Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / March 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Mike Helland Reading List

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
theman - 24 Mar 2008 21:47 GMT
Read this book and it'll give a good introduction to Theoretical
Physics and it doesn't cost that much:

Joos, Georg, and Ira Maximilian Freeman. 1986. Theoretical physics.
3rd ed. New York: Dover Publications.

Then as a gauge of how good your mathematical understanding is read
this:

Petrovskii, I. G., and Abe Shenitzer. 1991. Lectures on partial
differential equations. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.

This is a graduate level PDE book

Then just for some nice bed time reading when you have nothing to do,
oh wait you have nothing to do 24hr's a day so the time that your not
reading the book on theorectical physics you can read:

Fain, Gordon L. 1999. Molecular and cellular physiology of neurons.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Since you like to speak about neuroscience issues that you don't know
about you may as well start reading... once you finish that I have a
library of more then 250 books and some 30+ file boxes of scientific
papers, journal articles, thesis's (masters, and Phd) on topics
covering math, physics, AI, computers.... and defense sciences....

So get started it took me 6 years, with school and work to read
roughly 70% of that material and read portions of all of it, and I
read around 1000 words a minute...

Cheers
Michael Helland - 24 Mar 2008 21:53 GMT
> Read this book and it'll give a good introduction to Theoretical
> Physics and it doesn't cost that much:
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> Cheers

Thanks for the information. Seems to be what I am in need of.

However, I have bills and no money.

In order to make some progress on those books, I need some income.

That's why I was thinking a research grant would be a good idea.

If I could get some experts in QCD/QED and neuroscience to acknowledge
my project, I could probably get the grant.

That would allow me, with the direct guidance of experts, to make some
headway.
theman - 24 Mar 2008 21:58 GMT
> Thanks for the information. Seems to be what I am in need of.
>
> However, I have bills and no money.
>
> In order to make some progress on those books, I need some income.

Its called the library....

> That's why I was thinking a research grant would be a good idea.

Yeah that requires an idea....

> If I could get some experts in QCD/QED and neuroscience to acknowledge
> my project, I could probably get the grant.

No you couldn't cause they'd want you to know your stuff before they
gave a grant...

I ought to know having done this stuff...

> That would allow me, with the direct guidance of experts, to make some
> headway.

Use the library and the internet....

Cheers
Michael Helland - 24 Mar 2008 22:12 GMT
> > Thanks for the information. Seems to be what I am in need of.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Its called the library....

Thanks, but that's not my issue. To study those topics would take
years of focus.

That's hard to do when you have bills to pay.

That's why most people that do this sort of work are paid by their
Universities.

Interestingly enough, after Newton, the greatest scientists in the
world formulated his own views of the world outside the structures of
the University.

> > That's why I was thinking a research grant would be a good idea.
>
> Yeah that requires an idea....

I have an idea.

This Japanese guy has a very similar idea:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T2K-47MKC18-2&_user=1
0&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVers
ion=0&_userid=10&md5=a4af9e346c38d596a7d0fa4da253b4cd


Whether my ideas are worth exploring or not isn't really up for
discussion.

There are thousands of people working on these ideas.

These ideas are going to fuel the next scientific revolution.

Who wouldn't want to be part of that?

> > If I could get some experts in QCD/QED and neuroscience to acknowledge
> > my project, I could probably get the grant.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Use the library and the internet....

I do.

Currently I am working through much simpler Physics textbooks.

You've been helpful in suggesting a future course for my studies.

Thank you.
theman - 24 Mar 2008 22:34 GMT
<snip>

> That's hard to do when you have bills to pay.

No kidding, preaching to the choir, I happen to have bills, school,
research, and I am starting two companies, don't talk to me about
time, this may also be why I don't normally get more 5-6hrs sleep
separate issue... your just lazy...

> That's why most people that do this sort of work are paid by their
> Universities.

Yeah, not everyone, and that merely makes aspects easier... it doesn't
change the amount of commitment....

> Interestingly enough, after Newton, the greatest scientists in the
> world formulated his own views of the world outside the structures of
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> I have an idea.

Yeah, and an idea you can back up, and the ability to demonstrate you
know your stuff, and you admit you don't... so you still won't get the
grant... maybe when you've spent years studying this stuff you might
have a chance...

The thing you leave out Mike is that people who succeed in doing these
things don't put up these lame excuses of bills for why they are to
lazy to learn about what they are "interested"  in... personally I
think you just like to imagine, which is fine, but then you should
stop fooling yourself that your doing more then that...

> This Japanese guy has a very similar idea:
>
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T2K-47MKC1...

Yeah, mr I have no money you actually paid 31 dollars to read the
article (that you didn't understand", ha... not to mention that paper
is well reasoned and is nothing like what your paper is, you make the
mistake of attributing similarities from the title and your own ideas,
this is a problem easily remedied by looking at the abstract which if
you understood it, you'd see that there is really no similarity. The
most striking difference being one is a published idea and yours in
not...

> Whether my ideas are worth exploring or not isn't really up for
> discussion.

No your right, you don't have a valid idea, which when you learn
physics you'll realize...

> There are thousands of people working on these ideas.

Not yours, aspects yes, but of course I can type enough random words
to make a sentence that doesn't mean anything... the fact that i can
pull 5 ideas from you paper that may be correct if taken charitably
does not make you idea correct... in fact its still wrong, and you are
the only one wasting his time working on your foolish concept... due
to your overwhelming ignorance...

> These ideas are going to fuel the next scientific revolution.

Yes ideas of real scientists like myself will, you will have no part
in that, you are an ignorant bystander who wants to be part of the
revolution, but is to lazy to learn the topics... and thus will have
not part to play in the revolution....

> Who wouldn't want to be part of that?

You apparently since your laziness and feeble excuses keep you on the
outside, making foolish comments...

<snip>

> > Use the library and the internet....
>
> I do.

Obviously not, since your still ignorant after 4 years, so either your
lying about using the library and the internet or your really
stupid... take your pick...

> Currently I am working through much simpler Physics textbooks.

Congrats... apply the ideas to your paper, and if your paper seems
stupid then your understanding physics...

<snip>

Cheers
Michael Helland - 24 Mar 2008 23:00 GMT
> <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> most striking difference being one is a published idea and yours in
> not...

I read the paper for free from another source.

It's gratifying to see my "word salad" being served by others.

> > Whether my ideas are worth exploring or not isn't really up for
> > discussion.
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
>
> Cheers

You're so one dimensional.
Eric Gisse - 24 Mar 2008 23:54 GMT
[...]

He is being charitable, and you know it.

If you really cared about the material, there is nothing that is
stopping you from learning it.

No money? Go to the library.

Can't get to the library? Use the resources on the internet. God knows
I can get most of my textbooks in ebook form - I just prefer paper.

Can't figure out torrents? Read the free resources on the internet.

Can't figure out anything even with the full might of Google, arXiv,
and USENET at your disposal?

Find a new hobby. I suggest gardening, riding a bike, or reading.
Michael Helland - 25 Mar 2008 00:44 GMT
> [...]
>
> He is being charitable, and you know it.
>
> If you really cared about the material, there is nothing that is
> stopping you from learning it.

You're right.

The only thing stopping me from reading those books is the pre-reqs.

Which I'm working on.

> No money? Go to the library.
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Find a new hobby. I suggest gardening, riding a bike, or reading.

The full might of USENET? That's a good one.

I asked if someone could explain the Tolman surface brightness test.

