Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #384318 > unrolled thread

How to be a "real" scientist.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  How to be a "real" scientist. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-26 15:00 -0400
    Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 12:18 -0700
    Re: How to be a "real" scientist. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-26 17:15 -0700
    Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-26 21:47 -0500
    Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-27 07:11 +0200
      Re: How to be a "real" scientist. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-27 02:28 -0400
        Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-28 08:26 +0200
          Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 06:26 -0700
            Re: How to be a "real" scientist. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-28 13:03 -0700
              Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 17:04 -0700
                Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-29 04:48 +0200
                  Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 22:25 -0700
                    Re: How to be a "real" scientist. John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 06:01 -0700
                      Re: How to be a "real" scientist. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 12:06 -0400
                        Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-31 23:54 +0200
                          Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-03 11:14 -0500
                            Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-05 16:12 +0200
                      Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 11:02 -0700
                        Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-05-31 20:13 +0200
                        Re: How to be a "real" scientist. John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 15:58 -0700
                          Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 16:40 -0700
                            Re: How to be a "real" scientist. John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 18:07 -0700
                              Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 21:24 -0700
                                Re: How to be a "real" scientist. John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 20:22 -0700
                            Re: How to be a "real" scientist. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-05-31 23:25 -0700
                              Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 11:20 -0700
                                Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-01 20:38 +0200
                Re: How to be a "real" scientist. John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 20:08 -0700
                Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-05-29 08:08 +0200
                Re: How to be a "real" scientist. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-28 23:27 -0700
                  Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 07:00 -0700
                    Re: How to be a "real" scientist. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-05-29 23:47 -0700
                  Re: How to be a "real" scientist. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-29 18:48 -0700
                Re: How to be a "real" scientist. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-05-30 12:08 -0700
          Re: How to be a "real" scientist. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-29 00:03 -0700
            Re: How to be a "real" scientist. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-29 08:34 -0700
            Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-05-29 22:49 +0200
              Re: How to be a "real" scientist. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-29 19:22 -0700
                Re: How to be a "real" scientist. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-29 19:42 -0700
                  Re: How to be a "real" scientist. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-29 19:56 -0700
          Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-31 09:56 -0500
            Re: How to be a "real" scientist. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 11:53 -0400
              Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-31 15:27 -0500
                Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-05-31 22:32 +0200
                  Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 14:29 -0700
                    Re: How to be a "real" scientist. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-05-31 23:23 -0700
                    Re: How to be a "real" scientist. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-05-31 23:41 -0700
            Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-05-31 19:48 +0200
            Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-01 21:01 +0200
              Re: How to be a "real" scientist. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-01 16:38 -0700
                Re: How to be a "real" scientist. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-01 16:58 -0700
            Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-03 06:13 +0200
              Re: How to be a "real" scientist. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-02 23:38 -0700
                Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 08:12 -0700
                Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-06-04 06:23 +0200
                  Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 14:05 -0700
                    Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-05 10:49 +0200
                      Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 11:52 -0700
                        Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-05 21:32 +0200
                          Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 14:28 -0700
                            Re: How to be a "real" scientist. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-06-06 00:11 -0700
                              Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 08:04 -0700
                                Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-06 17:17 +0200
                  Re: How to be a "real" scientist. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-06-05 10:37 +0200
                    Re: How to be a "real" scientist. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 14:30 -0700

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#384649

On 5/28/16 5/28/16 - 1:26 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> It is legal to criticise whatever you like in physics (or any other science).
> But your critique will not get very far. Especially inside such locked-in
> communities  critique will not be heard, since the insiders have no interest in
> listening to challenging statements from outside.

That is not at all how science works. Physics is not a "locked in community" as 
you imagine, except insofar as physicists share a common understanding of basic 
concepts in the field.

CRITICISM is acceptable, but IGNORANCE is not. And the latter is all you have.

All technical fields have a minimum of knowledge required to discuss it. Physics 
is no different. YOU have not made the effort to learn the basics, and you 
demonstrate your profound ignorance with everything you write -- INCLUDING THIS 
(i.e. you are ignorant not only of basic physics, but also are ignorant of how 
physicists actually behave).

	Seriously, would you expect the captain of a cruise ship to
	listen to "criticism" of his seamanship from passengers who
	have never operated a boat or ship in their lives?

	Would you expect a high-school calculus teacher to listen
	to "criticism" from a 3rd grader who does not even know
	the multiplication tables?

