Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #362895 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-03 03:48 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-09-05 19:54 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 161 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-03 03:48 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 11:39 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-03 08:39 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 16:08 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-03 15:22 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-03 20:28 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-03 15:33 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-04 05:16 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-04 01:07 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-04 08:34 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-04 08:50 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-04 19:42 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-05 00:53 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-05 11:20 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-05 18:33 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-05 21:50 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-06 05:29 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-05 23:54 -0400
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-06 16:43 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-07 07:08 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-09 12:46 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-10 14:20 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-11 13:39 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Tad Winter <floyw@timedomain.au> - 2015-09-11 19:02 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-11 13:05 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-12 15:11 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-12 14:56 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-12 14:43 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-13 08:54 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-13 09:28 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-13 18:33 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-13 16:50 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-14 19:30 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-12 23:21 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-13 09:23 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 12:18 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 13:22 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-16 19:11 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-09 12:40 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-09-09 17:52 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-09-09 17:53 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-10 13:49 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-11 06:56 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-11 13:50 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-11 22:28 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-25 07:34 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-25 10:56 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-12 20:32 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-13 09:34 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 14:00 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-13 19:04 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 23:17 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-14 19:23 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 18:43 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2015-09-15 17:28 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-15 15:13 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 14:51 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-15 19:10 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 21:28 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-18 03:00 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 12:17 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-18 14:59 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 13:11 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-23 07:56 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-23 10:30 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-23 17:56 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-24 04:46 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-23 21:20 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 12:33 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-23 21:57 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-23 20:07 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-23 22:43 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-24 05:16 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-24 20:24 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-24 23:16 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-25 12:52 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-25 22:50 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 15:06 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-26 11:42 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 13:04 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-26 23:17 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 16:18 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-27 12:26 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 11:42 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-27 23:10 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 01:31 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-28 01:44 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-28 03:23 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 16:55 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-27 23:22 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-26 08:45 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-26 16:09 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-26 12:48 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 12:25 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-23 21:48 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-23 20:04 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-24 06:50 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 14:28 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-24 05:38 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 10:57 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-24 20:23 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 11:37 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-24 21:59 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-25 13:05 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 12:09 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-25 19:18 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 12:38 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-25 19:44 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-25 