 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008Google please assign this group a moderator
I remember 5\6 years ago this group was one of the best physics newsgroup for the lay enthausiast. Now every semi illiterate, juvenile, with an opinion posts on this forum. would it be too much trouble for google to get a team together to moderate this group? >I remember 5\6 years ago this group was one of the best physics >newsgroup for the lay enthausiast. Now every semi illiterate, >juvenile, with an opinion posts on this forum. would it be too much >trouble for google to get a team together to moderate this group? That "group" has been here long before Google even existed. w. > On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 03:30:52 -0700 (PDT), muser > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > w. Amen to that! Sadly, the newbies have a problem distingishing Google Groups from Usenet Newsgroups. They don't seem aware of the fact that except for rare moderated Usenet Newsgroups, most newsgroups are and forever will be unmoderated, so anyone can post whatever they damn well please. Sometime this is good, and some times an annoyance. At any rate, the OP seems to hold a believe that Google plays a role, which of course they do not. To the OP I would offer this suggestion: Get a clue on how Usenet operates, and realize that Google has no influence on it. Sheesh! Harry C. > I remember 5\6 years ago this group was one of the best physics > newsgroup for the lay enthausiast. Now every semi illiterate, > juvenile, with an opinion posts on this forum. would it be too much > trouble for google to get a team together to moderate this group? ---------------------- and who will be the moderator ?? i suggest you to be 2 btw you say 5/6 years can you point the big advance or unprecedented contributions of those dream days beside smug closed club mumblings on coffee cup by this ng ???? 3 why the f.ck sci.physics.research is not good enough for your Highness ??? and btw can you point the big contributions of sci .research since ever ??? TIA Y.Porat -------------------------------- muser, the LOSER, <charlie12...@hotmail.com> wrote: I remember 5\6 years ago this group was one of the best physics newsgroup for the lay enthausiast. Now every semi illiterate, juvenile, with an opinion posts on this forum. would it be too much trouble for google to get a team together to moderate this group? hanson wrote: Loser listen, you are an expemlary Einstein Dingleberry. If you yearn & need to move closer to Albert's sphincter then join s.p.research. There you'll find plenty EDs like yourself; all of them dangling in the draft of the farts which come from Einstein, and to boot, even consume the octonions that are served there by the pound. Thanks for the laughs you dangling control freak... ahaha... ahahaha... ahahahahanson >I remember 5\6 years ago this group was one of the best physics >newsgroup for the lay enthausiast. Now every semi illiterate, >juvenile, with an opinion posts on this forum. would it be too much >trouble for google to get a team together to moderate this group? Google has no authority or ability to moderate usenet newsgroups. They could, technically, control what Google Groups users see or post, but I doubt they would want to do that: selectively filtering based on content might bring into question their right to use the group at all. -- Richard  SignaturePlease remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind. muser <charlie12345@hotmail.com> wrote in message ea0e64e8-2d8b-4fd8-89d9-5614ffb9910f@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com > I remember 5\6 years ago this group was one of the best physics > newsgroup for the lay enthausiast. Now every semi illiterate, > juvenile, with an opinion posts on this forum. would it be too much > trouble for google to get a team together to moderate this group? Try sci.physics.research - moderated and (therefore a bit) boring. By the way, a few months ago a few newsgroups where flooded by the most obvious spam, all posted through Google groups. It looked like Google didn't care about taking action against it, but at this point it looks like they have taken certain measures. Dirk Vdm On Jul 2, 7:27 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO- SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: > muser <charlie12...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Try sci.physics.research - moderated and (therefore a bit) boring. ---------------------- its the first time in my life i see Dirk talking sense and sincere probably he started to understand that salvation will not come just from crackparroters ...... in this 'messed ng you will find a thousand garbage posts but if only one of those thousands will be a through breaker it will make all of those thousand plus one 'grbage' ones to be worth ** the** effort and 'trouble' ATB Y.Porat ---------------------- > By the way, a few months ago a few newsgroups where flooded > by the most obvious spam, all posted through Google groups. > It looked like Google didn't care about taking action against > it, but at this point it looks like they have taken certain measures. > > Dirk Vdm > I remember 5\6 years ago this group was one of the best physics > newsgroup for the lay enthausiast. Now every semi illiterate, > juvenile, with an opinion posts on this forum. would it be too much > trouble for google to get a team together to moderate this group? This is USENET, an internet protocol independent of Google or any corporate entity. However you can contribute to raising the standards of this USENET Newsgroup sci.physics by minimizing replies to trolls and make credible postings about physics. > I remember 5\6 years ago this group was one of the best physics > newsgroup for the lay enthausiast. Now every semi illiterate, > juvenile, with an opinion posts on this forum. would it be too much > trouble for google to get a team together to moderate this group? This is because the public is getting more intelligent. Prior to it. Copenhagen zombies and relativistic miracle workers rule. When the public realize that relativists describe that the the universe with over 100 billion galaxies each with over 100 billion stars each star at least the size of the sun or bigger and they were once contained in in a