	Why do you expect physicists to listen to "criticism" from
	idiots and fools like yourself?


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384657

On 05/31/2016 10:56 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/28/16 5/28/16 - 1:26 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> It is legal to criticise whatever you like in physics (or any other
>> science).
>> But your critique will not get very far. Especially inside such locked-in
>> communities  critique will not be heard, since the insiders have no
>> interest in
>> listening to challenging statements from outside.
>
> That is not at all how science works. Physics is not a "locked in
> community" as you imagine, except insofar as physicists share a common
> understanding of basic concepts in the field.
>
> CRITICISM is acceptable, but IGNORANCE is not. And the latter is all you
> have.

Nonsense. "Ignorance" is defined by the closed community as "anything 
that does not agree with and supports whatever are the current 
community-approved concepts. The rule that "to be allowed to criticize 
us, you must first be one of us" as found in say medicine, also prevails 
in physics. This then means that any comments from OUTSIDE the closed 
community are termed "ignorance" while those from inside are termed 
"discussion" regardless of the truth of what is being said.

> All technical fields have a minimum of knowledge required to discuss it.

Bullshit. Einstein said you should be able to discuss physics with a 
barmaid. Didn't you see Hawking's latest production where he has 
ordinary people deriving for themselves some of the current major ideas 
of physics?  You want to judged by credentials rather than performance. 
That isn't science. That is politics.

> Physics is no different. YOU have not made the effort to learn the
> basics, and you demonstrate your profound ignorance with everything you
> write -- INCLUDING THIS (i.e. you are ignorant not only of basic
> physics, but also are ignorant of how physicists actually behave).

I know how they "behave"!

>      Seriously, would you expect the captain of a cruise ship to
>      listen to "criticism" of his seamanship from passengers who
>      have never operated a boat or ship in their lives?

This is how they "behave'! It's a HUGE ego trip where your superiority 
is based upon what is written on some piece of paper. Seriously, would 
you like to ride a cruise ship where the captain is so arrogant that 
when the passengers try to tell him to steer around the iceberg, he 
"knows" that they are all kooks and there are no icebergs out there and 
besides his navigation devices will detect them if there were and even 
if that failed the ship is widely known to be "unsinkable". So why, 
should a person with captain's papers listen to a bunch of ignorant 
drunken passengers? Yep, hubris in physics as elsewhere is followed 
inevitably and inexorably by nemesis.

>      Would you expect a high-school calculus teacher to listen
>      to "criticism" from a 3rd grader who does not even know
>      the multiplication tables?

Would you expect a high school teacher to actually know calculus? In my 
experience the teacher would do well to pay attention to his students. A 
mathematician I know had a math HS teacher by the name of Gornell. In 
the class he had a saying. "There are two ways to solve any problem: 
Gornell's way and the right way!"

>      Why do you expect physicists to listen to "criticism" from
>      idiots and fools like yourself?

And why should anyone then listen to criticism from fools and idiots 
like you?

The thing that is so missing in science today is SCIENCE! A scientist 
should listen to EVERY SOURCE OF IDEAS! Science checks them all against 
observation and measurements! If Velekovsky says ancient myth suggests 
Venus was once a comet, why did/does those who pretend to be scientists 
reject that as "ignorance"?  And then they all babbled the dogma of the 
time that Venus was temperate and earth-like and may even have life!

Looking back from our perspective it is clear post NASA probes that 
Velikovsky was right and the so called scientist "experts" turned out to 
be babbling drooling morons. Do they admit it? No. They just keep 
falsely saying that the myths are not correct science and Velikovsky is 
a kook. Well, duh. Myths are NOT science. But nevertheless there is 
molten lead on that "temperate" Venus.

Well, who ever said myths were "correct science"?  Oddly Troy was found 
right where the myths said it was! But "science experts" all screamed to 
a man that those myths were nonsense and anyone suggesting they might 
have some truth were morons, idiots, and kooks. And then once Troy was 
found where the myth said, watch all those "scientists" turn on a dime 
and suddenly claim that "everyone knew" that Troy was a real city after 
they vehemently denied it for centuries.

This behavior is not science at all. It is pure arrogance and bullshit. 
And THAT is exactly what YOU are trying to defend. I suggest you 
re-think your position.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384691

On 5/31/16 5/31/16 - 10:53 AM, benj wrote:
> "Ignorance" is defined by the closed community as "anything that does
> not agree with and supports whatever are the current community-approved
> concepts.