13:07 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-26 16:15 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-26 12:54 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-27 12:23 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-16 19:32 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-15 15:04 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 15:05 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-15 19:02 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 21:40 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-18 03:53 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-09-18 09:40 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 13:18 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-18 23:33 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 13:17 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-16 19:30 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-17 20:56 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-17 04:25 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-09-18 15:19 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-18 05:43 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-19 07:05 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-18 15:29 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-09-20 08:04 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-19 17:10 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-21 06:13 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-20 13:41 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-25 03:03 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-24 13:51 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-18 02:45 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-19 08:04 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-19 00:11 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-09-20 08:32 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-19 23:56 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-21 06:17 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-20 18:11 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-21 19:36 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-21 06:08 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-21 16:31 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-23 20:03 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-23 04:57 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-24 06:33 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-23 14:05 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-24 19:22 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-24 04:51 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-28 10:41 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-18 19:17 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-18 21:17 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-09-20 08:34 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-19 00:16 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-25 08:06 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 00:20 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-25 00:35 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-26 07:07 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-05 19:54 -0700
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-18 12:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5a59fedf-4c85-4e79-a5ea-29d517b712ae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364457 |
On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 1:00:16 AM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > JanPB wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps "Ned Latham" should be dealt with like an annoying kid > > > > > > is most effectively dealt with, ie by actively ignoring it :-) > > > > > > > > > > Given a choice between being trolled by retards and being ignored > > > > > by retards, I'd take the latter. > > > > > > > > > > Do please feel free to ignore me. > > > > > > > > That's a nice piece of rhetoric but you still haven't told us how > > > > does one improve upon theory X without understanding X first? > > > > > > Oh, but I have: that hypothetcal I gave you explains it quite well. > > > > You haven't answered my question. > > Oh, but I have: that hypothetcal I gave you answers it quite well. You have not answered my question which was: what is the amplitude corresponding to the Feynman diagram of order two of an electron-muon scattering? > > > But since you're too thivk to understand analogy, perhaps you can > > > get to grips with one of the most frequently applied methods. > > > > I didn't ask about analogy, I asked a specific question to make > > you understand something. > > Liar. You asked a question you thought might trip me up. Yes, that's why I asked it. It should be a basic question for someone intent on replacing QED. > > > You improve on theory X by replacing it with theory Y. > > > > Sure, that was never under discussion. > > Liar. That is *exactly* what was under discussion. No. I said from the beginning that one must understand theory X in order to change it. The rest is splitting hairs. > > What I said was your > > chances of discovering theory Y without understanding theory > > X first were zero. > > Liar. You said nothing about "discovering" a theory: you alleged > that it's impossible to "improve upon" a theory without first > understanding it. Splitting hairs. You know what I meant: since you don't understand QED, the chances of your theory being worth anything are zero. > See your own message > <9c739e30-59f6-4e3e-a210-610f96de0c69@googlegroups.com>, > you lying maggot. > > > Simply a friendly advice: > > Liar. Your intent was, and remains, malicious. No, entertainment. > > don't waste your > > life away like that. Learn the real thing first. > > Learn some English, you cretin. Or some honesty. What's so dishonest about insisting on competence? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-18 14:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmvor8a.ihm.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #364505 |
