Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Pete, Sep 6, 2004.
Good point, Persol.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I would only go as far to suggest that I have contributed to this forum. the issue regarding intelligence, understanding, etc., is clearly debatable and unresolved, except in those minds that have preconcieved and inflexable ideas.
But being shown in error would not bother me in the least. Being called a liar BY A LIAR is however over the top.
The facts are I did respond to the posts in question, in spite of the derogatory tones they were presented. Further fact is their conclusion of right and wrong on the issue comes down to their preconcieved notion that aspects of relativity must be conserved.
The paper in question came up with the correct answer. If doing so by leaving out some notion of Relativity, then perhaps it is time to consider that Relativity really isn't necessary.
My poll question is to stop the abuse and to further the quality of threads and to enhance the learning by all by staying respectfully on topic.
MacM clearly failed to draw a logical conclusion from the conversation. Firstly, galilean relativity used by the authors to make their prediction was flawed and I have pointed the flaw to him (the imaginary time thing). As for SR being not required in the analysis, that was the authors another wrong assumption when they claimed that the formula they adopt has nothing to do with SR (it certainly does). Hence the conclusion that perhaps it is time to consider that Relativity really isn't necessary is just silly. Obviously, in such situation, when velocities must be added one to another some form of relativity must be used, whether it is galilean or einstenian. We know galilean is not suitable for this case, then it must be something else. I thought einstenian relativity would fit the situation rather perfectly...but we know, MacM and the authors had already assumed from the beginning that SR must not enter into the picture. They just made the wrong judgement.
Since my name was inserted in the title of this thread and the thread starter now refuses to answer my challenges. Further that at least three inept, obnoxious Relativists have used distortion, diversion, innuendo and outright slander in efforts to mitigate my message rather than seek truth, I draw your attention to this thread:
[thread=42491]GPS and Relativity[/thread].
RONALD HATCH, of Wilmington, California. Chairman of the Satellite Division of the Institute of Navigation, Hatch is one of the premier specialists in the world on the Global Positioning System. In a pair of articles in the prominent dissident journal Galilean Electrodynamics (141 Rhinecliff St., Arlington, MA 02476), Hatch shows how GPOS data provides evidence against, not for, both special and general relativity: "Relativity and GPS," parts I and II, Galil. Electrodyn. , vol. 6 no. 3 (1995), pp. 51-57; and vol. 6 no. 4 (1995), pp.73-78. He promotes a Lorentzian alternative theory.
I've pointed out several places where you have lied. You continually accuse me of doing so... and then back down when challenged.... hence reinforcing my original point.
Your response was along the lines of 'compressibility is not an issue you fucking lame brain'.... when in fact it was.
Not much of a response.
Let me repeat. I will only continue to respond as long as civility is maintained.
Now your above assertion is only half correct. You have repeatedly made that claim. However, I did not back down. Do you want me to repeat my proof where I went back and found your comment where you took a position and chose sides on the Merry-Go-Round/Pi issue where you made the same false claim that you had never done so and challenged me as here to go prove it.
Well I am not wasting my time chasing down your historical screw ups. I will however re-post the last case where I infact went to the trouble to spent two days finding your comment and making it once again public record that you have lied. Just as you do here.
Do you wish me to do so again? It won't take ling this time I have it located. We can clear this matter up fast.
1 - The first complaint was specifically stated as being paragraph 2.2 and the failure of such a term being included in two formulas.
I pointed out the title of that paragraph as being "Short Description" which inferred that it was intentionally left general for simplicity and did not include everything.
2 - Under hostile name calling I had no intention of debating the merits of a claim for the requirement of a particular propery of an Ether, generally disputed as even existing.
It was assinine to argue over such properties with people that were argueing that such an ether doesn't exist. It was obvious BS.
3 - I may well be entirely wrong but you would have to show me where it is claimed otherwise but I find the term "Compressibility" to be at a minimum a mis-nomer. Dimensional changes by Lorentz would not be compression but contraction. Compression implies an increasing pressure with motion which would cause a stopping force in contrast to the Newton Laws of Motion.
Now pick a side and argue that side. Do not think you can argue no ether exists and then think you can enter the picture and argue what the properties of the ether are. What a joke.