Do you seriously expect a surgeon about to remove an inflamed appendix from a 
patient to accept "advice" or "criticism" from some ignoramus who does not know 
what an appendix is?

Like others in the thread, you just don't have a clue. All you have is ignorance 
and an over-inflated ego.

Just as for any other technical field, there is a minimum amount of knowledge 
required to discuss physics sensibly. Most people around here do not have that 
basic knowledge, including you.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384693

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:5qqdndNGUoE7btDKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com...


|Do you seriously expect a surgeon about to remove an inflamed appendix from 
a

Surgeons didn't claim common sense a set of prejudices, poor idiot.
You did.



|Just as for any other technical field

Your moronic physics is not technical field anymore.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384695

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 1:32:57 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:5qqdndNGUoE7btDKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com...
> 
> 
> |Do you seriously expect a surgeon about to remove an inflamed appendix from 
> a
> 
> Surgeons didn't claim common sense a set of prejudices, poor idiot.

Irrelevant. (You don't seem to read threads you respond to with any care.)

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384737

W dniu wtorek, 31 maja 2016 23:29:29 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 1:32:57 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> > dyskusyjnych:5qqdndNGUoE7btDKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com...
> > 
> > 
> > |Do you seriously expect a surgeon about to remove an inflamed appendix from 
> > a
> > 
> > Surgeons didn't claim common sense a set of prejudices, poor idiot.
> 
> Irrelevant. 

And you're the queen of England.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384740

W dniu wtorek, 31 maja 2016 23:29:29 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 1:32:57 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> > dyskusyjnych:5qqdndNGUoE7btDKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com...
> > 
> > 
> > |Do you seriously expect a surgeon about to remove an inflamed appendix from 
> > a
> > 
> > Surgeons didn't claim common sense a set of prejudices, poor idiot.
> 
> Irrelevant. 

If you had some knowledge of the subject you're talking,
you would know, that common sense is vital, when talking
about models.
But you don't have any knowledge. Your "immutable mathematical
truth" is obsolete for 150 years and you're nothing but
puffed, screaming idiot.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384665

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:qOydnQXMWtOdO9DKnZ2dnUU7_81j4p2d@giganews.com...


|Seriously, would you expect the captain of a cruise ship to
|listen to "criticism" of his seamanship from passengers who

Seriously, would you expect someone to allow a moron
yelling "common sense is a set of prejudices!!" to become
a captain of a cruise ship?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384773

Am 31.05.2016 16:56, schrieb Tom Roberts:
> On 5/28/16 5/28/16 - 1:26 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> It is legal to criticise whatever you like in physics (or any other
>> science).
>> But your critique will not get very far. Especially inside such locked-in
>> communities critique will not be heard, since the insiders have no
>> interest in
>> listening to challenging statements from outside.
>
> That is not at all how science works. Physics is not a "locked in
> community" as you imagine, except insofar as physicists share a common
> understanding of basic concepts in the field.
>
> CRITICISM is acceptable, but IGNORANCE is not. And the latter is all you
> have.


Well, actually not true. For example there exist 'forbidden subjects', 
which eventually could bring people in trouble.

E.g. I have heard recently, that it is not allowed (in the USA) to 
question the existence of atomic bombs.

I certainly don't plan to do that, but it is interesting, that such a 
law exists.

 From my own experience in connection with 'growing Earth' I would say, 
it's not really prohibited to promote GE, but you will not make a lot of 
friends by doing so.

But the strange part: GE is of course true (in my opinion), while plate 
tectonic is kind of carefully crafted blunder, to be force-fed into the 
general public by means of brainwashing and propaganda.

Similar is 'climate change' and it's roots in CO2.

This topic is totally twisted and we have real effects, but wrong causes 
and no effects at all.

In reality the effect of desertification is caused by Growing Earth, 
(besides water use, pollution and deforestation of course).

But what has no effect whatsoever is CO2.

> All technical fields have a minimum of knowledge required to discuss it.
> Physics is no different. YOU have not made the effort to learn the
> basics, and you demonstrate your profound ignorance with everything you
> write -- INCLUDING THIS (i.e. you are ignorant not only of basic
> physics, but also are ignorant of how physicists actually behave).

This is a) an insult and b) not quite justified.