space smaller than the head of the pin, then they begin to realize that this is the most fantastic thing they ever heard. Now when they realize further that beneath the world they inhabit, things can be in two places at once (electrons before measurement for example) and there is no physical picture of it but everything encapsulated in the wavefunction which works like magic. Many in the public has a mental breakdown. And from this raised the super newtonians. Super newtonians are what these crackpots are all about as they try to put in picture and mechanical form what occurs in the invironment of the atom for example and why relativity is just wrong because there is just no way in hell the entire unverse can fit into the head of pin. Its more fantastic than saying angels can dance in the head of the pin. Physicists indeed beat it by literally describing that even the dance of galaxy in relation to other galaxy can also fit into the head of the pin. At this point. It's either their mind shuts down and they suffer mental collapse so intense it can kill them or they all focus over something that can prevent total mental breakdown that would put them in mental institution. The result of their focus is in the emergence of the Super Newtonians. Those who want science being explained but not using quantum mechanics nor relativity but newtonian physics. Its the only way to save their mind. Without them reverting to newtonian worlds. They mind equilibrium can be so affected that they would literally lose their mind by the simultaneiously brain wide neutral collapse that could even kill them. So to attempt the first try to moderate this newsgroup, we must have tie with government mental institutions where these super newtonians like Porat, Seto, Thomsons, Retic, etc. can be locked up inside and be treated by experts to make them loss memory or interests in them... to make them lose totally their interests by inducing them epilectic seisure to disconnect the brain with the final outcome of making them understand and following the moto "Ignorance is Bliss". Noke <gad.gets@yahoo.com> wrote in message c5ae2062-b266-42fd-a045-a3bc1856258c@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com >> I remember 5\6 years ago this group was one of the best physics >> newsgroup for the lay enthausiast. Now every semi illiterate, >> juvenile, with an opinion posts on this forum. would it be too much >> trouble for google to get a team together to moderate this group? > > This is because the public is getting more intelligent. I think it is because internet is getting cheaper and more accessible. And computers more idiot-friendly. Just look at yourself for instance. Dirk Vdm On Jul 3, 1:15 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO- SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: > Noke <gad.g...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Dirk Vdm Oh, another Copenhagen zombie... > I remember 5\6 years ago this group was one of the best physics > newsgroup for the lay enthausiast. Now every semi illiterate, > juvenile, with an opinion posts on this forum. would it be too much > trouble for google to get a team together to moderate this group? Google groups is not USENET. > I remember 5\6 years ago this group was one of the best physics > newsgroup for the lay enthausiast. It still is. > Now every semi illiterate, juvenile, with an opinion posts on this > forum. The same as always in the past. > would it be too much trouble for google to get a team together > to moderate this group? Google has no authority at all over the Usenet. Just one of the windows allowing a peek at and allows posting to. Nobody will ever moderate this group. What you need to do what everybody else ends up doing, that is, chose the people you want to interact with and ignore the rest. André Michaud > I remember 5\6 years ago this group was one of the best physics > newsgroup for the lay enthausiast. Now every semi illiterate, > juvenile, with an opinion posts on this forum. would it be too much > trouble for google to get a team together to moderate this group? By the time you get to this point in the thread, you will have had pointed out to you many times that Google Groups is not Usenet. Google Groups does offer access to Usenet through a web interface, but not only is it a bad interface, but you can't filter out posts from people you don't want to read messages from. If you want to keep reading this group, you should set up a real newsreader. Thunderbird and Outlook, which you may already have, will read newsgroups. I'm using 40tude Dialog, an old piece of freeware, because it allows me to easily filter out replies to the posts I'm blocking. From your headers, it appears you're using BT for Internet access; if that is the case, your news server is news.btinternet.com. And if you're looking for a moderated newsgroup like sci.physics, there's sci.physics.research. SignatureJim E. Black (domain in headers) How to filter out stupid arguments in 40tude Dialog: !markread,ignore From "Name" +"<email address>" [X] Watch/Ignore works on subthreads > > I remember 5\6 years ago this group was one of the best physics > > newsgroup for the lay enthausiast. Now every semi illiterate, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > !markread,ignore From "Name" +"<email address>" > [X] Watch/Ignore works on subthreads thank you. I'm a little frustrated at what this forum has become. I know of sci.physics.research, but that is highly technical and it requires a good grasp of algreba and calculus. For some of us mere mortals a conversation on physical generalities will be ignored or derided (if you're lucky). sci.physics.foundations is moderate but don't let the word foundations throw you, it's virtually run in the same manner as s.c.r. sci.physics was always the place any enthuasist could come and air an opinion and have it met with a well rounded response. That is unfortunately no longer the case. > > > I remember 5\6 years ago this group was one of the best physics > > > newsgroup for the lay enthausiast. Now every semi illiterate, [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > could come and air an opinion and have it met with a well rounded > response. That is unfortunately no longer the case. The type of response you are looking for you will get