Jerked Around Issues ryans, I don't know what the f*** you are talking about with this Dijkstra's algorithm. You claim that you have superior reasoning, but you cannot even prove that the shortest distance between 2 points in euclidian space is a straight line. ANS: Please see my concluding responses under topic "Relativity" They are applicable here also and will shorten my response to your diatribe. I could very well attempt your exercise. I choose not to for good reason. At every turn of a discussion you attempt to throw the conversation off track by introducting some other issue and challenge me to answer your questions. I choose to not be lead around by you or anyonelse. If you have a problem with my posts address the issues in the post do not attempt to distract readers from the issue. I have never made any such claim of "Superior Reasoning" that is your BS to try and sway the opinion of the MSB. But since you raise the issue I would have to say my reasoning regarding the changing Pi due to Relativity was superior to yours. Your arguements were faulty and off point, dodges of the issues just as the above challenge is off point and a dodge of the issue. I don't play your game. Go stroke yourself and enjoy. ANS: Unfortunately because of your attitude and inability to address issues forthrightly on there own merit means you will never actually know what I can and cannot do. ANS: Dream on you ****. PS: I would think a fellow as smart as you, that is so full of worldly knowledge, would recognize the top method used to caculate the shortest distance between two points. It is called Dijkstra's algorithm. If you don't know of it then perhaps you should go learn some math yourself. Moderator edit: Personal insults add nothing useful to the discussion.
No Mac. This is a method of finding the distance between 2 points on a graph, as a computer would see it, and it is limited to the resolution of the graph. Try doing it from the calculus of variations perspective....Oh I forgot, you don't know calculus, silly me...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: Oh Yes Actually, 'long hand' is better for accuracy. But regardless... it comes down to one thing. You want to disprove relativity is incorrect in order to boost your theory. You have been completely incapable of doing this, so you start to attack the assumptions. Unfortunately you did this before you actually realized that your theory has even more assumptions... and that your are currently unfounded, unlike the ones you are attacking. You continue to tell people that their interpetation of 'ruler size' is wrong, but have yet to show any math saying why. Others have gone into great detail to explain this too you, but you still show a basic lack of understanding. You ask questions which can only be explained to you using mathmatics which you do not understand/accept... even though they are well proven, and are the basis of the technology that is allowing you to communicate on the net. The assumptions you are attacking have more evidence for them then most other theories. You have done little to try to understand, and much to just argue points over and over. At least you've stopped arguing, even if your reasons are bull.
Wrong on most points Persol, ANS: I suspect I understand far more than you and the others are prepared to acknowledge. And I am not out to disprove Relativity. If that happens then it will have been for the better of science and I have not been attempting to do so to promote my own view. I simply want others that are open to new thought to use it and to question the undeserved throne that most here place the concept of Relativity and to point out its weaknesses. ANS: There is nothing wrong with the mathematics. It is the misapplication of mathematics in the description of reality based on data and observation which are not exclusively explained only by the concept of Relativity and because it can be mathematically made consistant then claim it is reality even though its assumptions are frought with contridiction and clear error; such as altering the conclusion by one set of mathematics for an event and impose another set of mathemeatics, altering the specifictions of the first calculation so as to result in an agreemnt with the extended assumptions of Relativty; which lack completely any such data or observation to support those conclusions. to wit VAF and Simultaneity. No sir I am afraid it is you and the others that are being short sighted and bull headed about this whole string. It has nothing to do with my qualification (which you and the others attempt to demean at every turn). It is the weakest of defenses. If you cannot justify Relativity's assumptions then so be it but don't try to turn that into "Its because you don't understand". ANS: I have enjoyed your participation and I have not argued the same points over and over, except when the responses have failed to address the point at issue over and over with meaningless distractions. My reasons for closure are to stop the bull. I feel I have made a case for questioning your position and that others can see that. I am not suprised that this MSB has failed to be open to reasonable discussion on the issue. It was anticipated. Have a nice day.
Re: Wrong on most points Originally posted by MacM ...and I have not been attempting to do so to promote my own view. Sure... you posted about UniKEF a couple hundred times for your health. I simply want others that are open to new thought to use it and to question the undeserved throne that most here place the concept of Relativity and to point out its weaknesses. You have not pointed out any weaknesses in the theory. Every 'weakness' you pointed out has been explained. Then you just ignore the explanation. ANS: There is nothing wrong with the mathematics. It is the misapplication of mathematics in the description of reality based on data and observation... Just stop right there... once again, the mathematics is backed up by experiments... which are reality. In contrast, going faster then the speed of light is not based on reality. No sir Lol.. eve\er notice that quacks say no sir more then most people? It has nothing to do with my qualification (which you and the others attempt to demean at every turn). It is the weakest of defenses. If you cannot justify Relativity's assumptions then so be it but don't try to turn that into "Its because you don't understand". I could care less about your qualifications, except that you do not understand the answers people give you and therefore assume they are false. YOU HAVE NOT POINTED OUT A SINGLE FLAW THAT HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. The only issue here is if you understand and listen too the explanation. I feel I have made a case for questioning your position and that others can see that. Your case was not made. When you have an issue that appears not to be resolvable, research it, and then ask, and then listen. You seem to be missing some steps. I am not suprised that this MSB has failed to be open to reasonable discussion on the issue. It was anticipated. Then get the hell out.