JanPB wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > JanPB wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > JanPB wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps "Ned Latham" should be dealt with like an annoying kid > > > > > > > is most effectively dealt with, ie by actively ignoring it :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Given a choice between being trolled by retards and being ignored > > > > > > by retards, I'd take the latter. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do please feel free to ignore me. > > > > > > > > > > That's a nice piece of rhetoric but you still haven't told us how > > > > > does one improve upon theory X without understanding X first? > > > > > > > > Oh, but I have: that hypothetcal I gave you explains it quite well. > > > > > > You haven't answered my question. > > > > Oh, but I have: that hypothetcal I gave you answers it quite well. > > You have not answered my question which was: what is the amplitude ----blah, blah---- And I'm not going to. > > > > But since you're too thivk to understand analogy, perhaps you can > > > > get to grips with one of the most frequently applied methods. > > > > > > I didn't ask about analogy, I asked a specific question to make > > > you understand something. > > > > Liar. You asked a question you thought might trip me up. > > Yes, that's why I asked it. It should be a basic question for > someone intent on replacing QED. Wrong. > > > > You improve on theory X by replacing it with theory Y. > > > > > > Sure, that was never under discussion. > > > > Liar. That is *exactly* what was under discussion. > > No. I said from the beginning that one must understand theory X > in order to change it. Liar. You said "improve upon" it. See your own article <9c739e30-59f6-4e3e-a210-610f96de0c69@googlegroups.com>. > The rest is splitting hairs. By you. Wrongly. Learn some English. > > > What I said was your > > > chances of discovering theory Y without understanding theory > > > X first were zero. > > > > Liar. You said nothing about "discovering" a theory: you alleged > > that it's impossible to "improve upon" a theory without first > > understanding it. > > Splitting hairs. You're trying to weasel out of your idiocy. Forget it. Your attempts to shift the meaning of what you *did* say are convincing only of your mendacity. > You know what I meant: Wrong. Your weaselling has made that very murky. > since you don't understand QED, Sez you, who don't understand English. > the chances of your theory being worth anything are zero. Larf. You don't understand Logic, either. > > See your own message > > <9c739e30-59f6-4e3e-a210-610f96de0c69@googlegroups.com>, > > you lying maggot. > > > > > Simply a friendly advice: > > > > Liar. Your intent was, and remains, malicious. > > No, entertainment. Exposing yourself as a bumbling fuckwit entertains you? Get a life. > > > don't waste your > > > life away like that. Learn the real thing first. > > > > Learn some English, you cretin. Or some honesty. > > What's so dishonest about insisting on competence? Your question is dishonest, because "insist upon competence" isn't what you've done even in yourself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-22 13:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2a310ae3-4d1d-4e28-8b91-4dab22c2a960@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364513 |
On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 12:59:08 PM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > JanPB wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > JanPB wrote: > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps "Ned Latham" should be dealt with like an annoying kid > > > > > > > > is most effectively dealt with, ie by actively ignoring it :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Given a choice between being trolled by retards and being ignored > > > > > > > by retards, I'd take the latter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do please feel free to ignore me. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a nice piece of rhetoric but you still haven't told us how > > > > > > does one improve upon theory X without understanding X first? > > > > > > > > > > Oh, but I have: that hypothetcal I gave you explains it quite well. > > > > > > > > You haven't answered my question. > > > > > > Oh, but I have: that hypothetcal I gave you answers it quite well. > > > > You have not answered my question which was: what is the amplitude > > ----blah, blah---- > > And I'm not going to. Well, that ends the discussion then. Unless you set aside time to learn physics, you have ZERO chance of success with your theories. What you are doing is engaging in an enormous waste of time. The only good thing about it, I suppose, is its entertainment value and perhaps a mild ego trip? > > > > > But since you're too thivk to understand analogy, perhaps you can > > > > > get to grips with one of the most frequently applied methods. > > > > > > > > I didn't ask about analogy, I asked a specific question to make > > > > you understand something. > > > > > > Liar. You asked a question you thought might trip me up. > > > > Yes, that's why I asked it. It should be a basic question for > > someone intent on replacing QED. > > Wrong. Really? Prove it: give me one example of a physics theory over the last 100 years (say) that was contributed by someone ignorant of the past. > > > > What I said was your > > > > chances of discovering theory Y without understanding theory > > > > X first were zero. > > > > > > Liar. You said nothing about "discovering" a theory: you alleged > > > that it's impossible to "improve upon" a theory without first > > > understanding it. > > > > Splitting hairs. > > You're trying to weasel out of your idiocy. Forget it. Your attempts > to shift the meaning of what you *did* say are convincing only of your > mendacity. What I said was simply that in order to contribute to a physics field, one must understand that field first. The rest of your post is splitting hairs. > > since you don't understand QED, > > Sez you, who don't understand English. I think my English is good enough to state that if you want to contribute to physics, you must know it first. Why do you find such an obvious concept so exotic? Do you think Schoenberg didn't know Bach and Rameau before writing "Harmonielehre"? Joyce knew nothing about Dickens before "Finnegans Wake"? Picasso couldn't paint in the best realistic manner? Everywhere you look there are clear signs of the impossibility of the task you are facing (unless it's just an entertainment/ego trip thing that is). > > What's so dishonest about insisting on competence? > > Your question is dishonest, because "insist upon competence" > isn't what you've done even in yourself. Whether I'm "competent" is a different issue. The point is you have zero chance of getting anywhere with your physics theory until you learn physics. That's all I'm saying. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-23 07:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn058ci.689.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #365012 |
