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

Groups > sci.physics > #544032 > unrolled thread

SCI RESEARCH MODERATOR PHILIP HELBIG - IS A CRIMONAL AGAINST MANKIND !

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  SCI RESEARCH MODERATOR PHILIP HELBIG - IS A CRIMONAL AGAINST MANKIND ! "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 09:44 -0800
    Re: SCI RESEARCH MODERATOR PHILIP HELBIG - IS A CRIMONAL AGAINST MANKIND ! James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 14:47 -0800
      Re: SCI RESEARCH MODERATOR PHILIP HELBIG - IS A CRIMONAL AGAINST MANKIND ! R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-01-09 23:02 +0000
        Re: SCI RESEARCH MODERATOR PHILIP HELBIG - IS A CRIMONAL AGAINST MANKIND ! James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 15:37 -0800
        Re: SCI RESEARCH MODERATOR PHILIP HELBIG - IS A CRIMONAL AGAINST MANKIND ! James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 17:11 -0800
        Re: SCI RESEARCH MODERATOR PHILIP HELBIG - IS A CRIMONAL AGAINST MANKIND ! "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 17:50 -0800
      Re: SCI RESEARCH MODERATOR PHILIP HELBIG - IS A CRIMONAL AGAINST MANKIND ! "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 17:41 -0800
        Re: SCI RESEARCH MODERATOR PHILIP HELBIG - IS A CRIMONAL AGAINST MANKIND ! James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 18:00 -0800
          Re: SCI RESEARCH MODERATOR PHILIP HELBIG - IS A CRIMONAL AGAINST MANKIND ! "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 22:38 -0800
    Re: SCI RESEARCH MODERATOR PHILIP HELBIG - IS A CRIMONAL AGAINST MANKIND ! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-10 07:32 +0000
      Re: SCI RESEARCH MODERATOR PHILIP HELBIG - IS A CRIMONAL AGAINST MANKIND ! "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 23:52 -0800
        Re: SCI RESEARCH MODERATOR PHILIP HELBIG - IS A CRIMONAL AGAINST MANKIND ! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-01-11 20:39 +0000

#544032 — SCI RESEARCH MODERATOR PHILIP HELBIG - IS A CRIMONAL AGAINST MANKIND !

SCI. RESEARCH MODERATOR PHILIP HELBIG - IS A CRIMONAL AGAINST MANKIND!

not only that this old fart pig  is a sabotager 
he is a crook   as well 
for instance 
i found him as ''writer' poster 
in sci research  
AND A MODERATOR THERE !!!

the 
shameless dreck does not understand what
CONFLICT OF  INTERESTS MEAN 
 or CONFLICT OF INTERESTS  !
 and he probably has many private interests there 

may be someone else will tell him about it 
he thinks that he is living 500 years ago 
if so 
no wonder that ''his'' ''private '  n g 
looks  like himself 
as a dead bone !!

Y.Porat
=============================================

 !

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#544098

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 9:44:43 AM UTC-8, Y.Porat wrote:
> SCI. RESEARCH MODERATOR PHILIP HELBIG - IS A CRIMONAL AGAINST MANKIND!
> 
> not only that this old fart pig  is a sabotager 
> he is a crook   as well 
> for instance 
> i found him as ''writer' poster 
> in sci research  
> AND A MODERATOR THERE !!!
> 
> the 
> shameless dreck does not understand what
> CONFLICT OF  INTERESTS MEAN 
>  or CONFLICT OF INTERESTS  !
>  and he probably has many private interests there 
> 
> may be someone else will tell him about it 
> he thinks that he is living 500 years ago 
> if so 
> no wonder that ''his'' ''private '  n g 
> looks  like himself 
> as a dead bone !!
> 
> Y.Porat
> =============================================
> 
>  !

Unfortunately most of science is dumbed down for the lowest common denominator, and the internet amplifies that.  Most moderators are dimwits.  

If you want to do cutting edge science you have to avoid most forum.  Maybe the only way forward to to do videos that appeal to a wider audience.  But even then you have to keep it simple.  People have no patience.