Nice/Touchy Persol, ANS: Typical exageration. ANS: I have pointed out numerous weakness, you simply refuse to acknowledge them and argue points not related to the issue. ANS: Show me one shred of evidence or observation that supports VAF or Simultaneity. Going faster that v = c is natural once the artificail limit by undue assumption is lifted frome Relativity. Further it is not prohibited by Lorenz relativity which is comperable to Einstien Relativity in overall quality and function. Plus There is observation that favors the idea of v>c over the absurd belief that "While absolute velocity doesn't exist, you can impose an absolute velocity". The quasars seem to disagree with our view. Don't tell me how they solved that and make Relativity answer the question. That solution on its fact assume Relativity correct and simply write mathmatics to make the Quasars comply. 5,200c is the linear observed and calculated velocity before tampering with facts using relavistic excuses. ANS: Ever notice how this MSB attempts to paint that picture rather than address such questions forthrightly? ANS: If you care less then why is it the jprimary topic of your responses? ANS: The only thing missing is an intelligent conversation regarding the issue that does not attempt to impose the Relativity soultion to prove Relativity is right and the alternative is wrong. You are in a circular rut and do not want to get out. ANS: And what miss all the fun. I enjoyed seeing ryan make an ass out of himself on relavistic Pi. If you don't like me or my message then stay the hell out of the conversation.
Your Right On Radio Active Waves, You are right, so I guess I might as well stay - huhPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Persol: Sure... you posted about UniKEF a couple hundred times for your health. MacM: Typical exageration. Typical of what. We've had his arhument before, and I've demonstrated before a better abilitiy to count. The forum has a search function. Use it before you claim that you haven't posted 200 times on UniKEF.
Search Persol, For your edification UniKEF shows 6 topics generated. Only three by me. The number of messages would be a function of numerous replies. Me vs a half dozen responders. I have no intention of counting messages and sorting out who said what first. I dare say if I search Relativity the quantity would be vastly more. What do you think?
Persol: Sure... you posted about UniKEF a couple hundred times for your health. MacM: Typical exageration. Let's see: 4 - Unikef Gravity Testing 15 - Alternative to Special Relativity 30 - UniKEF Clarification 10 - Relativistic Mass 9 - Origin of Existance 2 - Theory development forum? 11 - Black Hole and Light 9 - Unconventional Theories 11 - Physics 4 - The Twin Paradox 3 - Re-Hash 7 - Clocks and Particle Entanglement 87 - UniKEF 7 - Propogation of Light 12 - relativity 2 - God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesnt Exist. 2 - Ive got a theory 7 - Science and Pseudoscience - A Primer Not all those threads are about unikef, but a large number of unrelated threads had been 'infected' by your posting of unikef, and I only counted the UniKEF posts. All said, 232 posts before I stopped counting. Also 14 PMs to me alone, plus whatever you sent to others. Once again you have called me a liar. Once again you are wrong. I think you are a worthless git... and I'm not lying.
Not So Persol, I never ever called you a liar. Seems to me you are getting just a bit sensative. BTW I didn't see you count the posts made on this MSB for Relativity. Point out anything I said above that is not factual.
Re: Not So This is my complaint about everything you post here. It is all only in an attempt to prove that people on this site who use science are wrong, and that you are right. Your theories are not anywhere near the level of things that are actually considered science. You having a similar idea in the past does not prove your current thoughts true.... especially since I seriously doubt that your idea had ANY backing besides 'I think it is true'. You have demonstrated no redeemable scientific ability. We have all seen something created/discovered and said "I've thought of that before". However, it doesn't mean shit if you didn't actually do anything productive with your idea. You continue to whine that relativity is wrong, without even understanding it... and then say that UniKEF is closer to the truth, without it showing anything. You are a crackpot... there isn't else much to it.
Amended Post Persol, If you will notice I amended my post while you were posting. It was in the wrong area. And frankly I give a damn less what you think.
Re: Not So Originally posted by MacM I never ever called you a liar. Seems to me you are getting just a bit sensative. You have said on multiple cases that I stretch the truth... which I consider lying. BTW I didn't see you count the posts made on this MSB for Relativity. Point out anything I said above that is not factual. How about "Typical exageration." It is a simple matter of counting... not 'exagerating'. Or "Oh yes, I forgot you are smarter than a computer. And long hand is better" which is true... but was obviously meant to be ironic. I've spent too much time reading through and counting your shit posts tonight.
I don't recall that Persol, ANS: I don't recall that. If I said that then I surely had good grounds to make that statement or you pissed me off by an attack and I was returning fire. This is a two way street. I don't attack unless attacked.
Thanks "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle. ANS: Can I assume by your signature that equates me to Aristotle?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ryans, ANS: At least I have proven I am super at something.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You really can't stand being shown wrong can you? Especially by a super crackpot. Bye.