JanPB wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > JanPB wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > JanPB wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > JanPB wrote: ----snip---- > > > > > > > That's a nice piece of rhetoric but you still haven't > > > > > > > told us how does one improve upon theory X without > > > > > > > understanding X first? > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, but I have: that hypothetcal I gave you explains it > > > > > > quite well. ----snip---- > > > > > I didn't ask about analogy, I asked a specific question to make > > > > > you understand something. > > > > > > > > Liar. You asked a question you thought might trip me up. > > > > > > Yes, that's why I asked it. It should be a basic question for > > > someone intent on replacing QED. > > > > Wrong. > > Really? Prove it: give me one example of a physics theory over the last > 100 years (say) that was contributed by someone ignorant of the past. Again you try to shift the goalposts. Ignorance of the past is not the point you were trying to make. > > > > > What I said was your > > > > > chances of discovering theory Y without understanding theory > > > > > X first were zero. > > > > > > > > Liar. You said nothing about "discovering" a theory: you alleged > > > > that it's impossible to "improve upon" a theory without first > > > > understanding it. > > > > > > Splitting hairs. > > > > You're trying to weasel out of your idiocy. Forget it. Your attempts > > to shift the meaning of what you *did* say are convincing only of your > > mendacity. > > What I said was simply that in order to contribute to a physics field, > one must understand that field first. False. What you said was that in order to "improve upon" something, one must understand it. > The rest of your post is splitting hairs. Bullshit. It's contesting your evasions. > > > since you don't understand QED, > > > > Sez you, who don't understand English. > > I think my English is good enough to state that if you want tou > contribute to physics, you must know it first. I now think your English is that good too. Your claim that it's not your first language is clearly nothing more than an attempt to mask your mendacity. > Why do you find such an obvious concept so exotic? Not exotic. Idiotically irrelevant. > Do you think Schoenberg didn't know Bach and Rameau before > writing "Harmonielehre"? > Joyce knew nothing about Dickens before "Finnegans Wake"? > Picasso couldn't paint in the best realistic manner? So it's irrelevant if I illustrate a point analogously, but not if you do it? Even if the point itself is an evasion and an irrelevancy? > Everywhere you look there are clear signs of the impossibility > of the task you are facing (unless it's just an entertainment/ego > trip thing that is). The task was completed when my articles appeared in Usenet and the public archive. > > > What's so dishonest about insisting on competence? > > > > Your question is dishonest, because "insist upon competence" > > isn't what you've done even in yourself. > > Whether I'm "competent" is a different issue. You brought it up. Now that it's backfired you want it to go away. > The point is you have > zero chance of getting anywhere with your physics theory until you > learn physics. Wrong. The problem lies in academic territoriality. Academics display great hostility to lay "intrusions" into their domains: they show signs of having the opinion that laymen have no right to an opinion. > That's all I'm saying. Why do you lie when the fact of what you said is still here, in this post, proving you a liar? (See your statement at the beginning of this post.) Do you really think that I'm as stupid as you are?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-23 10:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <C-mdnXv9qpflWJ_LnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #365045 |
On 9/23/15 9/23/15 - 7:56 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > The problem lies in academic territoriality. Academics display > great hostility to lay "intrusions" into their domains: they show signs > of having the opinion that laymen have no right to an opinion. You CLEARLY have never interacted with real physicists. Your "conspiracy theory" here is completely bogus, and apparently a product of your own fantasies (or those of similarly ignorant people). We would LOVE to see a new theory that is a VIABLE alternative to the ones we have today. But your "theory" is simply not viable at all, because it cannot model the simple reflection of light from a mirror, and a HOST of other phenomena. Indeed it cannot model any observation of light performed in a high-school optics lab. You CLEARLY have not studied the relevant experiments, and CLEARLY do not even know how to begin to write a scientific paper [#]. The result is completely useless. [#] Hint: the first step is a literature search. Claiming to be smarter than every physicist who ever lived, and that all physicists are "deluded", "brainwashed", or part of a grand "cover-up" merely displays YOUR personal problems, not those of any actual physicists, or of the field in general. Sadly, you are not alone in such delusions around here. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-23 17:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mtui3g$sup$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #365047 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:C-mdnXv9qpflWJ_LnZ2dnUU7_8ydnZ2d@giganews.com... |We would LOVE to see a new theory that is a VIABLE alternative to the ones we |have today. Buhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-24 04:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn07hk6.96v.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #365047 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > The problem lies in academic territoriality. Academics display > > great hostility to lay "intrusions" into their domains: they show signs > > of having the opinion that laymen have no right to an opinion. > > You CLEARLY have never interacted with real physicists. Wrong. > Your "conspiracy theory" here is completely bogus, Not too good at reading, are you? It's not a conspiracy; it's an attitude. > and apparently a product of your own fantasies (or those of > similarly ignorant people). Wrong agaon. It's a wel-documented phenomenon,prevading all of academia, from the sciences through the "sciences" all the way to the fartiest of the arts. > We would LOVE to see a new theory that is a VIABLE alternative to > the ones we have today. Of course you would: just so long as it comes from an academic. ----prejudicial bullshit snipped---- > Claiming to be smarter than every physicist who ever lived, Don't lie to me about what I said, you thug. ----more prejudicial bullshit snipped----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-23 21:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5602FB98.1080002@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #365045 |
Ned Latham wrote: > JanPB wrote: >> The point is you have >> zero chance of getting anywhere with your physics theory until you >> learn physics. > > Wrong. The problem lies in academic territoriality. Academics display > great hostility to lay "intrusions" into their domains: they show signs > of having the opinion that laymen have no right to an opinion. You are not the first crank to claim this when their readers would not fall for their nonsense. Still, your ongoing hubris is fascinating enough (JFYI: other people would call it “annoying”) for a query: If a car mechanic tells you that what you think is an improvement to a car is actually making it perform much worse for these and those reasons, do you doubt them, too? You see, the difference between professionals and laymen is that professionals have gained the experience in their field(s) and learned to tell nonsense apart from unconventional ideas during long hard *years* of *study* and *work* in their field(s). Therefore, it is quite impossible to convince professional scientists of your physical theory if in proposing it you do not do any science, but claim nonsense instead. HTH PointedEars -- Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door when he went camping? A: 'Gone fission'. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-23 12:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <adfabda1-c114-4ea9-b20b-0be7f7343821@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365083 |