Let's see its might in action.
OG - 25 Mar 2008 01:34 GMT
galaxies

>> [...]
>>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> Let's see its might in action.

OK, so what do you know about it already?
Michael Helland - 25 Mar 2008 03:51 GMT
> >> [...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> OK, so what do you know about it already?

Not much.

Seems to me that it tests two models:

1. where the speed of light is constant and the universe is flat and
simple
2. where the speed of light is constant and the universe is expanding

The model I'm suggesting, is where the speed of light is not constant,
and its reduced velocity gives the illusion of space expanding.

Expansion is: velocity static, space and time increase

My Tired light is: velocity decreases, space is static, and by virtue
of v = d/t, time increases.

I'm not sure how the Tolman test addresses my conjecture.

Seems to me the expansion result seems closest to my "looks like
expansion" model.
Eric Gisse - 25 Mar 2008 01:49 GMT
> > [...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> Let's see its might in action.

If you can't understand the contents of the Wikipedia link, then your
basic knowledge of cosmology is so sparse that you have no reason to
be discussing the topic.
Michael Helland - 26 Mar 2008 19:25 GMT
> > > [...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> basic knowledge of cosmology is so sparse that you have no reason to
> be discussing the topic.

If I don't understand the wikipedia link, I have no reason asking for
someone to explain it.

More excuses to talk about me instead of physics.

I'm flattered, actually.
theman - 25 Mar 2008 02:23 GMT
<snip>

> You're so one dimensional.

Post the link where you found the paper prove me wrong....

You see Mike this is why I don't help you because your a little panty
waste, a screaming little girl, who kicks and screams, and whines when
she doesn't get her way... so you just continue to post you trash, and
I'll continue to put in the trash can...

Its just a shame that people like you have to infect public place with
your presence the stench of ignorance....

So Mike no more Mr Nice Guy, you want help you can kiss my feet, and
beg...

Cheers
Michael Helland - 26 Mar 2008 19:24 GMT
> <snip>
>
> > You're so one dimensional.
>
> Post the link where you found the paper prove me wrong....

http://books.google.com/books?id=Fvs3sw9ZVfsC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=quantum+mona
dology&source=web&ots=4iyxRSKhQg&sig=YGiRtV136hpxRrWJnPUwcCzXZwY&hl=en


He says the Lorentz transformation may be interpreted as the
correspondences between internal worlds. Page 114

That's nearly what I said about time dilation and relativity in my
model:

"I described a singular virtual environment. (first set of
information)

I also said there will be an internal observer, which is really a
model of the virtual environment in the virtual environment (second
set of information).

I should have said there should be internal observers. Plural.

Many models within the model.

Their variations are important.

I predict my conjecture will explain time dilation and length
contraction by using more than one observer. "
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/1da71af6012924f7

He also says "It is only after obtaining a mathematical formulation of
monadology that we are able to know whether monadology is consistent
with physics or not."

That's indirectly relevant, because until a conjecture becomes a
hypothesis, it is not falsifiable.

I admit my ideas have a ways to go along the steps of the scientific
method.

You're using that to act as if they are still at the starting gates.

But only your understanding of monadology. You have yet to take the
first step to understanding: wanting to understand.

> so you just continue to post you trash, and
> I'll continue to put in the trash can...

One man's trash...

> Its just a shame that people like you have to infect public place with
> your presence the stench of ignorance....
>
> So Mike no more Mr Nice Guy, you want help you can kiss my feet, and
> beg...

You are "theman."

Pretty tough sounding. LOL.
theman - 26 Mar 2008 20:40 GMT
<snip>

> > Post the link where you found the paper prove me wrong....
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=Fvs3sw9ZVfsC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=q...
>
> He says the Lorentz transformation may be interpreted as the
> correspondences between internal worlds. Page 114

You don't even know what the lorentz transformation is... not to
mention to say that you'd have to show that mathematically since the
lorentz transformation is a mathematical concept...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

read the article understand the math, turn monads into a mathematical
concept, and prove it... you can't prove it, you don't understand the
math.. and you cite a source that doesn't prove it, so hence I say
your still wrong...

> That's nearly what I said about time dilation and relativity in my
> model:

Nearly doesn't count... not to mention the fact you don't understand
the math and thus cannot make or prove an argument on that point....
and since you don't understand physics by your own admission your not
qualified to make these statements... your in fact to stupid to
understand the implications of your own ideas, ie no implications, or
even how to prove them... and too foolish to admit your wrong when
shown...

> "I described a singular virtual environment. (first set of
> information)

No you said develop a computer model of the world.. that doesn't imply
a virtual environment... if you knew anything about modeling in
science you'd know that one doesn't imply the other.... so you
actually did not propose that... the difference between VR and a
scientific model... idiot... you use them interchangeably and their
not...

> I also said there will be an internal observer, which is really a
> model of the virtual environment in the virtual environment (second
> set of information).

No you said to sets of information one is completely virtual, which is
of course bullshit since you cannot have purely virtual resources...
and you specified the observer comes from the complexity of the model,
more bullshit... you never made the same argument about the
observer... in fact you still have failed to read anything about
observers in models... hmmm big surprise... your just in love with
your own worthless ignorance...

> I should have said there should be internal observers. Plural.

Yeah, doesn't change anything... doesn't make your wrong argument
right...

> Many models within the model.

Your just parroting now...

> Their variations are important.

Parrot...

> I predict my conjecture will explain time dilation and length
> contraction by using more than one observer. "http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/1da71af6012924f7

You strung random thoughts together and made little sense if you take
them charitably.. of course I can stick a bunch of monkeys in a room
with typewriters and eventually they'll compose Shakespeare... so your
a monkey composing science... congrats... let me send you a banana

> He also says "It is only after obtaining a mathematical formulation of
> monadology that we are able to know whether monadology is consistent
> with physics or not."

Yeah, and have you done that... no your to stupid to do that... this
also what people have been saying for years... to you and did you
listen no your mike helland boy genius who doesn't even know basic
differential equations...

> That's indirectly relevant, because until a conjecture becomes a
> hypothesis, it is not falsifiable.

It is falsifiable at all points conjecture or not... and your
conjecture is false... sorry.... as shown by numerous people.. on this
and other groups...

> I admit my ideas have a ways to go along the steps of the scientific
> method.

> You're using that to act as if they are still at the starting gates.

Because they are, as evidenced by the fact you don't understand
physics... and can't possibly evaluate where you are...

> But only your understanding of monadology. You have yet to take the
> first step to understanding: wanting to understand.

I comprehend your idea, and its wrong, as I have shown and others have
too.... Just because you can find one paper that agrees with you is
meaningless... esp. when the paper is an opinion paper... the problem
here is your so ignorant you can't even judge what is a good source...
in fact thanks to the internet you can find "scholarly papers" to
support anything... you can find papers to support 32D SuperGravity
theory, one of the most bogus theories of gravity ever... your
citation proves nothing...

And in fact if you understood how to make a scientific argument you'd
know that justing having on source is  not good enough... sources have
to be quality and they have to prove the point your making... the
point your making requires a mathematical proof, neither you nor your
source provide that... thus your ideas are nothing but piffle...

<snip> trash

<snip> mike being mike we know what that means...

Cheers
Michael Helland - 26 Mar 2008 21:07 GMT
> <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> mention to say that you'd have to show that mathematically since the
> lorentz transformation is a mathematical concept...

Indeed.

And the whole purpose of Teruaki Nakagomi's work is to formulate
quantum monadology mathematically.