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

#544100

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 9:44:43 AM UTC-8, Y.Porat wrote:
>> SCI. RESEARCH MODERATOR PHILIP HELBIG - IS A CRIMONAL AGAINST MANKIND!
>> not only that this old fart pig  is a sabotager 
>> he is a crook   as well 
>> for instance 
>> i found him as ''writer' poster 
>> in sci research  
>> AND A MODERATOR THERE !!!
>> the 
>> shameless dreck does not understand what
>> CONFLICT OF  INTERESTS MEAN 
>>  or CONFLICT OF INTERESTS  !
>>  and he probably has many private interests there 
>> may be someone else will tell him about it 
>> he thinks that he is living 500 years ago 
>> if so 
>> no wonder that ''his'' ''private '  n g 
>> looks  like himself 
>> as a dead bone !!
>> Y.Porat
>> =============================================
>>  !
> Unfortunately most of science is dumbed down for the lowest common 
denominator, and the internet amplifies that.  Most moderators are dimwits.  
> If you want to do cutting edge science you have to avoid most forum.  
Maybe the only way forward to to do videos that appeal to a wider audience.  
But even then you have to keep it simple.  People have no patience.

Oh, now, this is charming!

If you're trying to sell a bill of goods to the general public you
certainly need to make it very simple.

But if you're addressing ostensible peers then what you have to say
need only be coherent, avoid self-contradiction and contracdition 
with widely-known facts.

Do you have it clear exactly who you are trying to appeal to and
whether you're doing science or marketing?

-- 
[The Unified Theory of the Crank:]
A crank is defined as a man who cannot be turned.
-- Nature, 8 Nov 1906

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

#544106

> If you're trying to sell a bill of goods to the general public you
> certainly need to make it very simple.

We're discussing science that can't be dumbed down.  Most of academia involves doing just that in many subjects.  Consider global warming for a perfect example.


> But if you're addressing ostensible peers 

Is there any such thing?



then what you have to say
> need only be coherent, avoid self-contradiction and contracdition 
> with widely-known facts.

On some subjects, sure.  But in many that doesn't work because they are caught up in their own paradigm.


> 
> Do you have it clear exactly who you are trying to appeal to and
> whether you're doing science or marketing?
> 
> -- 
> [The Unified Theory of the Crank:]
> A crank is defined as a man who cannot be turned.
> -- Nature, 8 Nov 1906

Maybe you should find a different hobby.  

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

#544139

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 3:02:28 PM UTC-8, Kym Horsell wrote:

> Do you have it clear exactly who you are trying to appeal to and
> whether you're doing science or marketing?

Let me guess, you are one of those global warming weenies.  Aren't you.  

No real scientist genuinely believes in AGW.  Some pretend they do, for finacial reasons or even for social reasons.  But only retards buy into that nonsense.  Prove you are not a retard, Horsell.

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

#544153

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 1:02:28 AM UTC+2, Kym Horsell wrote:
> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 9:44:43 AM UTC-8, Y.Porat wrote:
> >> SCI. RESEARCH MODERATOR PHILIP HELBIG - IS A CRIMONAL AGAINST MANKIND!
> >> not only that this old fart pig  is a sabotager 
> >> he is a crook   as well 
> >> for instance 
> >> i found him as ''writer' poster 
> >> in sci research  
> >> AND A MODERATOR THERE !!!
> >> the 
> >> shameless dreck does not understand what
> >> CONFLICT OF  INTERESTS MEAN 
> >>  or CONFLICT OF INTERESTS  !
> >>  and he probably has many private interests there 
> >> may be someone else will tell him about it 
> >> he thinks that he is living 500 years ago 
> >> if so 
> >> no wonder that ''his'' ''private '  n g 
> >> looks  like himself 
> >> as a dead bone !!
> >> Y.Porat
> >> =============================================
> >>  !
> > Unfortunately most of science is dumbed down for the lowest common 
> denominator, and the internet amplifies that.  Most moderators are dimwits.  
> > If you want to do cutting edge science you have to avoid most forum.  
> Maybe the only way forward to to do videos that appeal to a wider audience.  
> But even then you have to keep it simple.  People have no patience.
> 
> Oh, now, this is charming!
> 
> If you're trying to sell a bill of goods to the general public you
> certainly need to make it very simple.
> 
> But if you're addressing ostensible peers then what you have to say
> need only be coherent, avoid self-contradiction and contracdition 
> with widely-known facts.
> 
> Do you have it clear exactly who you are trying to appeal to and
> whether you're doing science or marketing?
> 
> -- 
> [The Unified Theory of the Crank:]
> A crank is defined as a man who cannot be turned.
> -- Nature, 8 Nov 1906

===================
the real crank parrot 
is you  not me 
for instance
please tell us 
how do can you even detect space
if there is no mass in it

2
please prove us that 
that light does not move in a straight line
**UNLESS IT MOVES  NEXT TO  SOME MASS !!3
BTW
the word crank
is used too  OFTEN   by PARROTS CROOKS !!