On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 12:20:59 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > JanPB wrote: > >> The point is you have > >> zero chance of getting anywhere with your physics theory until you > >> learn physics. > > > > Wrong. The problem lies in academic territoriality. Academics display > > great hostility to lay "intrusions" into their domains: they show signs > > of having the opinion that laymen have no right to an opinion. > > You are not the first crank to claim this when their readers would not fall > for their nonsense. > > Still, your ongoing hubris is fascinating enough (JFYI: other people would > call it "annoying") for a query: If a car mechanic tells you that what you > think is an improvement to a car is actually making it perform much worse > for these and those reasons, do you doubt them, too? > > You see, the difference between professionals and laymen is that > professionals have gained the experience in their field(s) and learned to > tell nonsense apart from unconventional ideas during long hard *years* of > *study* and *work* in their field(s). And there is also the complementary problem: if you haven't done your homework, chances are you won't even be able to see or understand that you are wrong. Although most people do possess an instinctive feel for where the boundaries of their knowledge lie, there are many who simply don't see it, and so it becomes a vicious circle: they are ignorant of XYZ but in order to see that they lack XYZ, they would have to know XYZ in the first place. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-23 21:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mtv06q$bir$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #365083 |
Użytkownik "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:5602FB98.1080002@PointedEars.de... |You see, the difference between professionals and laymen is that |professionals have gained the experience in their field(s) and learned to |tell nonsense apart from unconventional ideas during long hard *years* of |*study* and *work* in their field(s). Right. You see, every professional would laugh at your pathetic mumble about models. And could tell you, that your "good clocks are unsynchronizinfg clocks" is a pure nonsense. We learned it during long hard *years* of *study* and *work* in the field you have no idea about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-23 20:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mtv0pp$eij$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #365083 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Still, your ongoing hubris is fascinating enough (JFYI: other people > would call it “annoying”) for a query: If a car mechanic tells you that > what you think is an improvement to a car is actually making it perform > much worse for these and those reasons, do you doubt them, too? Absolutely, the mechanic is NOT driving the car, but the mechanic is driven by money interest. Never trust a mechanic. It illustrate that you so stupid you dont even have a car.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-23 22:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <9887908.8QqIiESq21@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #365090 |
Jimmie Wynne wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Still, your ongoing hubris is fascinating enough (JFYI: other people >> would call it “annoying”) for a query: If a car mechanic tells you that >> what you think is an improvement to a car is actually making it perform >> much worse for these and those reasons, do you doubt them, too? > > Absolutely, the mechanic is NOT driving the car, but the mechanic is > driven by money interest. Never trust a mechanic. It illustrate that you > so stupid you dont even have a car. You are missing the point, 'nym-shifting troll. I was talking about modifications someone (here: a layman) already had made to the car. There is no reason for a car mechanic to lie to you about the performance of that modification; they have nothing to gain there. BTW: *PLONK* PointedEars -- Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out? A: Sherlock Ohms. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-24 05:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn07jb3.96v.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #365083 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > JanPB wrote: > > > > > > The point is you have zero chance of getting anywhere with > > > your physics theory until you learn physics. > > > > Wrong. The problem lies in academic territoriality. Academics > > display great hostility to lay "intrusions" into their domains: > > they show signs of having the opinion that laymen have no right > > to an opinion. > > You are not the first crank to claim this I'm neither. > when their readers would not fall for their nonsense. It's about academics not *reading* non-academic work. > Still, your ongoing hubris is fascinating enough Trust me: your delusion isn't even interesting, let alone fascinating. > (JFYI: other people would call it ?annoying?) for a query: > If a car mechanic tells you that what you think is an > improvement to a car is actually making it perform much > worse for these and those reasons, do you doubt them, too? As for example when a car mechanic advises me to avoid lead-free petrol because it makes my car "perform much worse"? > You see, the difference between professionals and laymen > is that professionals have gained the experience in their > field(s) That's not a difference. > and learned to tell nonsense apart from > unconventional ideas You can't tell nonsense from unconventional ideas if the one is unseen and the other is unread. > during long hard *years* of *study* > and *work* in their field(s). The alchemists did "long hard years of study and work" too. Religionists still do it. > Therefore, it is quite impossible to convince professional > scientists of your physical theory if in proposing it you > do not do any science, but claim nonsense instead. Irrelevant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-24 20:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2381527.N5xgM4sR9f@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #365131 |
Ned Latham wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>> > JanPB wrote:
>> > > The point is you have zero chance of getting anywhere with
>> > > your physics theory until you learn physics.