He says: to this end, we must refine quantum monadology, in particular
we need an explicit form of the interaction between monad-images.

Last sentence, page 125:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Fvs3sw9ZVfsC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=quantum+mona
dology&source=web&ots=4iyxRSKhQg&sig=YGiRtV136hpxRrWJnPUwcCzXZwY&hl=en#PPA125,M1


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
>
> read the article understand the math, turn monads into a mathematical
> concept, and prove it... you can't prove it, you don't understand the
> math.. and you cite a source that doesn't prove it, so hence I say
> your still wrong...

He also says, page 115, that we can't know whether it's right or wrong
until the mathematics is completed.

That's the point with conjecture vrs hypothesis I've been making.

I'm sure that point will be easy for you to ignore.

> > That's nearly what I said about time dilation and relativity in my
> > model:
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> even how to prove them... and too foolish to admit your wrong when
> shown...

I said nearly to avoid trite nit-picking.

Not sure. Nitpicking the ideas themselves would be much too direct for
you.

> > "I described a singular virtual environment. (first set of
> > information)
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> scientific model... idiot... you use them interchangeably and their
> not...

If the computer world has a popuation, what is the environment of that
population?

> > I also said there will be an internal observer, which is really a
> > model of the virtual environment in the virtual environment (second
> > set of information).
>
> No you said to sets of information one is completely virtual, which is
> of course bullshit since you cannot have purely virtual resources...

But you can still have virtual resources.

> and you specified the observer comes from the complexity of the model,
> more bullshit...
         /\/\/\/\/\/\
More ideas that you failed to grok.

HTH!

> you never made the same argument about the
> observer... in fact you still have failed to read anything about
> observers in models... hmmm big surprise... your just in love with
> your own worthless ignorance...

I'm reading about connectionism. Which is what I've found so far.

You have a great method.

1. tell me I'm dumb
2. tell me there is stuff out there
3. refuse to tell me their names or provide cites
4. tell me I'm dumb

Probably doesn't require much effort either.

> > I should have said there should be internal observers. Plural.
>
> Yeah, doesn't change anything... doesn't make your wrong argument
> right...

One program that contains multiple internal observers can make
predictions for relative speed from two different reference frames.

> > Many models within the model.
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> with typewriters and eventually they'll compose Shakespeare... so your
> a monkey composing science... congrats... let me send you a banana

Just off the top of your head.

How many of those do you know?

> > He also says "It is only after obtaining a mathematical formulation of
> > monadology that we are able to know whether monadology is consistent
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> listen no your mike helland boy genius who doesn't even know basic
> differential equations...

Equations.

That's your religion.

Not mine.

Mine is programs.

> > That's indirectly relevant, because until a conjecture becomes a
> > hypothesis, it is not falsifiable.
>
> It is falsifiable at all points conjecture or not... and your
> conjecture is false... sorry.... as shown by numerous people.. on this
> and other groups...

It's an essential concept in information science to falsify in step 3.

In the context of monadology, that hasn't been reached yet.

Not in my paper. Not in Nakagomi's. Not in Cahill's.

Not my rules. You're arguing against established science here.

A conjecture is by definition, unfalsifiable.

Because a hypothesis by definition is falsifiable.

That's the distinguishing characteristic between conjecture and
hypothesis.

So no. My conjecture has not been falsified.

The only criticism I have actually found to be valid, and please feel
free to supply more, is that current information technology can't
handle a project of the scope required.

But I'm thinking 30 years out, and that the capacity for information
processing will continue to develop.

> > I admit my ideas have a ways to go along the steps of the scientific
> > method.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Because they are, as evidenced by the fact you don't understand
> physics... and can't possibly evaluate where you are...

Unless I'm really lucky.

Like a monkey at a typewriter.

> > But only your understanding of monadology. You have yet to take the
> > first step to understanding: wanting to understand.
>
> I comprehend your idea, and its wrong,

You don't comprehend the second set.

You said it isn't possible.

Which just means nothing more than you can't conceive it.

> as I have shown and others have
> too.... Just because you can find one paper that agrees with you is
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> point your making requires a mathematical proof, neither you nor your
> source provide that... thus your ideas are nothing but piffle...

The source should be your own imagination. Not the scientific
authorities.
theman - 26 Mar 2008 21:48 GMT
<snip>

> Indeed.
>
> And the whole purpose of Teruaki Nakagomi's work is to formulate
> quantum monadology mathematically.

Did he succeed is the formulation correct... do you know.. doubt it

<snip>

> He also says, page 115, that we can't know whether it's right or wrong
> until the mathematics is completed.

Then come back when this happens, did you even read the link I
posted... doubt that too...

> That's the point with conjecture vrs hypothesis I've been making.
>
> I'm sure that point will be easy for you to ignore.

Then if the work is mathematical, being done by someone who
understands it then your an irrelevant cog in this machine...
congrats.... on your new found irrelevance...

<snip>

> I said nearly to avoid trite nit-picking.

Sorry mike science is about details not your area of strength....

<snip> whining

> > > "I described a singular virtual environment. (first set of
> > > information)
<snip>

> If the computer world has a popuation, what is the environment of that
> population?

Look up mathematical modeling... before you embarrass yourself

> > > I also said there will be an internal observer, which is really a
> > > model of the virtual environment in the virtual environment (second
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> But you can still have virtual resources.

not like what you specified... but then again you don't understand the
concept of virtual in the context of computers, you probably think
virtual memory emerges from the complexity of the computer software or
some foolish idea like that...

> > and you specified the observer comes from the complexity of the model,
> > more bullshit...
>
>           /\/\/\/\/\/\
> More ideas that you failed to grok.

<snip>

Mike the day you understand something I don't will never happen on
this earth, or in your life time...

<snip>

> I'm reading about connectionism. Which is what I've found so far.

Great, read some physics... oh wait you wouldn't understand it, its
one of the many in fact to numerous to count topics you can't grok, so
if I can't grok your crackpot conjecture I don't feel to bad...

> You have a great method.
>
> 1. tell me I'm dumb
> 2. tell me there is stuff out there
> 3. refuse to tell me their names or provide cites
> 4. tell me I'm dumb

I actually did provide you a list of books, then you started pissing
and moaning about no money or time... so until you kiss my feet and
beg and show that you read the books I suggested in my first post on
this topic I shall give you no more citations... not to mention I am
allergic to spoon feeding ignoramuses like you...

<snip>

> One program that contains multiple internal observers can make
> predictions for relative speed from two different reference frames.

Says you....and you don't know physics and can't grok the math that
goes with observer models..I ask, how would you know?

> > > Many models within the model.
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Just off the top of your head.

oh yes, I am just starting...

> How many of those do you know?

So far one monkey, you... and you seem to be a good example, you still
want the banana I offered you...

> > > He also says "It is only after obtaining a mathematical formulation of
> > > monadology that we are able to know whether monadology is consistent
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> That's your religion.

No you just say that because you can't grok them..

> Not mine.

Because your to lazy to learn anything that fails to pop into your
little mind... so of course since your utterly terrified and befuddled
by new information apparently, you'd try to foist your own ignorance
on everyone else...

So the fact that I understand math means its my religion, your the
only one who'd say that and your reason is because you can't grok the
math... your an idiot...

> Mine is programs.

Cash register software... not programs mike... sorry.. my little cash
register programmer who thinks he thinks big thoughts... if you want
encouragement look to your mother...

<snip>

> In the context of monadology, that hasn't been reached yet.
>
> Not in my paper. Not in Nakagomi's. Not in Cahill's.