TIA
Y.Porat
========================

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

#544149

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 12:48:05 AM UTC+2, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 9:44:43 AM UTC-8, Y.Porat wrote:
> > SCI. RESEARCH MODERATOR PHILIP HELBIG - IS A CRIMONAL AGAINST MANKIND!
> > 
> > not only that this old fart pig  is a sabotager 
> > he is a crook   as well 
> > for instance 
> > i found him as ''writer' poster 
> > in sci research  
> > AND A MODERATOR THERE !!!
> > 
> > the 
> > shameless dreck does not understand what
> > CONFLICT OF  INTERESTS MEAN 
> >  or CONFLICT OF INTERESTS  !
> >  and he probably has many private interests there 
> > 
> > may be someone else will tell him about it 
> > he thinks that he is living 500 years ago 
> > if so 
> > no wonder that ''his'' ''private '  n g 
> > looks  like himself 
> > as a dead bone !!
> > 
> > Y.Porat
> > =============================================
> > 
> >  !
> 
> Unfortunately most of science is dumbed down for the lowest common denominator, and the internet amplifies that.  Most moderators are dimwits.  
> 
> If you want to do cutting edge science you have to avoid most forum.  Maybe the only way forward to to do videos that appeal to a wider audience.  But even then you have to keep it simple.  People have no patience.
===========================================
thank you James i agree with you
now about simplicity
i a;;ways was convinced  that the basic physics 
cannot be so complicated as 
'smart physicists think 
OR ELSE IT WOULD NOT LAST FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS 
IOW
 THE VERY BASIC PHYSICS MUST BE SIMPLE 
OR ELSE ... AS ABOVE
NOW
i can give you an example 
that wiil show you that i did my best
to implement the simplicity principle 
for instance
see at my site 
'the y Circlon mechanism'
in which i tried to implement you principle 
for instance the technique you mentioned above
ie'' Video explanation '
while it is difficult tor me
 even now   (20 years before  i wrote my book 
so please see it in my abstract  in Google
that it is as well 22 'years old' ;;

see how i tried to explain my 
Y Circlon mechanism in ''static picture 
see
Google 
'The Y Porat Model an abstract'
at its appendix AT ITS EDGE 
in which i try to show
a mechanic **movement** 
in A STATIC '' SKETCH 
THE y CIRCLON MECHANISM ''
and that is only one example 
the chain of orbitals  principle at the begining
is as well not a static phenomenon
 it is a mechanism  as well 
2
i think that after all
this  physics n g 
os a most powerful publisher
because it is seen by mighty   many people
(must more than the F en parallelized unjustly
by incapable 'moderators 

TIA
Y.Porat
=================================== 
   

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

#544155

thank you James i agree with you 
now about simplicity 
i a;;ways was convinced  that the basic physics 
cannot be so complicated as 
'smart physicists think

I tend to assume the opposite about science in general, especially sciences that involve atmosphere, which have been dumbed down to appeal to the public (especially meteorology's storm theory).


 
OR ELSE IT WOULD NOT LAST FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS 

Really?  Your reasoning is perplexing to me.  Why would it matter how long it's been?


IOW 
 THE VERY BASIC PHYSICS MUST BE SIMPLE 
OR ELSE


Or else what?


 ... AS ABOVE 
NOW 
i can give you an example 
that wiil show you that i did my best 
to implement the simplicity principle 

What simplicity principle?  


for instance 
see at my site 
'the y Circlon mechanism' 
in which i tried to implement you principle 

It's not my principle.


for instance the technique you mentioned above 
ie'' Video explanation ' 
while it is difficult tor me 
 even now   (20 years before  i wrote my book 
so please see it in my abstract  in Google 
that it is as well 22 'years old' ;; 

see how i tried to explain my 
Y Circlon mechanism in ''static picture 
see 
Google 
'The Y Porat Model an abstract' 
at its appendix AT ITS EDGE 
in which i try to show 
a mechanic **movement** 
in A STATIC '' SKETCH 
THE y CIRCLON MECHANISM '' 


You need to relate this to something people are familiar with.  I can't make sense of this "mechanism."


and that is only one example 
the chain of orbitals  principle at the begining 

Another principle?  



is as well not a static phenomenon 
 it is a mechanism  as well 
2 
i think that after all 
this  physics n g 
os a most powerful publisher 

I think physics NG is mostly a waste of time.  


because it is seen by mighty   many people 
(must more than the F en parallelized unjustly 
by incapable 'moderators 

As you have seen, physics ngs are mostly for trolls.  

