"S" Persol, ANS: Wrong again. The "S" in SWAG stands for "Scientific", not "Silly". While it is (and always has to be a guess of some sort, it is at least based on reasonable assumptions, not like assuming being an observer causes some reaction through time and distance.
Actually, it does mean Silly Wild Ass Guess... and is being used incredibly out of place here. We aren't choosing piping or anything. But regardless, you are once again dragging the thread off topic with some innane shit. The idea is simple. We know about observers and dimensions. We use those as our postulates. You'd rather use a universal frame of reference, which has never been seen/demonstrate (and which every attempt has failed). Perhaps you should take a class on logic. A theory based on unproven postulates is worthless.
SWAG Persol, Now I understand. You are one of these young wet behind the ears kids that went through the 60's educational courses. SWAG is, and has been for more years than you are old, "Scientific Wild Ass Guess". But the "Scientific" part is the most important part. You sir are dead in the water on this issue and it matters not what you have to say you have exposed your ignorance, your ego and failed thought processes all in one fatal swoop. Your arguements are without merits and worthless. You have yet to resopnd to providing any logic what-so-ever to assuming the WHAT (an Observer) can yield HOW an affect is caused. It is pure double talk BS - give it up. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
Re: SWAG whoa... you consider someone who went to school in the 60s a kid, wet behind the ears? what do you think of someone who went to middle school in the 90s?
Ha Lethe, You missed my pun. I went through Nuke school in 1965. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
Just FYI: http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?p=dict&String=exact&Acronym=SWAG I have responded to your question about the cause. I said it was baseless. Theories are based on postulates. They may be a cause, but don't have to be. You will notice that newtonian mechanics is based on the postulates I listed, and don't have a cause. Your theory of UniKEF, and most ether theories are pased on postulates without a cause. They may try and be the cause, but the theory themselves do not have one... nor need one. Maybe an observer is acause, maybe not. I really don't care because either way it is a postulate. You are still confused about what science is for. It to provide predictions. This does not require cause. This is pointless. It is going nowhere and you are going further and further off topic.
Good Persol, Your SWAG post is good. I would hope that you noticed that "Scientific" is listed first and in bold. Your choice of pushing secondary meaning as being a primary one reflects the weakness of your position. We are off topic not because I choose to discuss issues off topic but because you seem to want to attack any comment I may make about any subject and if you think I will roll over and let you dictate what is truth on this board you are mistaken. When you are right you are right but when you are wrong you are wrong and you sir are wrong. If I submit something as an example doesn't mean that subject should become the issue but it does because you make it the issue. If you were left unchallenged others would get the view you were right. Let me suggest you confine your attacks to actual error and stop this nonsense of trying to make everything I say somehow incorrect. Argueing about the meaning of SWAG is a perfect example. Even when you are wrong by your own post you seem to want to claim you are right. To make my point, reference the differances on this MSB and others I post the following extract comment by a physicist that after "Discussing" the issues of "Time Dilation" (3 Clocks) indepth came to this coclusion: What a differance in tone and attitude. Can anyone here explain that? Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
Yes, I can. You knew he was a respectable physicist and knew that his opinion was important to you. In speaking to him you therefore made every effort to avoid sounding unreasonable. You should try doing that here sometimes. What led him to be glad you were being reasonable? He sounds relieved. Was it a long discussion?
Yeah, I always say "I'm glad to being reasonable" to people who haven't been a pain in the rearPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As for staying on topic, there is none left. I've addressed every point you've made, and you have made no counter point. The only point you seem to still think is a point is the stupid definition of an acronymn, and if you read most post you would see it applies equally to each definition. If you have a better arguement make it. Otherwise this is going nowhere.
Moderate Canute, ANS: Your suggestion is incorrect. The simple fact is posts elsewhere aren't nearly as long as they are here because here "YOU" (meaning several persons) choose to go off point and never discuss the issue but post baseless BS attacks. I could also post several other response in like kind. This is not an isolated case but a general case. This group in all seriousness has some sort of attitude problem. Nor have I acquiessed anything to gain favor. We simply are able to openly discuss the issue; which is impossible here. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
Mac, every time you make a point we answer it. Then you claim something failry stupid and refuse to believe us. You haven't been right once in any of your argument threads since you've been here. At this point nobody is really expecting you to have a damn clue what you are talking about. Perhaps if you posted something, and actually showed some knowledge about it, you'd get a better response. Although I doubt the whole 'show some knowledge' part is going to happen... considering your track record and all. I suggest since we treat you so badly, you go where you "can openly discuss the issue" without worrying about silly things like logic, science, and proof.
Posted by Mac Yeah, we have a negative attitude towards the one in every 2 people on this forum who wants to prove Einstein wrong. The only reason this theory comes under attack so often on this forum is that it is the only modern theory that they aren't stupified by the mathematics. Why do you think I haven't come here much in the past couple of months, because I was sick of having these bullshit arguements with you Mac. When I first came here you were argueing with canute about this bullshit then he left because all arguements he raised fell on deaf ears. Then it settled for a bit until you decided to recycle all the same old arguements that you raised with canute with me, then I left, tired of trying to get through to you (It took me longer than it should have to realise that you are here not to learn but to ram your bullshit theories down everyones throat, just like Jehovah's witness). Now Persol has taken up the mantle, lowering his intellect to that pitiful level of yours, justifying his arguements to support his responses when you, as usual, fail to be accountable. You are a borring old man Mac, who's intellectual flame should never have been alight.
Black Persol, Calling a kettel black - wow. The following is another extract from another site. Here they actually discuss issues and while text books aren't cast aside, they recognize that these texts one day will be cast aside and are therefore able to think beyond the text book answer and consider other interesting factors. As you can tell (I would hope) the issue is time dilation. "L" is the physicist, not sure of the poster. I am DanK on this site since Mac was taken. Waiting on my opinion. My, My what a differance. Do any of you have any explanation for such radical differences of attitude? Does this sound like they were relieved that I was being reasonable. Hardly. Your efforts to discredit me do nothing but discredit this site. That is a shame. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
Ryans, I suspect you still have a bad taste from your "Changing Pi loss". I know you didn't admit the loss, but only because you refuse to admit it. It is clear to anyone with a 3rd grade education. ************** RELAVISTIC ROTATING DISK ************ The ruler changes exactly as much as the circumference and the ruler changes exactly the same amount as the radius and hence measurement doesn't change, hence calculated Pi doesn't change. *************************************************** Many of you seem to think you can say anything you choose and not be challenged. Well you are challenged because what you are saying is off topic, distorted and misleading BS. I have asked for specific statements made by me that were in error and you have not responded except to cast more BS enuendo. I hope that doesn't go un-noticed by others. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
Persol, ANS: Good plan but next time try to respond with valid comments these posts would be much shorter. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
MacM: You didn't bother reading my comments on the rotating disc problem, did you? Or is it that you didn't understand it?
See Electrodynamic Spin Gravity Theory, Astronomy stream, this forum. Judge for yourself, but you will have to read it it is similar to Newtonian gravity, but yes very different. SR and GR are total concoctions IMO Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