Opinion papers unverified or disproven congrats you have a great start
here

> Not my rules. You're arguing against established science here.

You don't know the rules, so don't cite the rules to me...

> A conjecture is by definition, unfalsifiable.

You don't have a conjecture and you hide behind semantics to protect
your idea from the cold hard light of day... just further evidence
that you know your wrong, and don't want to admit it...

<snip>

Piffle

> The only criticism I have actually found to be valid, and please feel
> free to supply more, is that current information technology can't
> handle a project of the scope required.

no thats the only one you understood, in fact I can disprove your
conjecture without a computer... sorry...

> But I'm thinking 30 years out, and that the capacity for information
> processing will continue to develop.

You are thinking in mike helland imaginary land, and where things are
the way you want them to be... sorry mike you are the only one who
lives in that little fantasy land...

If you ever care to learn about how to think 30 years ahead start by
learning physics, math... and computer science... , then you can talk
about being 30 years ahead, at the moment your nowhere, lost in the
sea of your own ignorance....

<snip>

> Unless I'm really lucky.

Ok, given a million years you may make progress..ok.. fine...

> Like a monkey at a typewriter.

To true mike you are a monkey with a typewriter to say you use it is
going to far...

<snip>

> > I comprehend your idea, and its wrong,
>
> You don't comprehend the second set.

Actually I do, and its wrong as I have shown you...

> You said it isn't possible.
>
> Which just means nothing more than you can't conceive it.

So I say its impossible to run across the ocean with no assistance...
all that means is I don't understand how to do it? your a moron...

<snip>

do you even think before you spew this stuff you write... if you do
don't tell me I'll spare you the embarrassment of admitting that this
the best you can do...

Cheers
Michael Helland - 26 Mar 2008 23:10 GMT
> <snip>

> > > You strung random thoughts together and made little sense if you take
> > > them charitably.. of course I can stick a bunch of monkeys in a room
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> So far one monkey, you... and you seem to be a good example, you still
> want the banana I offered you...

I think you're saying I'm a one of kind.

Thanks.

> > > > He also says "It is only after obtaining a mathematical formulation of
> > > > monadology that we are able to know whether monadology is consistent
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> No you just say that because you can't grok them..

You can grok equations through algebra and trigonometry and basic
calculus.

It's not magic.

> So the fact that I understand math means its my religion,

You think the fields of math that you understand are essential to
grokking math.

That fact makes it religion.

> no thats the only one you understood, in fact I can disprove your
> conjecture without a computer... sorry...

Then you don't know what a conjecture is.

I've told you a thousand times.

You don't have the capacity to adapt your beliefs.

> > > I comprehend your idea, and its wrong,
>
> > You don't comprehend the second set.
>
> Actually I do, and its wrong as I have shown you...

Your understanding is wrong.

You said you've falsified my conjecture.

The conjecture isn't falsifiable.

You nitpicked my use of the word "virtual".

Pat yourself on the back.

That isn't a fatal criticism.
theman - 26 Mar 2008 23:47 GMT
<snip, crap>

> > No you just say that because you can't grok them..
>
> You can grok equations through algebra and trigonometry and basic
> calculus.

And multi-variable calculus, fractional calculus, tensor calculus,
regge calculus, differential equations partial and ordinary, group
theory, number theory, algebra, symplectic geometry... the list goes
on, yes I can grok math thanks...

> It's not magic.

for you it is because your to lazy to learn any math or physics...

> > So the fact that I understand math means its my religion,
>
> You think the fields of math that you understand are essential to
> grokking math.

They are... you don't know math so what would you know? oh right
nothing.... this is another classic mike helland attempt to get out of
study...

Talking about math and what is math and what it means to understand
math is an area for mathematicians like myself not piddling cash
register programmers like you who don't understand any math
whatsoever...

<snip> mike being stupid

> > no thats the only one you understood, in fact I can disprove your
> > conjecture without a computer... sorry...
>
> Then you don't know what a conjecture is.

Neither do you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjecture

I suggest you read up...

> I've told you a thousand times.
>
> You don't have the capacity to adapt your beliefs.

I have told you to learn and think before you speak... and Mike as a
matter of self respect I really ignore your advice you being a lazy
fool who is not worthy or qualified to give any advice to anyone...
since he fails to do the minimum to earn the respect of his peers, and
spends his time being foolish and making himself a spectacle for all
to laugh at...

<snip> more crap

> You said you've falsified my conjecture.
>
> The conjecture isn't falsifiable.

Semantics, and more of you trying to hide behind said semantics
because you won't admit your wrong, no matter how dumb you look, hence
you are a fool...

> You nitpicked my use of the word "virtual".

Because you don't understand what scientific model is... vs a VR
simulation...

<snip> mike whining and embarrassing himself

Cheers
Michael Helland - 27 Mar 2008 00:25 GMT
> > You think the fields of math that you understand are essential to
> > grokking math.
>
> They are...

So I understand algebra.

And from there I suppose I grok equations.

You say that you know a dozen fields that I don't know.

From there, you suppose that you grok equations.

You probably don't see the irony.

> > > no thats the only one you understood, in fact I can disprove your
> > > conjecture without a computer... sorry...
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> I suggest you read up...

I suggest you read that webpage.

Did you make it to the second paragraph?

It says:

"In scientific philosophy, Karl Popper pioneered the use of the term
"conjecture" to indicate a proposition which is presumed to be real,
true, or genuine, mostly based on inconclusive grounds, in contrast
with a hypothesis (hence theory, axiom, principle), which is a
testable statement based on accepted grounds."

Summary:

A hypothesis is falsifiable.

A conjecture is not. Without that difference, there would be no need
for the term "conjecture".

Yet you are absolutely sure you proved my conjecture wrong.

I've read dozens of Popper's books and essays. I understand term he
pioneered.

You don't.

You are working with a version of the scientific method that has been
outdated since the 1950s.

<snip>
> > You said you've falsified my conjecture.
>
> > The conjecture isn't falsifiable.
>
> Semantics,

Definitions. That aren't on your side.

I predict you'll whine about it.

> and more of you trying to hide behind said semantics
> because you won't admit your wrong, no matter how dumb you look, hence
> you are a fool...

I am a fool.

Yes.

Do you think that you are wise?

That's rich.
theman - 27 Mar 2008 01:08 GMT
<snip>

> So I understand algebra.
>
> And from there I suppose I grok equations.

And you'd be wrong, since algebra is one small area of math, and not a
comprehensive idea of mathematics...

> You say that you know a dozen fields that I don't know.
>
> From there, you suppose that you grok equations.
>
> You probably don't see the irony.

Sure you think high-school algebra qualifies you as a mathematician I
don't call it irony, i call it stupidity...

<snip>

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjecture
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> with a hypothesis (hence theory, axiom, principle), which is a
> testable statement based on accepted grounds."

One slight problem here: "conjecture" to indicate a proposition which
is presumed to be real, true, or genuine, mostly based on inconclusive
grounds" one small issue mike is that the only reason to presume your
conjecture to be true is because you say so... which is not listed as
any sort of a reason to assume validity... sorry mike, I'd figured
you'd point this out... but you haven't even an inconclusive basis for
assuming your right since you can't grok math or physics...

<snip>

> Yet you are absolutely sure you proved my conjecture wrong.

Sorry mike your idea is wrong based on your lack of qualifications and
the fact that the only value basis your paper has is that you say your
right... and your a self proclaimed ignoramus... so no value, no
basis....

