Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Magical Realist, Jul 22, 2013.
That makes no sense either.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Sciforums is like an asylum, a safe haven for batshit crazy people like Layman.
We should just ignore people like him.
You would think they were handing out toasters for the "most incoherent" award.
I'm taking Undefined advice in ignoring the trolls. I have proved you wrong on many statements and exposed you for making up half of it. I have had quite enough of you to do a life time. Good day to you.
Nah, you just got your ass in check and thought you could save face by a withdraw :truce: and a quick cab ride back to the crib. :runaway: Too late, gunslinger. CheeeeYECK !!! :spank: I finally caught up with your so-called physics thread, though. Pure unadulterated tripe. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!uke: What's so hilarious though is that you actually blurted out something here worthy of developing. I realized later it was purely accidental which was all the more entertaining. Well, enjoy that walk of shame, Reiku. That's what you do best. See ya. :wave: Wouldn't wanna be ya. :blbl:
Another one bites the dust. At least, until he comes back as one of his various sock puppets.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I thought that was a requirement for having an accepted scientific theory.
Then it would seem like I should have left that part out as well. Instead I should have just derived some equations that show that matter is the amount of energy it would contain per lines of photons. Then perhaps skip the step where I would introduce E = m c^2, since of course this relation could not actually be related to anything in any physical type of way...
Then all I would have to do is show how it conforms with experiment, without anyone being any wiser of how I got there in the first place. Then by the time they do I would most likely be long dead of old age. In the meantime I don't think anyone will miss out on anything, since stating a theory in a coherent manner would only get it rejected in the first place.
Thank you, aqueous id. I think I am really starting to get physics now, and why physicist develop their theories the way they do. I no longer feel upset with them for making incoherent theories all the time. I GET IT!
The fact you feel the need to point that out is bad for a forum which claims it's moderated.
A standard of intellectual honesty would be nice. For example: Having the intellectual honesty to understand your place in the pecking order. IE understanding 'YOUR level of understanding' of the science being discussed and contributing to the discussion accordingly. Understand science has nothing to do with opinion. If you have an assertion to make you should have some evidence that it's worthy of discussion. The moderators should read the posts and when somebody shows they're incapable of adhering to the standard of intellectual honesty required to participate in a science discussion then do the moderator duties. Never happen. The Internet forum natural path is 'downhill'.
Have you been drinking or something... your previous post quoted above has all sorts mingled with all sorts. Again, take a rest, lay off and I will lay off your mistakes, come back another day when your head seems a bit more cogent.
(Just some friendly advice to a rather... aggressive poster.)
Way to play the crank cynic. So? :shrug:
No, you just think that's what you've done. In reality, you just dredge anything up that occurs to you and post it, purporting to make science out of it, knowing full well that the folks with even the most basic training will shoot it down.
IOW, you can neither read nor understanding the meaning of this, much less how it was discovered. All your life you've heard it but still you've never bothered to try to figure out where it comes from, whether it can be proven true or false. So you just put on the blinders and let your internal random thought generator go, and ouila! you have your own personal science. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but science isn't democratic. Nature doesn't give damn about your reductions, oversimplifications and mindless forays into your little dream world.
Au contraire, you have to start with a hypothesis grounded in nature, not in your Pollyanna opinions of fantasy over fact.
We keep telling you to cut to the chase and take an introductory class in physical science. Now who's to blame? :shrug:
Then stop rejecting them. Read Newton, Einstein, whoever is creating the organ-envy au jour. Read for understanding. Get a tutor. Learn how to solve elementary problems. I presume you can calculate your weight on the moon. Can you calculate your apparent mass if leaving us at 0.8c ? You really need some basic skills to engage intelligent conversation here.
Don't congratulate me for highlighting your denial.
Not for at least 6 months, with earnest study and a coach.
Take Geometry first, and tell us how theorems are developed. You have a lot of crawling to do before you can walk.
If you were true to yourself, you would fix your own inadequacies instead of dumping them in a forum.