> Seriously, would you expect the captain of a cruise ship to
> listen to "criticism" of his seamanship from passengers who
> have never operated a boat or ship in their lives?


Well captain of a ship is a difficult job, which you could only get 
after a long apprenticeship and several steps in your career.

Finally you are the boss of that large steamer and have to sail the 
vessel safely to your destination.

But you could eventually listen to critique, like from other members of 
the crew, and this wouldn't harm your reputation.

> Would you expect a high-school calculus teacher to listen
> to "criticism" from a 3rd grader who does not even know
> the multiplication tables?

I hope you don't try to compare me to  a 3rd grader.

> Why do you expect physicists to listen to "criticism" from
> idiots and fools like yourself?

Yet another insult for no obvious reasons.

At first you had to read the text of 'benj' to whom I had written a reply.

He wrote:

[quote]

"
Pretty much. It's sort like the medical rule: You aren't allowed to 
criticize us unless you are one of us! (And then of course we will have 
the leverage to make sure you don't!) "

[/quote]

About this statement was my reply with the 'locked in community'. This 
reply you have taken out of context and applied it to physics in 
general. That is kind of dishonest technique.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384801

Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> Am 31.05.2016 16:56, schrieb Tom Roberts:
> > On 5/28/16 5/28/16 - 1:26 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> It is legal to criticise whatever you like in physics (or any other
> >> science).
> >> But your critique will not get very far. Especially inside such locked-in
> >> communities critique will not be heard, since the insiders have no
> >> interest in
> >> listening to challenging statements from outside.
> >
> > That is not at all how science works. Physics is not a "locked in
> > community" as you imagine, except insofar as physicists share a common
> > understanding of basic concepts in the field.
> >
> > CRITICISM is acceptable, but IGNORANCE is not. And the latter is all you
> > have.
> 
> Well, actually not true. For example there exist 'forbidden subjects',
> which eventually could bring people in trouble.
> 
> E.g. I have heard recently, that it is not allowed (in the USA) to
> question the existence of atomic bombs.
> 
> I certainly don't plan to do that, but it is interesting, that such a
> law exists.

To question the existence of atomic bombs leads to the question..."Who invented the atomic bomb?", and there
people who don't want you to aks that question...not even THINK of the question.


http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html


A Starmaker Exclusive



How many atomic bombs does Israel have? 300, 600, a thousand?



How many atomic bombs does Iran have?? Or are you not suppose to ask? Or suppose to know??


What is the name of the person who built the first atomic bomb in Russia?


Answer:

http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384805

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >
> > Am 31.05.2016 16:56, schrieb Tom Roberts:
> > > On 5/28/16 5/28/16 - 1:26 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > >> It is legal to criticise whatever you like in physics (or any other
> > >> science).
> > >> But your critique will not get very far. Especially inside such locked-in
> > >> communities critique will not be heard, since the insiders have no
> > >> interest in
> > >> listening to challenging statements from outside.
> > >
> > > That is not at all how science works. Physics is not a "locked in
> > > community" as you imagine, except insofar as physicists share a common
> > > understanding of basic concepts in the field.
> > >
> > > CRITICISM is acceptable, but IGNORANCE is not. And the latter is all you
> > > have.
> >
> > Well, actually not true. For example there exist 'forbidden subjects',
> > which eventually could bring people in trouble.
> >
> > E.g. I have heard recently, that it is not allowed (in the USA) to
> > question the existence of atomic bombs.
> >
> > I certainly don't plan to do that, but it is interesting, that such a
> > law exists.
> 
> To question the existence of atomic bombs leads to the question..."Who invented the atomic bomb?", and there
> people who don't want you to aks that question...not even THINK of the question.
> 
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
> 
> A Starmaker Exclusive
> 
> How many atomic bombs does Israel have? 300, 600, a thousand?
> 
> How many atomic bombs does Iran have?? Or are you not suppose to ask? Or suppose to know??
> 
> What is the name of the person who built the first atomic bomb in Russia?
> 
> Answer:
> 
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html


Who controls your monopoly owned textbooks?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384881

Am 31.05.2016 16:56, schrieb Tom Roberts:

>> It is legal to criticise whatever you like in physics (or any other
>> science).
>> But your critique will not get very far. Especially inside such locked-in
>> communities critique will not be heard, since the insiders have no
>> interest in
>> listening to challenging statements from outside.
>
> That is not at all how science works. Physics is not a "locked in
> community" as you imagine, except insofar as physicists share a common
> understanding of basic concepts in the field.
>
> CRITICISM is acceptable, but IGNORANCE is not. And the latter is all you
> have.