> I've read dozens of Popper's books and essays. I understand term he
> pioneered.

And popper would never condone hiding behind the term to avoid
admitting your wrong, sorry mike there isn't a single intellectual out
their who would support what your doing, hiding behind semantics...
you think that by saying its a conjecture you can just sidestep all
criticism, which is what you do, your an idiot, conjecture doesn't
keep you from being wrong...

Obviously you never actually read popper, so in fact we can just add
liar to your ever expanding resume..

> You don't.

And of course you know what I have and haven't read you worthless
waste of space...

> You are working with a version of the scientific method that has been
> outdated since the 1950s.

Your working with a scientific method that you made up... who dumber
under the context...

Not to mention you don't have a clue as to the scientific method if
one looks at your paper... so the non-scientist cash register
programmer (Mike Helland) is telling the mathematician and scientist
(me) that I don't know what I am doing... because you managed to read
a book 15 years ago that you misunderstood... well mike congrats thats
almost the dumbest thing you've said...

<snip>

> > Semantics,
>
> Definitions. That aren't on your side.

Actually they are... thanks though

> I predict you'll whine about it.

mike go buy yourself some diapers and stop wetting yourself in
public...

> > and more of you trying to hide behind said semantics
> > because you won't admit your wrong, no matter how dumb you look, hence
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Yes.

Great we are agreed... your a fool....

<snip> wiser then you...

Cheers
Michael Helland - 27 Mar 2008 01:26 GMT
> <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> And you'd be wrong, since algebra is one small area of math, and not a
> comprehensive idea of mathematics...

Equations are one small area of mathematics, and not a comprehensive
idea of mathematics.

That's the irony.

> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjecture
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> grounds" one small issue mike is that the only reason to presume your
> conjecture to be true is because you say so...

Sounds mostly based on inconclusive grounds to me.

> sorry mike there isn't a single intellectual out
> their who would support what your doing, hiding behind semantics...
> you think that by saying its a conjecture you can just sidestep all
> criticism, which is what you do, your an idiot, conjecture doesn't
> keep you from being wrong...

You're right.

The purpose of a conjecture is to improve on myths and assumptions.

That's a direct paraphrase of Popper.

The purpose behind Popper's method of falsification is to be wrong. As
wrong as possible. Quantitively.

> Obviously you never actually read popper, so in fact we can just add
> liar to your ever expanding resume..

I've read Logic of Scientific Discovery, All Life is Problem Solving,
Objective Knowledge: an evolutionary approach, and The Open Societies
and Its Enemies.

Years ago I had more time.

> > You are working with a version of the scientific method that has been
> > outdated since the 1950s.
>
> Your working with a scientific method that you made up... who dumber
> under the context...

Popper wrote in the introduction to Logic of Scientific Discovery that
the scientific method doesn't exist beyond the scheme conjecture and
refutation.

I'm using the most modern version of the scientific method.

Yours is straight out 1750.

> Not to mention you don't have a clue as to the scientific method if
> one looks at your paper... so the non-scientist cash register
> programmer (Mike Helland) is telling the mathematician and scientist
> (me) that I don't know what I am doing...

I never said you don't know what you're doing.

I said you don't understand what I'm doing.

Big difference.

> <snip> wiser then you...

Lol.
theman - 27 Mar 2008 01:34 GMT
<snip>

> Equations are one small area of mathematics, and not a comprehensive
> idea of mathematics.
>
> That's the irony.

Yes equations are only the language of mathematics, so yes they're a
small part...

<snip> crap

> The purpose of a conjecture is to improve on myths and assumptions.
>
> That's a direct paraphrase of Popper.
>
> The purpose behind Popper's method of falsification is to be wrong. As
> wrong as possible. Quantitively.

Yeah, which only works with people who will admit they're wrong your
not one of them... thus who cares..

<snip>

> I've read Logic of Scientific Discovery, All Life is Problem Solving,
> Objective Knowledge: an evolutionary approach, and The Open Societies
> and Its Enemies.

<snip, more time whining>

Congrats, crack open a physics text...

<snip>

> Popper wrote in the introduction to Logic of Scientific Discovery that
> the scientific method doesn't exist beyond the scheme conjecture and
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Yours is straight out 1750.

And yet even if your right (your not), I am still the only one who is
actually doing science...

<snip>

<snip>
Shut-up and go away... your a hopeless case... I am bored of you...

Cheers
Michael Helland - 27 Mar 2008 01:41 GMT
> <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Yes equations are only the language of mathematics, so yes they're a
> small part...

Equations are to mathematics as English is to literature.

Hint: Literature comes in French too!
Eric Gisse - 27 Mar 2008 02:09 GMT
> > <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Hint: Literature comes in French too!

You have got to be sh.tting me. Why are you lecturing on math when you
haven't studied much past algebra?
Michael Helland - 27 Mar 2008 02:22 GMT
> > > <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> You have got to be sh.tting me. Why are you lecturing on math when you
> haven't studied much past algebra?

Silly me.

Guess I'll quit posting for a couple days.

I've got some programming contracts to wrap up.

You know. Use math to solve business problems.

Cause thats what people with no math ability do.

Yep. This makes sense.
Eric Gisse - 27 Mar 2008 02:33 GMT
> > > > <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> Yep. This makes sense.

Get over yourself.
theman - 27 Mar 2008 02:57 GMT
<snip>

> > You have got to be sh.tting me. Why are you lecturing on math when you
> > haven't studied much past algebra?
>
> Silly me.
>
> Guess I'll quit posting for a couple days.

Good.. do...

> I've got some programming contracts to wrap up.

Bullshit, who'd hire you... you don't know anything...

> You know. Use math to solve business problems.
>
> Cause thats what people with no math ability do.
>
> Yep. This makes sense.

Yeah, people with math ability not you as evidenced by what you post.
Solve business problems yes the simple problems of adding and
subtracting that are used in a cash register congrats... you not a
mathematician just an idiot..

Cheers
theman - 27 Mar 2008 02:55 GMT
> > On Mar 26, 8:26 pm, MichaelHelland<mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Hint: Literature comes in French too!

Hint language of mathematics isn't divided like english, and french,
you'd know that if you knew math...

Cheers
Michael Helland - 27 Mar 2008 03:48 GMT
> > > On Mar 26, 8:26 pm, MichaelHelland<mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > <snip>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> Hint language of mathematics isn't divided like english, and french,
> you'd know that if you knew math...

Actually it is.

Algebra is like Midwestern American Accent.

Trig is like a British accent.

Calculus is like a Texan American accent.

Simple programs are like French.

It's got its own divisions of dialects.

You'd know that if you knew more than equations.
Eric Gisse - 27 Mar 2008 03:51 GMT
> > > > On Mar 26, 8:26 pm, MichaelHelland<mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > <snip>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> Calculus is like a Texan American accent.

No, moron. They are all the same thing - real analysis.

> Simple programs are like French.
>
> It's got its own divisions of dialects.
>
> You'd know that if you knew more than equations.
theman - 27 Mar 2008 04:35 GMT
> On Mar 26, 6:48 pm, MichaelHelland<mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>
> > You'd know that if you knew more than equations.

Well Eric I have to leave the making fun of mike in your hands now...

What I don't understand is what he gets out of doing this?

Cheers
theman - 27 Mar 2008 04:00 GMT
<snip>

> Actually it is.

Crap pigeon puke worthless spew

> Algebra is like Midwestern American Accent.