>> > Wrong. The problem lies in academic territoriality. Academics
>> > display great hostility to lay "intrusions" into their domains:
>> > they show signs of having the opinion that laymen have no right
>> > to an opinion.
>> You are not the first crank to claim this
>
> I'm neither.
From your statements there can be no doubt that you are what is commonly
called a “crank”:
,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)>
|
| "Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable
^^^^^^^^^^
| belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.[1]
^^^^^^
| A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held as to be
| ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| a futile task, and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| rational inference.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| Common synonyms for "crank" include crackpot and kook. […]
>> when their readers would not fall for their nonsense.
>
> It's about academics not *reading* non-academic work.
You want to read an Einstein biography to clarify some of your
misconceptions. In that regard, the name Einstein can be substituted
with several other names from scientific history without the statement
becoming incorrect.
However, the difference between those people and people like you is that
even though those people did not produce their most important works while
being a member of a school of higher education, they still learned and
therefore knew their stuff.
You do not. You are basing your idea (it is not a theory yet, at most it is
a thesis) on assumptions that have already been falsified by experiment
because you do *not* know them (or prefer to stay ignorant about them). And
that is not one experiment, not ten experiments, not one hundred; but
*thousands* in the past two centuries, by hundreds, if not thousands, of
independent researchers.
Ex falso quodlibet.
PointedEars
--
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...
(from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-24 23:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <473e3ffe-8d54-459d-8bbd-b7378a2aae7d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365175 |
On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 8:24:29 PM UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn > From your statements there can be no doubt that you are what is commonly > called a "crank": > > ,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)> > | > | "Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable > ^^^^^^^^^^ > | belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.[1] > ^^^^^^ > | A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held as to be > | ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > | which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > | a futile task, and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > | rational inference. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > | Common synonyms for "crank" include crackpot and kook. [...] From your statements there can be no doubt that you are what is commonly called a "crank". Samely, as any of your fellows relativistic morons.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-25 12:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn0b2et.qs7.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #365175 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The point is you have zero chance of getting anywhere with > > > > > your physics theory until you learn physics. > > > > > > > > Wrong. The problem lies in academic territoriality. Academics > > > > display great hostility to lay "intrusions" into their domains: > > > > they show signs of having the opinion that laymen have no right > > > > to an opinion. > > > > > > You are not the first crank to claim this > > > > I'm neither. > > From your statements there can be no doubt that you are what > is commonly called a "crank": "Commonly called"? In what part of the universe, Pointy Head? > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)> Oh boy. Wikipedia. So I'm supposed to accept yout American so-called English meaning of the word? > "Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an > unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries > consider to be false.[1] You can stick your misuse of the word up your arse, Pointy Head. In real English (and in this sort of context), it means "monomaniac". ----further intidy dribble snipped---- > > > when their readers would not fall for their nonsense. > > > > It's about academics not *reading* non-academic work. > > You want to read an Einstein biography to clarify some of your > misconceptions. Are you trying to lie by implication? Einstein graduated in Physics before he went to the Patent Office. > In that regard, the name Einstein can be substituted > with several other names from scientific history without the statement > becoming incorrect. > > However, the difference between those people and people like you is that > even though those people did not produce their most important works while > being a member of a school of higher education, So. You *are* trying to lie by implication. Einstein might have been employed at the Swiss patent office when he produced SR, but he *was* a qualified physicust, You can stick your lies up your arse too, Pointy Head. > they still learned and > therefore knew their stuff. > > You do not. One thing I don't know is whether you believe that. You're a liar, so it's easy to believe that you don't. OTOH, you're as thick as two short planks, so it's easy to believe that you do. That could be confusing if I gave a shit about your opinion. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-25 22:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <3291561.6pk4ut6Ddf@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #365253 |
Ned Latham wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> > > Ned Latham wrote:
>> > > > JanPB wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The point is you have zero chance of getting anywhere with
>> > > > > your physics theory until you learn physics.