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

#544199

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 4:00:28 AM UTC+2, James McGinn wrote:
> thank you James i agree with you 
> now about simplicity 
> i a;;ways was convinced  that the basic physics 
> cannot be so complicated as 
> 'smart physicists think
> 
> I tend to assume the opposite about science in general, especially sciences that involve atmosphere, which have been dumbed down to appeal to the public (especially meteorology's storm theory).
> 
> 
>  
> OR ELSE IT WOULD NOT LAST FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS 
> 
> Really?  Your reasoning is perplexing to me.  Why would it matter how long it's been?
> 
> 
> IOW 
>  THE VERY BASIC PHYSICS MUST BE SIMPLE 
> OR ELSE
> 
> 
> Or else what?
> 
> 
>  ... AS ABOVE 
> NOW 
> i can give you an example 
> that wiil show you that i did my best 
> to implement the simplicity principle 
> 
> What simplicity principle?  
> 
> 
> for instance 
> see at my site 
> 'the y Circlon mechanism' 
> in which i tried to implement you principle 
> 
> It's not my principle.
> 
> 
> for instance the technique you mentioned above 
> ie'' Video explanation ' 
> while it is difficult tor me 
>  even now   (20 years before  i wrote my book 
> so please see it in my abstract  in Google 
> that it is as well 22 'years old' ;; 
> 
> see how i tried to explain my 
> Y Circlon mechanism in ''static picture 
> see 
> Google 
> 'The Y Porat Model an abstract' 
> at its appendix AT ITS EDGE 
> in which i try to show 
> a mechanic **movement** 
> in A STATIC '' SKETCH 
> THE y CIRCLON MECHANISM '' 
> 
> 
> You need to relate this to something people are familiar with.  I can't make sense of this "mechanism."
> 
> 
> and that is only one example 
> the chain of orbitals  principle at the begining 
> 
> Another principle?  
> 
> 
> 
> is as well not a static phenomenon 
>  it is a mechanism  as well 
> 2 
> i think that after all 
> this  physics n g 
> os a most powerful publisher 
> 
> I think physics NG is mostly a waste of time.  
> 
> 
> because it is seen by mighty   many people 
> (must more than the F en parallelized unjustly 
> by incapable 'moderators 
> 
> As you have seen, physics ngs are mostly for trolls.

==========================
i was talking about the most **basic physics **
how about 
==========================================
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS- NO REAL PHYSICS !!
===============================================

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

#544201

"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> writes:

>SCI. RESEARCH MODERATOR PHILIP HELBIG - IS A CRIMONAL AGAINST MANKIND!

Why would the moderator of a group approve babble that is so poorly
spelled that it's barely readable?

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

#544203

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:32:54 AM UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >SCI. RESEARCH MODERATOR PHILIP HELBIG - IS A CRIMONAL AGAINST MANKIND!
> 
> Why would the moderator of a group approve babble that is so poorly
> spelled that it's barely readable?

======================
another hired gangster and a pig thief as well 
that stole my book
and want to publish it by his other gangster thieves 

BTW
what is =poor spieling got to do with 
right or not right physics
what is worse
 --wrong spieling or wrong physics :??
i am not a native English  speaker so
may be my race is intolerable ...!!!
just showing you are a F en demagogue 
as too many crocks  here 
next !!!

to ***honest** serious responsible people 
that are not hired  criminal  
Y-----------------

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

#544532

"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> writes:

>On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:32:54 AM UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> >SCI. RESEARCH MODERATOR PHILIP HELBIG - IS A CRIMONAL AGAINST MANKIND!
>> 
>> Why would the moderator of a group approve babble that is so poorly
>> spelled that it's barely readable?

>======================
>another hired gangster and a pig thief as well 
>that stole my book
>and want to publish it by his other gangster thieves 

>BTW
>what is =poor spieling got to do with 
>right or not right physics
>what is worse
> --wrong spieling or wrong physics :??

If the spelling is so awful that one can barely understand it, what good
is it?  (Not that I ever expect you to ever come up with actual science)
There are many spelling correctors out there, frequently built into the
operating system.

>i am not a native English  speaker so
>may be my race is intolerable ...!!!
>just showing you are a F en demagogue 
>as too many crocks  here 

There are plenty of non-native English speakers here.  Just about all of
them spell just fine.  In fact, I think non-native English speakers often
spell better than the native English speakers!

I don't even know your race.  I do know you're from Israel so I'll guess
you are one of many types of Jewish ethnicities.  Not that I care.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web