4 - Under the adverse conditions of that thread I concluded by saying if the methodology used produced the correct results (which it did) without the inclusion of your "Compressbility" factor, then that suggested your requirement was in error and not the paper.
I still maintain that position.
Perhaps if you correct your terminology and attitude you could convience me the paper is flawed but not under current conditions.
Ah, you mean like calling people 'fucking lame brains', telling them to 'stick in in their ear', calling them liars and not being able to back it up.. etc etc?
Sure, and I'll once again point out your distortion of the topic.
Do you think AT ALL before you type? Just about ever scientist you encounter will think an ether doesn't exist. Does that mean they are allowed to question missing equations for something that is said to be part of the ether? That is so ass-backwards I'm amazed even you said it.
Once again you decide to interpret a paper in a way that is not only contrary to what it says, but solely for the purpose of supporting your view. He also specifies density and stress (which would be related to the compresibility), but density and stress changes would not be there if he was only talking about dimensional changes. You probably have no idea what that actually mean, as you've demonstrated before that you haven't the faintest clue on anything besides flat geometries.
You say you have an elephant. I don't belive you. You tell me that your elephant is pink and can fly. I'm not allowed to use that in my argument when your 'proof' is a picture of an elephant at the zoo?
He claimed several properties such as compressibility, density, and stress. None of which show up in the equations. This isn't arguing about what the propoerties are... this is about the claims not being consistent.
Your hypocricy just gets funnier and funnier. You claim that I can't convienvce you of the flawed paper unless I use the correct terminology, WHEN I'M USING THE SAME TERMINOLOGY AS THE PAPER. Eh? The stupid things you've been saying has been increasing exponetially by the day... did you have a stroke or something?
I have promised James R that I will cease "Responding in Kind". That is to say I have indeed said things like the above. Of course you find nothing wrong that it was in response to be called an ignoramous, an idiot, a liar, etc.
FYI: In the future say whatever the hell tickles your tummy, I will only point out your immaturity and then proceed to bury your off topic issue or distorted response.
Now when I post I extract the exact paragraph or detailing page or paragrah showing what I refer to. You post absolute nothing but verbal assaults and claims with no references.
I am not about to read back through 30 or more pages looking to see if I see what you are referring to. This particular paper as I recall consisted of many pages and many sub-titled areas with many pages.
A proper response would be to have identified what secion, what page and what paragraph you found in error. In which case I would have responded more directly. I am not going out on wild goose chases. I posted specific information. If you found a flaw or conflict about that within the paepr it is your obligation to show where that is and not expect people to take YOUR word forit.
While inappropriate to any technical discussion of the issues, this one is not nearly as bad as most but it is an example of your modius operandi and that is to do nothing but flap your bums and make smart ass remarks.
This is really going to hurt you now because I have made a determination to rise so far above you that you won't be able to see over my shoe laces.
The problem is that you take it upon yourself to 'bury' anything you don't agree with. Yuriy's compressibility remark was right on the money... yet you trying to bury it and push it back, until you eventually lied about what the paper said.
funny enough, you don't have to. Your site had less than a dozen pages. The quote was on the very first page.
I gave you quotes... from the FIRST PAGE. You responded by ignoring them, just as you ignored Yuriy's comments.
And it also happens to be the truth... much like you editting your post and then trying to call me a liar. Sure, you saw that I lied about your decimal places, and then decided to edit your post removing all evidence that I lied.... sure... and I did it knowing that you could have just left the post correct without editing.
You can attempt to take the high road all you want... but at the Transform thread shows, you'll just lie whenever you don't have a good answer. You can't help yourself.
Considering that I have already addressed this issue several times and have shown you that "Compressability" not only IS NOT on the first page but is IS NOT ever mentioned in the paper, this comment is a deliberate lie.
Ultimately it was noted that the paper did refer to "Density" on the first page but as I have pointed out "Density" and "Compressability" are two distinctly different physical principles.
When Yuriy and you both began babbeling about "Compressability" I did infact go back and look for that issue. It was NOT there. And still is not there. You are fuller than a Christmas Turkey. Your comments calling me a liar are a joke when considered in light of the facts and your continued effort to call me the liar. Get real.