Hmm.. really so are you familiar with Galois Theory? no probably not,
are you familiar with the general field of abstract algebra? no, so
why are are talking as if you have something to contribute

<bullshit>

> Simple programs are like French.

Yeah they have the same relation as you do to genius, none at all...

> It's got its own divisions of dialects.

What would you know about that since you only know high-school
algebra...

> You'd know that if you knew more than equations.

You'd realize thats bullshit if you understood math, and sorry to say
but math is equations regardless of whether you think so... in this
case as in all others your opinion is meaningless and wrong...

Cheers
Michael Helland - 27 Mar 2008 04:07 GMT
> <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> are you familiar with the general field of abstract algebra? no, so
> why are are talking as if you have something to contribute

I'm not talking as if I could contribute to anything written in
equations.

I never intend or assume I will contribute to anything written in
equations.

> <bullshit>
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> What would you know about that since you only know high-school
> algebra...

I know a little more than that.

I read Wolfram's book.

> > You'd know that if you knew more than equations.
>
> You'd realize thats bullshit if you understood math, and sorry to say
> but *math is equations* regardless of whether you think so... in this
> case as in all others your opinion is meaningless and wrong...

You believe math is equations.

My opinion is no match for your belief.
theman - 27 Mar 2008 04:31 GMT
<snip>

> I read Wolfram's book.

At best an interesting work of ontology... ultimately wrong, since in
fact the argument made is logically invalid and is classic case of too
good to be true...

<snip>

> You believe math is equations.
>
> My opinion is no match for your belief.

Yes I have my basis in reason you don't....
Jeff▲Relf - 27 Mar 2008 17:56 GMT
Computerized models are what we use today, not just “ math ”.
theman - 27 Mar 2008 18:47 GMT
> Computerized models are what we use today, not just " math ".

Go away with your unwanted comments, no one is actually arguing
that...

Cheers
Jeff▲Relf - 27 Mar 2008 19:51 GMT
You have to explain what you're doing in
both English and VC++ ( or some such )..
the “ math ” part is a minor detail.

For example, by my calculations,
these are the people who are ( currently ) getting
the most replies from those who get the most replies:

“ 1. Michael_Helland     2. §ñühw¤£f            3. theman  ( 1 )
 4. John_C              5. Eric_Gisse  ( 2 )   6. NoEinstein  ( 11 )
 7. PD  ( 2 )           8. kenseto             9. mitchgrav
 10. Jeff▲Relf ”.  [ replies to me are in parens ]
 
The “ algorithms ” used are a bit complex, so I'll spare you.
It covers the last 13.5 Days, 367 “ established ” authors,
and discarded all but the 33 most recent posts per author.

From X.CPP in “ www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/Games.ZIP ”,
here's a few of the lines ( from thousands ) that computed it:

float  Total_Days = 0, TallyHighest ;  const int Passes_MustBeOdd = 9 ;
//  Use 9 passes to determine who got the most replies
//  from those who got the most replies.
{ Loop( Passes_MustBeOdd ) {  TallyHighest = 1e-33 ;  
 int  First_Pass = ! J, LastPass = J == LLL - 1 ;

 //  Loops through all posts.
 LoopXx( Ls, Ls ) {  if ( P->Expired )  continue;
   HeaderT  & H = P->H ;  LnA  Arr_1_5 = & H._1 - 1 ;
   int  Cnt_Ances = P->Cnt_Ances ;  UsP  Child = P->Player ;

   if ( First_Pass && P->Cat == Cat_Mid && P->AgeDays > Total_Days )
     Total_Days = P->AgeDays ;

   Loop ( Cnt_Ances ) {  UsP  & Elder = P->Elders[ J ];

     //  Binary search to find the authors of the ancestors.  
     if ( First_Pass ) {  LnP  & MID_Ances = * ++ Arr_1_5 ;
       LsA BB = B_MIDs, EE = E_MIDs, PP = 0 ;
       
       LOOP {  PP = BB + ( EE - BB ) / 2 ;  LsP P = * PP ;  
         int  rv = StrCmp( P->H.MID, MID_Ances + MaxName + 1 );

         if ( ! rv ) {
           if ( P->Player != Child )  Elder = P->Player ; break ;  }  

         if ( rv > 0 ) { if ( PP >= EE ) break ; BB = PP + 1 ; }
         else {  if ( PP <= BB ) break ; EE = PP - 1 ;  } } }
         
     //  Max_Thread is 5, for indirect replies up to 5 levels away.
     const int WeightLevel[ Max_Thread ] = { 9999, 999, 99, 9, 1 };
     static float  Dist[ Max_Thread ][ Max_Thread ];

     //  initialize Dist[][] once, and only once.
     if ( ! * FloP( Dist ) ) {

       Loop( Max_Thread ) {  int  Cnt_Ances = J + 1 ;  float  Sum = 0 ;
         { Loop( Cnt_Ances )  Sum += WeightLevel[ J ];  }

         Loop( Cnt_Ances )
           Dist[ Cnt_Ances - 1 ][ J ] = WeightLevel[ J ] / Sum ;  } }
     
     if ( Elder ) {  //  Child->Score is > 33^-1 and < 1

       Elder->Tally += Child->Score * Dist[ Cnt_Ances - 1 ][ J ] ;
       if ( Elder->Tally > TallyHighest )
         TallyHighest = Elder->Tally ;   } } }

     //  Loop through all the authors to give them scores.
     //  In the unbiased mode ( ! InBox ) “ 1. ” is the highest score
     //  and MinScore ( 33^-1 ) is the lowest.
     { LoopXx( Us, Us )  
           P->Score = P->ScoreFixed
                    ? P->ScoreFixed
                    : ER( MinScore, P->Tally / TallyHighest )
         , P->Tally = 0 ;  } } }
theman - 27 Mar 2008 20:51 GMT
> You have to explain what you're doing in
> both English and VC++ ( or some such )..
> the " math " part is a minor detail.

How the hell is this on topic for this thread or interesting or
relevant...? Go flame some other group....

Cheers
Jeff▲Relf - 28 Mar 2008 00:34 GMT
I started coding in 1976, by 1982 I was coding a Modula-2 engine
with a three button mouse, ethernet, 10 mega byte removable media,
laser printers, etc.  

I was coding Macs, PCs and PostScript the day they first came out,
and ever since.. Windows 2.1 in 1989, NeXT / PostScript in 1990.
I've put in many long hours since then, coding my a.s off.

When you meet a life-long professional coder like me,
he'll tell you that the “ math ” part is just a minor detail.
What really matters is the model, and how well you can envision it.
theman - 28 Mar 2008 04:13 GMT
> I started coding in 1976, by 1982 I was coding a Modula-2 engine
> with a three button mouse, ethernet, 10 mega byte removable media,
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> he'll tell you that the " math " part is just a minor detail.
> What really matters is the model, and how well you can envision it.

Yeah, whatever who cares, your still off topic... and you still need
to go away.... and by your definition of flaming your still flaming...

Cheers
Jeff▲Relf - 28 Mar 2008 06:44 GMT
I don't know why you keep claiming I'm off topic,
perhaps you're not seeing my other posts,
e.g. this one I made a few minutes ago:
“ Jeff_Relf_2008_Mar_27__10_28_Pt@X.Invalid ”.

Likely, it's because you haven't mastered your:
“ GoogleGroups➤Safari➤Mac➤Verizon➤Reisterstown ”.
Fine, here it is again, just for you:

“ If light doesn't have inertial mass ( as Mr. NoEinstein claims )
 how does he explain ‘ Radiation Pressure ’ and ‘ Solar Sails ’ ?

