Interpretation of Derivations Concerning Musings of a Physics Student

    This paper sir, is only four pages long, but i have passed it across my lecturer who has validated its correctness, but maybe not so much the derivations importance, but then again, any true physicist should know, that any contribution to physics, is better than no one at all.
  15. gluon Banned Banned

    You keep insisting you're right even when qualified people hit you over the head with your errors.

    That's also a lie. I admitted i was wrong in another thread the other day, Sir James.
  16. gluon Banned Banned

    And, surprise, surprise, James, you have lied also again in saying

    If you had any self respect, you'd either ask these people to teach you

    I asked whether a photon today could flux into matter in relation to a photon having a finite inertia, which was proven in a link i provided... so i do ask people to teach me, so stop spinning these unmodest lies, because i can see right through you.
  17. funkstar ratsknuf Valued Senior Member

    Oh, go away.
  18. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Let's see, Ben, Prometheus and I are physics postgrad. Rpenner did physics undergrad. D H I'm not sure about but I'd wager either a maths or physics degree (at least). The same for Guest. Every single one of us says the same things to you. We are all coherent in our criticisms in that when we point out errors we generally point out the same errors, because we all know the material and hence can spot your errors. If we were BS'ing too and we're just a bunch of unemployed people who flunked GCSE physics, we'd be as incoherent as you and V in this thread.

    Both Ben and I have given our names and universities here before, you often call me by my actual name when you're trying to intimidate me (and fail miserably). We've got papers in journals. As James said, we've got the qualifications hanging on our wall which you obviously covert so much but I'm sure will never attain.

    Besides, it doesn't need a physics degree and advanced knowledge of field theory to spot that M(1+M) = 2M is only valid if M=0 or M=1. It doesn't take advanced physics knowledge to know that E=mc^2 isn't valid for a photon. If you're wrong you're wrong, irrespective of the qualifications of the person pointing it out.
    The problem is you haven't studied quantum mechanics AT ALL. So to say you're ahead of any of us on quantum conciousness just because you've read a pop science book is stupid. Each and every time someone has challenged you to do the simplest bit of quantum mechanics you either fail or run away. EVERY TIME.
    I suspect we're into the realms of completely unabashed, unrestrained lying now. That or you know some very very stupid people and they don't tend to hold onto their money very long (giving it to other idiots it would seem). I do not believe that anyone whose knowledgable in physics would pay you to write a book. I know they wouldn't pay me. There's tons of people better at explaining than me, with much more knowledge to boot. You're behind on both counts.

    So far your list of friends includes a physics lecturer/professor/educator who thinks you're worthy of going into an advanced maths class when you can't multiply out brackets, a physicist friend who doesn't realise you don't know any physics and a wealthy philanthropist who is willing to spend hard earned money on getting your ignorance to the masses. Is there something in the drinking water where you live?
    That's not even coherent. It doesn't even tell the reader what the topic is. Derivations of what? Musings about what? About the Hilbert space based construction of quantum mechanics? The state of science funding in the Western world? Is there really a Planet X? Why do M&M melt in your mouth and not in your pocket? And why on Earth would anyone want to pay to have you musing about topics you don't know about? It's bloody free to read your crap here and even we're bored of it.

    If you actually bothered to read papers (well, if you had the capacity to understand them) you'd know titles need to be a bit more illuminating.
    Since when have I been subtle when it comes to telling you I think you're a compulsive liar, a hypocrite and bordering on plain delusional? You spin so many lies you get caught up in them. You said you were going to be published before Christmas, you posted a thread going "Haha!" at James and possibly me. Never materialised. I'm sure you won't get published in a reputable journal.
    Wow, admitting you were wrong once, the other day. Shame you were actually wrong about 50 times everyday.
    No, your kind of questions are ones where you think you already know the answer and where you don't actually want people to teach you but rather engage you in conversation so you can repeat endlessly what you think is right. Generally you turn out to be wrong and in those cases you will listen to noone, irrespectively of the evidence against you, the people telling you being much more knowledgable and you knowing full damn well you don't know about the topic.

    V's tried to tell me about the Planck length and how physics there works when that's my thesis topic. StevenA on PhysOrg tries to tell me string theory doesn't need 10 dimensions when I can explicitly do the calculations which give d=10 or that 'linear' is a word only he knows the real meaning of. You've tried to tell me that \((a-ib)(a+ib) = a^{2}-b^{2}+2abi\) when anyone child with a crayon can show its not. And yet you still proclaimed you were right and Dr Wolf backed you up, which he obviously didn't given even he isn't as wacked out on nuttiness to get the multiplication of brackets wrong. And that's stuff 10 year olds learn! And yet you try to tell us you're ahead of us when it comes to quantum conciousness.

    Yeah, just like Vk's certain about how G, h, c and N_A all relate but he didn't know h isn't in relativity.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  19. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Actually, it is defined to be the number of carbon atoms in 12 grams of Carbon-12, but I'm nit-picking. My Chart of the Nuclides [GE Nuclear Energy, 14th Edition, 1989] shows the mass of C-12 [98.90% abundance] as 12.000000000 amu, C-13 [1.10% abundance] as 13.00335483 amu; and the periodic table of the elements shows an average mass for Carbon as being 12.011 amu.

    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro's_number
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2009

Share This Page