Yep, you sure did. You claimed something that was not fact and when I denied it was there you want to call me a liar. Please "Cut and Paste" or refer to the precise paragraph and line where this "Compressability" is mentioned. Otherwise shut the hell up.
Considering what Yuriy did by altering my post in a "Cut and Paste" and you joined in just a day before that inncident, I do believe it was possible,in fact probable, although as I have admitted I will never be able to prove it.
Another lie by Persol and worthless innuendo. See above as to who is a liar.
Read and shut up forever, Liar:
General Ether Theory
January 29, 2000
General ether theory proposes a paradigm shift back from relativity to a clas-
sical Newtonian background. It heals the main problems of the old Lorentz
•relativistic symmetry is explained in a general, simple way;
•the ether is generalized to gravity;
•the ether is compressible, changes in time;
Interesting post. Shame it doesn't support your original claim that the term compressability appeared on the first page of my referenced paper.
You have not listed my paper. WTF. Now I do see the term in the paper you presented but that has nothing to do with the arguement and your calling me a liar.
Good show Yuriy. I see you finally found what you were looking for. Your original claim was that it was at 2.2 in the paper I posted. You have found it on page "61" of another paper linked to the one I posted.
Make you feel better? That still does not support your arguement against me in that thread.
I quoted the compressibility and I quoted the density. I never said they were both on the front page, but the density one most certainly was.
The others are 1 link down... which you would have seen if you did even a quick look.
MacM: "Good show Yuriy. I see you finally found what you were looking for. Your original claim was that it was at 2.2 in the paper I posted. You have found it on page "61" of another paper linked to the one I posted.
Make you feel better? That still does not support your arguement against me in that thread."
Lie again. You can not post even a single line without lie in it.
Chapter 2, paragraph 2.2 was mentioned to prove that you were lying accusing me that equations (1) and (2) was taken from Abstract, where nobody should expect a full explanation, etc. I posted reply that these equations are the base of whole model, are named the Axioms in Chapter 2 paragraph 2.2, where it was enough place to explain everything...
So, 2.2 had nothing to do with "compressibility".
But your last post shows again that you have no clue why compressibility is important, and why it is a reason of incompleteness of whole Schmelzer’s article.
I asked you to count number of unknown variables and number of equations. You still did not do it. When you finish this job, you will see that without equation of compressibility, which is absent in the cited work, his system of equation remains unsolvable, at all!
But this argument is beyond your apprehension... All you can do – lie one more time…
Density was never mentioned in that thread. You continued your false assertion regarding the "Compressabiity" issue in that paper into several other threads for a couple of days.
When finally raised as an issue "I" ultimately made the point that "Density" is an entirely differnt physical principle.
That whole string was crap from you guys from the get go.
Quick look. You mean search several lengthy papers linked to the one I posted, like Yuriy posted showing "Compressability" on page 61 of a paper several links away from the original post. :bugeye:
Blah, blah, blah. What a lot of crap. I pointed out the title of that paragraph as being "Short Description".
Do you understand what it means to have titled it by that designation? Learn english.
For a slease bag that "Cuts & Pastes" another members post and then alters it and then calls the original poster a liar. We...ell. , Your say so is absolutely worthless. LIAR.
Once again you are simply lying. I just gave you links to where the theory includes compressibility. As for false assertions, there were none in that thread, or elsewhere. I'd ask you for quotes, but we tried that before... but everytime you seem to forget to actually back up your statement.
You are distorting the record and my comment once again.
The"false assertion" was that Yuriy had pointed out that term, further that it was on the first page of the paper I posted. It wasn't and Yuriy pointed out 2.2 which lacked that term. His claim was that it should have had that term.
But I pointed out that the paragraph was entitled "Short Description" which infers it is not complete.
Further I made the legitimate observation that considering that the authors had produced a correct result mathematically would infer that the term was not required, not that they errored.
Ultimately Yuriy has posted another paper linked to my paper and on page 61 it mentions compressability. Your links also refer to compressability. But they are not the paper I posted and the facts remain unchanged the arguement you have been making that I hadn't read my own paper and that the term was on the very first page is an outright deliberate lie.
Separate names with a comma.