 ‘ The radiation of the Sun at the Earth has an energy flux density
   of 1370 W/m2, so the radiation pressure is 4.6 µPa.. ’.
   -- http://WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Radiation_pressure ”.

Not enough ? Try the physics I mentioned 15 minutes ago at:
“ news:Jeff_Relf_2008_Mar_27__10_18_PS@X.Invalid ”.
theman - 28 Mar 2008 07:10 GMT
<snip> spew

> Likely, it's because you haven't mastered your:
> “ GoogleGroups➤Safari➤Mac➤Verizon➤Reisterstown ”.
> Fine, here it is again, just for you:

What is that supposed to mean, or what should I interpret from that?

<snip> irrelevant spew
theman - 28 Mar 2008 07:14 GMT
<snip>

> Likely, it's because you haven't mastered your:
> “ GoogleGroups➤Safari➤Mac➤Verizon➤Reisterstown ”.
> Fine, here it is again, just for you:

<snip>

try this on for size

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en)

still convinced what you posted means anything, I'll give you hint
based on that your search radius is 100mi and based on direction your
search is more like 200mi radius, any other irrelevancy you want toss
my way..

Cheers
Jeff▲Relf - 28 Mar 2008 10:51 GMT
From “ 71.206.19.195 ” ( Comcast Cable ) I bet you live near Annapolis.

Frrom “ 70.91.67.65 ”  ( Comcast Business Communications )
it's possible you were using a business near Kensington
where you were forced to use FireFox 2.0 on Windows 2000.

This “ Verizon Internet Services ” stuff
might be your mobile phone hooked up to a laptop:
“ 151.196.18.153 ” ( Baltimore ),
“ 151.196.121.45 ” ( Baltimore ),
“ 151.196.125.167 ” ( Baltimore ),
“ 141.157.17.121 ” ( Timonium ),
“ 141.157.43.42 ” ( Reisterstown ),
“ 141.157.13.98 ” ( Ellicott City ).
theman - 28 Mar 2008 16:43 GMT
> From " 71.206.19.195 " ( Comcast Cable ) I bet you live near Annapolis.

very wrong

> Frrom " 70.91.67.65 "  ( Comcast Business Communications )
> it's possible you were using a business near Kensington
> where you were forced to use FireFox 2.0 on Windows 2000.

wrong

> This " Verizon Internet Services " stuff
> might be your mobile phone hooked up to a laptop:
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> " 141.157.43.42 " ( Reisterstown ), wrong
> " 141.157.13.98 " ( Ellicott City ). wrong

Bullshit, go harass someone else

Cheers
theman - 28 Mar 2008 16:48 GMT
> From " 71.206.19.195 " ( Comcast Cable ) I bet you live near Annapolis.
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> " 141.157.43.42 " ( Reisterstown ),
> " 141.157.13.98 " ( Ellicott City ).

In case you haven't caught on, I  can change that information to fit
whatever the hell I want it to be, so as I said before go harass
someone else

Cheers
theman - 28 Mar 2008 17:37 GMT
<snip>

Here jeff I'll tell you since your obsessed with the information, and
if I don't you'll keep embarrassing yourself, I live in Towson MD off
Rolandvue Road... happy, will you be able to sleep better at night....

Cheers
theman - 28 Mar 2008 20:13 GMT
This post is just for you look at the user agent string

Cheers
Jeff▲Relf - 29 Mar 2008 11:25 GMT
Your browser ( like mine ) allows one to set its “ UserAgent ” field
thus changing GooglGroups' “ X-HTTP-UserAgent ” field.

I could forge every field in your headers ( to look like you )
except the middle part of your “ Path ” field.
( Note: the “ Message-ID ” can be similar, but must be unique ).

But I know you're not doing that ( because it'd get you in trouble ).
You're a lowly GoogleGroups user, not an NNTP wiz.
theman - 29 Mar 2008 17:53 GMT
I just enjoy playing with my user agent fields, just for people like
you who think they're so clever because they read the field, and then
post some contents. You just take it a step further and use a site
like iplocation.com to find a general location of my IP....

The only problem with this is that your assuming that I am not using a
proxy server to access the internet, and that the information your
getting is worth something... not to mention the only way the location
is of real value is if my IP and provider is static... of course I
told you the answer to that question of where I live... but their are
a few variables which you fail to take into account...

So someday when you've designed super computers and ad hoc networks
you can come and talk down to me...

Cheers
Jeff▲Relf - 29 Mar 2008 20:06 GMT
You can know a lot of things ( even computer things )
and still not know much about the NNTP network ( like you ).

The server at your current IP address ( 151.196.165.86 )
is “ Balt.East.Verizon.NET ”, the name “ Baltimore ” is right there.
A google search tells me that it's not a proxy server.

Netcraft.COM tells me Verizon.NET is running:
“ Microsoft-IIS on Windows 2000 ”.. and it's not running SSL.
theman - 29 Mar 2008 22:37 GMT
<snip> bullshit

Did you even read what I said you pompous arrogant a.s, I am using a
remote machine I never claimed to be using a proxy server you can't
trace back to me since I am accessing the internet on a browser in the
remote machine, ever heard of timbuktu...?

Gosh your dumb, you think you know what your talking about, you don't
so shut-up and harass someone else...

Cheers
theman - 29 Mar 2008 23:12 GMT
<snip>
Oh this is to great an opportunity to miss, you call yourself and NNTP
wiz, so your a network news transfer protocol wiz, hmmm, that sound
suspiciously like failed programmer speak... you sound like someone
who failed in his life and your utterly determined to foist all your
many shortcomings on everyone else...

Well Jeff, I don't know what its like to be a failure like you, nor
will I ever, since I have an intellect and use it, you don't have an
intellect or even if you do you've forgotten how to use it....

So with that said go away shut-up don't bother replying, I have
finished killing all the braincells I wish to talking with you....

So go continue in your failed life living in the blissful ignorance of
success you seem to enjoy so much....

Always a pleasure to meet a slacking looser like yourself...

Cheers
Jeff▲Relf - 30 Mar 2008 17:31 GMT
Compared to you Google Groups users, yes, I'm an “ NNTP wiz ”;
my X.EXE program is proof of that.

X.EXE lets me rename “ Nyms ” ( a.k.a. authors ) at will,
so nymshifters have just one name for me, like this ( for Bert ):
“ { Treb  G_EMC_2_Glazier  cjpolins_aol  sldesear_aol  } ”.

Also, X.EXE places those I prefer most first, like this:
“ ➤{  Jeff▲Relf  tj_Frazir  Tom_Potter  Pmb  Kadaitcha_Man
        Double_A  Twittering_One  Treb  Paine  hanson [ etc. ] } ”.

If I've read all the posts of a particuar author, he's not shown;
so it never hurts to bump-up infrequent posters like K-Man .