>> > > > Wrong. The problem lies in academic territoriality. Academics
>> > > > display great hostility to lay "intrusions" into their domains:
>> > > > they show signs of having the opinion that laymen have no right
>> > > > to an opinion.
>> > > You are not the first crank to claim this
>> > I'm neither.
>> From your statements there can be no doubt that you are what
>> is commonly called a "crank":
>
> "Commonly called"? In what part of the universe, Pointy Head?
The one that the late Douglas Adams aptly described as follows:
“Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western
Spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun.
Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-eight million miles is an
utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended life
forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a
pretty neat idea.” [1]
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)>
>
> Oh boy. Wikipedia. So I'm supposed to accept yout American so-called
> English meaning of the word?
No, you can also look it up elsewhere. And “crackpot”, which is synonymous
with “crank”, can be looked up in the ODE under “British & World English”.
Likewise for “kook”. Actually, the etymology of all the mentioned terms is
given in the Wikipedia article, with references.
>> "Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who holds an
>> unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries
>> consider to be false.[1]
>
> You can stick your misuse of the word up your arse, Pointy Head.
Who is this “Pointy Head” person anyway?
> In real English (and in this sort of context), it means "monomaniac".
I am afraid you are severely undereducated in several fields, including
physics (both the history and subjects of it) and the English language. For
example, it is a mistake to assume that only British English were real
English.
>> > > when their readers would not fall for their nonsense.
>> > It's about academics not *reading* non-academic work.
>> You want to read an Einstein biography to clarify some of your
>> misconceptions.
>
> Are you trying to lie by implication?
Certainly not.
> Einstein graduated in Physics before he went to the Patent Office.
No, before the /annus mirabilis/ (1905) he studied at the Zurich Polytechnic
(the later ETHZ) to become a certified physics teacher („Fachlehrer für
Physik“). And in the /annus mirabilis/ he was not employed at a school of
higher education (he is reported to have been a difficult pupil, which might
have contributed to the fact that he was not employed at the Polytechnic
after passing the exam), which was my point.
You really do not want to argue with me about Einstein’s biography either.
Not only is studying his life and work one of my hobbies, I also live 9
minutes by train from Berne, Switzerland. There is an Einstein museum
there, which I have visited.
>> In that regard, the name Einstein can be substituted
>> with several other names from scientific history without the statement
>> becoming incorrect.
>>
>> However, the difference between those people and people like you is that
>> even though those people did not produce their most important works while
>> being a member of a school of higher education,
>
> So. You *are* trying to lie by implication.
No, instead you are giving proof that the definition of crank/crackpot/kook
fully applies to you.
> Einstein might have been employed at the Swiss patent office when he
> produced SR, but he *was* a qualified physicust,
No, at the relevant time he was no more than a certified physics teacher
with a keen interest in books on extra-curricular physics.
> You can stick your lies up your arse too, Pointy Head.
| According to these authors, virtually universal characteristics of cranks
| include:
|
| 1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate
| that of acknowledged experts.
Check.
| 2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
Check.
| 3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
Check.
| 4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate
| social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested
| in anyone else's experience or opinions.
Check.
That’s 4 out of 4, so you are definitely a crank. In this newsgroup
hierarchy, we also have the “The Crackpot Index”, by John Baez. Do you want
me to try it on you?
PointedEars
___________
[1] Adams, D., and Leialoha, S., The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,
London, Pan Macmillan, 2009, page 1. ISBN 9780330513081.
--
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...
(from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-25 15:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c4885e61-4cc0-40d4-8b9f-e5acbcb4d625@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365285 |
On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 1:50:09 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
>
> > Einstein graduated in Physics before he went to the Patent Office.
>
> No, before the /annus mirabilis/ (1905) he studied at the Zurich Polytechnic
> (the later ETHZ) to become a certified physics teacher ("Fachlehrer für
> Physik"). And in the /annus mirabilis/ he was not employed at a school of
> higher education (he is reported to have been a difficult pupil, which might
> have contributed to the fact that he was not employed at the Polytechnic
> after passing the exam), which was my point.
>
> You really do not want to argue with me about Einstein's biography either.
> Not only is studying his life and work one of my hobbies, I also live 9
> minutes by train from Berne, Switzerland. There is an Einstein museum
> there, which I have visited.