Well, actually you are right, since I'm not a physicist and therefore do 
not know, what might be consensus among physicists.

So I have to ignore, what physicists regard as useful, since I simply 
don't know what that might be.

But hat does not say, that I have no knowledge in the realm of physics. 
What I don't have is personal contact to physicists.

(That's why I like to discuss certain questions in forums like this one.)

My knowledge stems from chemistry, mathematics, electronics and 
engineering, which are fields, in which I have significant knowledge.

Relativity and other related subjects I have studied as kind of hobby 
for several years. In the course of these studies and as result of my 
frequent discussion I had written a 'book'.

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

This was in the beginning simply a collection of posts like e.g. this 
one, which I later had rearranged and extended by illustrations and 
additional text.

The content was - of course - influenced by my experience in other 
realms, like thermodynamics or electronics and not by such a consensus 
among physicists (because I didn't know).

This I regard as legitimate approach, since it's the same world, which 
scientists talk about and it's only a different aspect, that is the 
particular focus of theoretical physics.

> All technical fields have a minimum of knowledge required to discuss it.

No, that's simply wrong.

Best example: soccer.

Most participants in discussions about this sport have no knowledge 
about he actually sport, but lots of experience as viewers of soccer 
games on tv and in a stadium.

But lack of knowledge hardly prevents people from talking.

So the question is not, if people are allowed to talk (what they do 
anyhow), but WHAT they say.

So you may rightfully reject any of my statements, because they do not 
match to the world we all inhabit, but not, because the do not match to 
what is consensus among physicists.

Certainly there are degrees of wrongness and truth and therefore also 
people with different degrees of trustworthiness. But even the brightest 
minds could have somehow wrong ideas and therefore also the set of their 
follower.

And if someone is trying to correct such (assumed) errors, you cannot 
point to the authority of people saying otherwise, but must reject a 
statement on objective criteria like inconsistency with observations.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384886

W dniu piątek, 3 czerwca 2016 06:13:41 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:

> And if someone is trying to correct such (assumed) errors, you cannot 
> point to the authority of people saying otherwise, but must reject a 
> statement on objective criteria like inconsistency with observations.

Can't he?
And if he will - what?

Must he?
And if he won't - what?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384898

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 11:38:24 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 3 czerwca 2016 06:13:41 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas Heger napisał:
> 
> > And if someone is trying to correct such (assumed) errors, you cannot 
> > point to the authority of people saying otherwise, but must reject a 
> > statement on objective criteria like inconsistency with observations.

That presumes you can understand the basis for such rejection.

Virtually all relativity "critics" here not only do not understand the subject of their
"criticism" but (importantly) they cannot understand the explanations given to them as to
why they are wrong.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#384941

Am 03.06.2016 08:38, schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:

>> And if someone is trying to correct such (assumed) errors, you cannot
>> point to the authority of people saying otherwise, but must reject a
>> statement on objective criteria like inconsistency with observations.
>
> Can't he?
> And if he will - what?
>
> Must he?
> And if he won't - what?
>



If you want to create something useful by means of exchange of ideas, 
than it would be useful to stick to the subject and try to understand, 
what the other participants in such a discussion say.

If people do not want to reply or do not want to follow the subject of a 
discussion, than happens actually nothing. Communication is cancelled 
and that's it.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385009

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 9:24:02 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 03.06.2016 08:38, schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
> 
> >> And if someone is trying to correct such (assumed) errors, you cannot
> >> point to the authority of people saying otherwise, but must reject a
> >> statement on objective criteria like inconsistency with observations.
> >
> > Can't he?
> > And if he will - what?
> >
> > Must he?
> > And if he won't - what?
> >
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to create something useful by means of exchange of ideas, 
> than it would be useful to stick to the subject and try to understand, 
> what the other participants in such a discussion say.
> 
> If people do not want to reply or do not want to follow the subject of a 
> discussion, than happens actually nothing. Communication is cancelled 
> and that's it.
> 
> TH

Maciej is all about desperation to keep his ego going at a level that would make
his life endurable. People on this newsgroup are simply tools to achieve this
sense of clinging to some sense of normalcy for him. I would go to a doctor
instead.