X.EXE ranks the others like PageRank™, i.e. by:
“ Who's getting the most replies from those getting the most replies. ”.
Although it's fairly dynamic, it's now:

“ 1. gb6724_yahoo    2. theman  ( 13 )      3. Michael_Helland
 4. §ñühw¤£f        5. John_C              6. Jeff▲Relf

 7. SODDI_the       8. Eric_Gisse  ( 8 )   9. NoEinstein  ( 8 )
 10. Treb  ( 5 )                    ...  149. M_Rath ”.
 ( # of direct and indirect replies to me are in parens )

5.3 hours ago, it was:
“ 1. gb6724_yahoo    2. theman  ( 13 )      3. Michael_Helland
 4. §ñühw¤£f        5. Jeff▲Relf        6. John_C
                                       
 7. SODDI_the       8. Treb  ( 5 )         9. NoEinstein  ( 8 )
 10. Eric_Gisse  ( 8 )              ...  143. M_Rath ”.
 
This list covers the last 16.4 Days, finding 149 “ Active ” authors.
To be “ Active ”, an author must make 7+ posts.
All but the 33 most recent posts per author were ignored.

The complete list is at:
www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/_Phy_R.TXT ”.
theman - 30 Mar 2008 18:40 GMT
> Compared to you Google Groups users, yes, I'm an " NNTP wiz ";
> my X.EXE program is proof of that.

<snip> ooh... wow.... oh...ah.... amazing.... or maybe not....

I am truly impressed and here I was thinking you amounted to nothing,
boy was I wrong...

Well fine you can be an NNTP (non-new toilet paper) wiz if you wish,
big deal, and I'll remain supremely more competent on things of value,
and things which are to hard for you to do...

So someday when you're all grown up, and you have gotten to the point
where you can write custom protocols for super computing, or you can
design optical based computer processors like me, you'll have
something to be proud of.... or perhaps when you stop acting like a
child... and stop harassing people online... then come back and talk
to me.... I'll then send you an award, or maybe just a banana for your
monkey act that you put on....

So bravo its entertaining but its time to move up the evolutionary
ladder and stop acting like a monkey trying to type shakespeare
through random key punching...

Until such time I stand by what I said....

Cheers
Randy Poe - 30 Mar 2008 18:46 GMT
> Compared to you Google Groups users, yes, I'm an “ NNTP wiz ”;
> my X.EXE program is proof of that.

You mean that you managed to write a program that
followed the NNTP protocol? That's why you consider yourself
an "NNTP wiz"?

                 - Randy
Eric Gisse - 30 Mar 2008 23:40 GMT
> Compared to you Google Groups users, yes, I'm an " NNTP wiz ";
> my X.EXE program is proof of that.

Yet you can't stop yourself from changing the subject header almost
every time you reply.

[snip sh.t nobody but relf cares about]
theman - 29 Mar 2008 19:56 GMT
> Your browser ( like mine ) allows one to set its " UserAgent " field
> thus changing GooglGroups' " X-HTTP-UserAgent " field.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> But I know you're not doing that ( because it'd get you in trouble ).
> You're a lowly GoogleGroups user, not an NNTP wiz.

Actually Jeff to be perfectly honest I have two computers in two
locations and I use a remote desktop like application to use software
on the remote computer. It means the real computer I use is not
connected to any posts I make, just the remote one that I am
controlling over the web.... sorry... you got nothing with your little
individual.net subscription...

Cheers
Eric Gisse - 29 Mar 2008 22:24 GMT
[...]

I don't get why relf obsesses over user agent and ip fields so goddamn
much. Anyone knows the UA string can be forged to say anything up to
and including "unicorn power browser hour".
Jeff▲Relf - 31 Mar 2008 11:53 GMT
Headers tell me stuff, I'm not trying to make a big deal out of it.
Like Hanson, Mr. TheMan might be anywhere in the world ( traveling );
yet, likely, his company is based in Baltimore ( as he said it was ).

While Hanson seems to own a chemical factory in Los Angeles..

Mr. TheMan might be in charge of electrical engineers
working on photonic integrated circuits ( PIC's ),
perhaps for the military.. or not.

For you, I see:
“ Eric_Gisse, 137.229.49.194 ➤ Googlegroups.COM
   1.51 Days ago, FF30➤XP_B3HK, Mar 29, 2008, 2.24 P ”.

Which tells me that you're often sitting somewhere on campus,
hooked up to a wireless connection at the University of Alaska Fairbanks
( Wireless.UAF.EDU ).

You upgraded to FireFox 3.0 ( on WinXP ) before the general release.

I also see:
“ Eric_Gisse, 137.229.51.72 ➤ Googlegroups.COM
   3.34 Days ago, FF20➤Linux_CRry, Mar 27, 2008, 6.19 P ”.

Here, you used kiosk 72 ( Linux, Walk-Up72.UnRegistered.UAF.EDU ).
So much for privacy, I guess.
theman - 31 Mar 2008 12:48 GMT
> Headers tell me stuff, I'm not trying to make a big deal out of it.
> Like Hanson, Mr. TheMan might be anywhere in the world ( traveling );
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> Here, you used kiosk 72 ( Linux, Walk-Up72.UnRegistered.UAF.EDU ).
> So much for privacy, I guess.

Hmmmm..... on the topic of so much for privacy, since your so
interested in invading others privacy should I post your home address
online along with your phone number, and satellite imagery of your
house...? what do you think.... or is that going to far? What about
all your user names that you use?.... no jeff I wouldn't do that cause
I am not like you.... but hey.... something to keep in mind....

Cheers
Jeff▲Relf - 31 Mar 2008 12:58 GMT
You're exposing all this information, not me.
I've already posted my home address, my phone number,
and even my bank account number ( much wealth there, to be sure ).

I've often posted this walk that I like to take:
www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/CampusWalk.PNG ”.
theman - 31 Mar 2008 13:23 GMT
> You're exposing all this information, not me.
> I've already posted my home address, my phone number,
> and even my bank account number ( much wealth there, to be sure ).
>
> I've often posted this walk that I like to take:
> "www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/CampusWalk.PNG".

Your an idiot...

You truly are troll of the month...

Cheers
Eric Gisse - 31 Mar 2008 13:07 GMT
> > Headers tell me stuff, I'm not trying to make a big deal out of it.
> > Like Hanson, Mr. TheMan might be anywhere in the world ( traveling );
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
> Cheers

You don't know this, but Relf once posted his bank account info,
complete with account & routing number along with his current address
for a guy on WebTV who was pretending to be a billionare. He still
doesn't understand why it is stupid.
theman - 31 Mar 2008 13:24 GMT
> > > Headers tell me stuff, I'm not trying to make a big deal out of it.
> > > Like Hanson, Mr. TheMan might be anywhere in the world ( traveling );
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> for a guy on WebTV who was pretending to be a billionare. He still
> doesn't understand why it is stupid.

Nice, that'd be useful, except for the fact he owes back child
support....

Cheers
Jeff▲Relf - 31 Mar 2008 14:46 GMT
Every check I write has my full name, address
and checking account number written out in plain English.

Even if you somehow managed to get my 10 dollars that way,
the bank would return it to me.

My income is 500 per month ( knock on wood )
and my rent+utilities is 470 per month.

I value skills ( i.e. freedom ) more than ( taxable ) money,
and I feel that spending less is more interesting than earning more;
so I might go “ urban camping ” when my job ends ( perhaps soon ).

It's about ditching the “ task masters / landLords / taxers ”.
Nasty landLords ( evicting on a whim ), are like pigeons:
“ Don't feed them unless you want to see more of them. ”.

I still think T.J. is exactly who he claims to be, a ship fleet owner.
He wanted to teach me his business, that's all, but I prefer other jobs.
I would've loved to work with him, had we had more in common.

His anonymity didn't help much either, of course.
theman - 31 Mar 2008 15:12 GMT
<snip>

we've all heard this before Jeff and as before nobody cares about your
relfing all over the place, so why don't you go back to some other
group w