Heh, next time I'm in Interlaken maybe you could show me around? I took
a train to Bern last June for a one-day visit but it was too cold to swim
in the Aare :-)
> | According to these authors, virtually universal characteristics of cranks
> | include:
> |
> | 1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate
> | that of acknowledged experts.
>
> Check.
>
> | 2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
>
> Check.
>
> | 3. Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
>
> Check.
>
> | 4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate
> | social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested
> | in anyone else's experience or opinions.
>
> Check.
>
> That's 4 out of 4, so you are definitely a crank. In this newsgroup
> hierarchy, we also have the "The Crackpot Index", by John Baez. Do you want
> me to try it on you?
I was also quite surprised that already in 1952 (fifty-two!) Martin Gardner
has completely nailed the chief characteristics in his "Fads and Fallacies
in the Name of Science". Wikipedia summarises his conclusions thus:
----------
1. The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.
2. He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both.
3. He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign comparable
to the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur. He may attribute his 'persecution'
to a conspiracy by a scientific 'masonry' who are unwilling to admit anyone
to their inner sanctum without appropriate initiation.
4. Instead of side-stepping the mainstream, the pseudo-scientist attacks
it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that
Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.(*)
5. He has a tendency to use complex jargon, often making up words and
phrases. Gardner compares this to the way that schizophrenics talk in
what psychiatrists call 'neologisms', "words which have meaning to the
patient, but sound like Jabberwocky to everyone else.
----------
(*) astonishingly correct, predicted 63 years ago!
--
Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-26 11:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <50ab61f2-d3f6-4138-9048-4bc69de7739f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365287 |
W dniu sobota, 26 września 2015 00:06:17 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > 1. The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius. > > 2. He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both. > > 3. He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign comparable > to the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur. He may attribute his 'persecution' > to a conspiracy by a scientific 'masonry' who are unwilling to admit anyone > to their inner sanctum without appropriate initiation. > > 4. Instead of side-stepping the mainstream, the pseudo-scientist attacks > it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that > Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.(*) > > 5. He has a tendency to use complex jargon, often making up words and > phrases. Gardner compares this to the way that schizophrenics talk in > what psychiatrists call 'neologisms', "words which have meaning to the > patient, but sound like Jabberwocky to everyone else. > ---------- These are just the standar so-called mainstream claims. After all any legalised, nominated scientists must be a genius, at least - is not it? :) > (*) astonishingly correct, predicted 63 years ago! it's just a typical for pseudoscience to produce these so-called authorities... babe. and even there are many special terms, titles, for such typos: the St., PhD, prof, dr, ect. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-26 13:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7e5b8a91-70b6-41fc-b09f-4275b82a5e67@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365349 |
El sábado, 26 de septiembre de 2015, 15:43:01 (UTC-3), al...@interia.pl escribió: > W dniu sobota, 26 września 2015 00:06:17 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > 1. The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius. > > > > 2. He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both. > > > > 3. He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign comparable > > to the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur. He may attribute his 'persecution' > > to a conspiracy by a scientific 'masonry' who are unwilling to admit anyone > > to their inner sanctum without appropriate initiation. > > > > 4. Instead of side-stepping the mainstream, the pseudo-scientist attacks > > it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that > > Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.(*) > > > > 5. He has a tendency to use complex jargon, often making up words and > > phrases. Gardner compares this to the way that schizophrenics talk in > > what psychiatrists call 'neologisms', "words which have meaning to the > > patient, but sound like Jabberwocky to everyone else. > > ---------- > > These are just the standar so-called mainstream claims. > > After all any legalised, nominated scientists > must be a genius, at least - is not it? :) > > > (*) astonishingly correct, predicted 63 years ago! > > it's just a typical for pseudoscience > to produce these so-called authorities... babe. > and even there are many special terms, titles, for such typos: > the St., PhD, prof, dr, ect. :) Most of the stuff you, and your other lover polish moron troll, use to write nonsense in here, have their basis in physics developed by trained physicists and mathematicians and engineers, throughout the 20th century. So is the computer, its display, mouse, the wireless network that connects the PC to the Internet and the whole Internet. All of those scientists did have PhDs, and were professors at universities or researchers at institutes and companies and, for sure they gained their authority status by hard working and producing results (most of them through publications in journals and/or patents). Over 7,500,000 PhDs are currently involved in science teaching and researching throughout the world. Of course you are not one of them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web