The actual content of his posts is secondary, it's all about belittling other people and
swearing.

Notice that he claims expertise in a certain field (which he never actually specified
besides one-word descriptions like "models" and "language") BUT he does not
post in THOSE groups. It's very telling.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385037

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:2942be2f-eca5-4a84-a6f1-e38a04ac8e89@googlegroups.com...


|Maciej is all about desperation to keep his ego going at a level that would 
make
|his life endurable. People on this newsgroup are simply tools to achieve 
this
|sense of clinging to some sense of normalcy for him. I would go to a doctor
|instead.

Your pseudopsychological mumble is no better, than anything you produce.
BTW. Have you consulted a doctor about your "I'm a GURU!!! I'm like BACH!!!
or MOZART!!! And those who don't believe are STUPID!!!" problem?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385062

On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 1:49:36 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:2942be2f-eca5-4a84-a6f1-e38a04ac8e89@googlegroups.com...
> 
> 
> |Maciej is all about desperation to keep his ego going at a level that would 
> make
> |his life endurable. People on this newsgroup are simply tools to achieve 
> this
> |sense of clinging to some sense of normalcy for him. I would go to a doctor
> |instead.
> 
> Your pseudopsychological mumble is no better, than anything you produce.
> BTW. Have you consulted a doctor about your "I'm a GURU!!! I'm like BACH!!!
> or MOZART!!! And those who don't believe are STUPID!!!" problem?

I say what I say because I simply say what I know and I've provided a few links
to prove it. Simple. Nothing exotic about that.

You, OTOH, just post screams, invective, and one-line "criticisms" of relativity, nothing else.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385064

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:780ee054-2cbd-4054-b04b-21a189878b57@googlegroups.com...

On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 1:49:36 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:2942be2f-eca5-4a84-a6f1-e38a04ac8e89@googlegroups.com...
>
>
> |Maciej is all about desperation to keep his ego going at a level that 
> would
> make
> |his life endurable. People on this newsgroup are simply tools to achieve
> this
> |sense of clinging to some sense of normalcy for him. I would go to a 
> doctor
> |instead.
>
> Your pseudopsychological mumble is no better, than anything you produce.
> BTW. Have you consulted a doctor about your "I'm a GURU!!! I'm like 
> BACH!!!
> or MOZART!!! And those who don't believe are STUPID!!!" problem?

|I say what I say because I simply say what I know and I've provided a few 
links
|to prove it. Simple.

Of course. You know you're a guru. You know you're like Bach. Or Mozart.
You know that whoever criticize you is stupid. And your moronic mumble
of two dimensional ants and their abilities proves it all.
Very simple, indeed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#385073

On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 12:32:37 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:780ee054-2cbd-4054-b04b-21a189878b57@googlegroups.com...
> 
> On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 1:49:36 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:2942be2f-eca5-4a84-a6f1-e38a04ac8e89@googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > |Maciej is all about desperation to keep his ego going at a level that 
> > would
> > make
> > |his life endurable. People on this newsgroup are simply tools to achieve
> > this
> > |sense of clinging to some sense of normalcy for him. I would go to a 
> > doctor
> > |instead.
> >
> > Your pseudopsychological mumble is no better, than anything you produce.
> > BTW. Have you consulted a doctor about your "I'm a GURU!!! I'm like 
> > BACH!!!
> > or MOZART!!! And those who don't believe are STUPID!!!" problem?
> 
> |I say what I say because I simply say what I know and I've provided a few 
> links
> |to prove it. Simple.
> 
> Of course. You know you're a guru. You know you're like Bach.

You conveniently ignore that I specifically said the opposite. (The reason I specifically
said that I don't think of myself as Bach was because _I knew_ you'd respond with the
above lie. See, I got you figured out much better than you think.)

> Or Mozart.

I never liked Mozart, actually. He was definitely a genius but his work is shallow,
he was very much like Steven Spielberg.

> You know that whoever criticize you is stupid.

Another lie. I simply call out _your_ bluff because all you do is post little Chihuahua barks
at relativity while providing nothing to back this up with.

> And your moronic mumble
> of two dimensional ants and their abilities proves it all.
> Very simple, indeed.

What is so moronic about asking whether a 2D ant could cross a potentially
disconnected xy-plane? Ever read Martin Gardner? Szczepan Jeleński? Lech Pijanowski?

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web