Sure you do. Just keep telling yourself that, and you can spend the next year or two griping about what everyone else knows, but which you haven't bothered to learn, and which therefore must be incorrect.
Application of rpenner’s standard argument metric:
Claiming strings of photons (MAD)
Claiming that applied math has no physical interpretations; science is fundamentally wrong (BAD)
Rejecting self-development; fantasizing to delusions of grandeur (SAD)
You have nothing cogent to offer, Reiku. Like your buddies/alters here, you should be learning rather than pontificating. Of course that's like expecting pigs to fly.
You are a brilliant troll. You not only name me by another persons name, but you derail the conversation with idiotic attacks so that your own blunders are not recognized... but they have and that is why you are talking like you are.
(And by the way) yes... your mistakes have been exposed. I shall rehash since you never took my peace-offering
You said that c^2 was not a conversion factor. Then later you admitted it did with no apology towards me. You then put words in my mouth saying I ''never saw any physical importance in c^2'' this was a diversionary tactic by you, to deflect your original mistake. Now you have resorted to the upmost silliest of attacks, by calling me of someone elses name and now accusing me of not learning.
Sure it's a reiku sockpuppet? Chessmaster LOL. Looks like an 'okey doke' candidate. LOL.
I was just screwing with you. LOL You don't have to get all but hurt about it.
For your information I am currently enrolled to get a degree in mathematics. Then I am actually planning to develop a theory that has "strings of photons". I would think I haven't gone any more mad than scientist that work on preon particle theory, and its developers have been known for having an uncanny ability to predict aspects of particle theory logically without mathematics. If you actually stopped to think about it, it wouldn't seem as crazy as it sounds. I just think that is where the deeper understanding of particle physics lies.
Why don't you save your opinion until you've finished your studies? We can wait for a version based on 'the Layman' mathematical description of predicted natural phenomena..
No sweat off my back. You're the one losing out here, not me.
I doubt that. Once you learn Geometry, the scales will begin to drop from your eyes. You will begin to understand that it really is possible to prove something true or false. At some point your world view shifts and you will be surprised how all of the stuff you never quite understood has already been exceedingly well investigated and explained. At some point you will gravitate toward higher levels of inquiry and all of this petty stuff will fall by the wayside.
I don't think you should feel you are qualified to judge folks who are decades ahead of you in basic skills, as this statement appears to imply. Nor should you remain cynical about the topic you're planning to study.
You underestimate what I think about. We all get past this in our early education. The barrier that's confronting you is well-known and understood. As soon as you begin to gain a few skills all of this mountain of false conceptions you've built out of a few dozen basic misunderstandings will evaporate.
Deep understanding of anything begins with a very basic formal education. Beyond that is grad school, some mid-level knowledge, an introduction to journals and research, and beyond that some serious inquiry if you go for the doctorate. But still with a PhD you're a fish out of water in most real world areas of investigation. By the time you have a lead industry or faculty position you likely will have what you would fairly call a "deeper understanding".
Don't worry though, if you actually get past your freshman year in math you'll begin to see all of your current outlook as something purely contrived and irrelevant. Real stuff will begin to jump out at you and intrigue you. It's that curiosity to understand real stuff that redefines budding scientists.
Just a hunch, brucep, reinforced by a few other comments to that effect, and based on his signature use of pseudo-math in that other thread of his. But to me several of them seem to be one user who is agile in flipping from one persona to the next. There are some odd patterns I notice that they gravitate around. But actually I'm quite surprised when some of the more attentive members here will nail one of them and send them back to Sock Puppet Hell or wherever they hang out. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yeah Chessmaster. Total zero yet oddly proud of it ... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think you're right. The crank of a million sockpuppets. Definitely an 'opening game' disaster in the making. ChessMaster? LOL.
The only thing you've proofed is you're a scientific illiterate.
You're not exactly the scientific pillar of the community here. You give a post like this? And you want us to think you know science?
Separate names with a comma.