if you ask a well rounded question. On unmoderated Usenet groups, it is up to the poster to analyze and select the answers he finds well rounded for his own purpose among the pile of answers he gets. You just need to ignore the answers that you find offensive or weird of off topic. André Michaud > > > I remember 5\6 years ago this group was one of the best physics > > > newsgroup for the lay enthausiast. Now every semi illiterate, [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > - Show quoted text - This newsgroup has been hijacked by a gang composing of few members only namely.. Androcles, Pentcho, Y.Porat, Spaceman, & Seto. These folks are super newtonian fanatics. They are willing to die for Newton (subtly there are forming a Newton cult much like the Nazi cults). They want to make sure our physics stop in the time of Newton and Einsteinian physics never came. If you have big connections in the government and law. Try to indict them for crimes against humanity and progress and get lawyer order to make them not come within 15 meters of any internet machine with sci.physics in it. Noke >"Noke" <gad.gets@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:a3d837dc-f519-4442-a5da-6cadde76bb41@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com... >> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >lawyer order to make them not come within 15 meters of any >internet machine with sci.physics in it. Noke demonstrates what is wrong with sci.physics. In the early days, the science groups on CompuServe, FidoNet, Genie, The Source, Delphi, Prodigy, AOL, etc. experts and beginners alike interacted in a rational, intelligent, civilized, moral way. Experts could discuss heavy issues, and beginners could toss in their two cents, and get a civilized, informative response. Unfortunately about the year 2000, all of the commercial services migrated to the Internet, and sci.physics became a battle ground between John Baez and Jack Sarfatti to be "King of the Mountain". After John Baez create his infamous "Crackpot Index" in an effort to smear Sarfatti, the newsgroup quickly fell into two groups, defenders of "conventional wisdom" and attackers of "conventional wisdom". The defenders of "conventional wisdom" began to attack messengers rather than address messages, and the attackers of "conventional wisdom" after being personally attacked rather than having their messages addressed in a rational, intelligent, civilized way, began to respond in kind. Regarding "Noke's" statement: "This newsgroup has been hijacked by a gang composing of few members only namely.. Androcles, Pentcho, Y.Porat, Spaceman, & Seto", I suggest that if "Noke" applied his time, knowledge, and intellect engaging those posters in debates on their positions, that he would find that they are more than happy to accommodate him. I suggest that folks interested in returning to the wonderful days of yesteryear should note who tries to focus attention on some issue, and who tries to focus attention on some person or persons. SignatureTom Potter http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos > In the early days, the science groups on CompuServe, > FidoNet, Genie, The Source, Delphi, Prodigy, AOL, etc. > experts and beginners alike interacted in a > rational, intelligent, civilized, moral way. Then scientific illiterates like you, Potter, started posting nonsense and that kind of crap persists today because so many untutored in physics find such behavior entertaining. >> In the early days, the science groups on CompuServe, >> FidoNet, Genie, The Source, Delphi, Prodigy, AOL, etc. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > nonsense and that kind of crap persists today because so many > untutored in physics find such behavior entertaining. I would like to thank my pal Sam Wormley for demonstrating the points I made on my post, where I stated that sci.physics degenerated when: "The defenders of "conventional wisdom" began to attack messengers rather than address messages, and the attackers of "conventional wisdom" after being personally attacked rather than having their messages addressed in a rational, intelligent, civilized way, began to respond in kind. Regarding "Noke's" statement: "This newsgroup has been hijacked by a gang composing of few members only namely.. Androcles, Pentcho, Y.Porat, Spaceman, & Seto", I suggest that if "Noke" applied his time, knowledge, and intellect engaging those posters in debates on their positions, that he would find that they are more than happy to accommodate him. I suggest that folks interested in returning to the wonderful days of yesteryear should note who tries to focus attention on some issue, and who tries to focus attention on some person or persons." I will be looking forward to seeing Sammy apply his time, knowledge, and intellect engaging posters in debates on their positions, rather than attacking folks personally. Thanks for demonstrating and confirming the points I made in my post Sammy. Don't be shy Sammy. Even if you don't comprehend a thread try to make a contribution to it. The longest journey starts with a single step. Your pal, SignatureTom Potter http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/ http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos >> In the early days, the science groups on CompuServe, FidoNet, Genie, >> The Source, Delphi, Prodigy, AOL, etc. experts and beginners alike [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > nonsense and that kind of crap persists today because so many > untutored in physics find such behavior entertaining. His so-called history of what happened is also complete bullshit. /BAH > >Tom Potterwrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > /BAH My friend BAH is partly correct. I was wrong about the date that the conflict started between Sarfatti and Baez that turned sci.physics into a "River of sh.t". As can be seen by the post by Sarfatti: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5e708010503c494a Newsgroups: sci.physics From: sarfa...@netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti) Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 00:53:34 GMT Local: Wed, May 18 1994 8:53 am Subject: John Baez tells lies. Some one just sent me a "net.legend.FAQ" about me written by John Baez. It is totally fraudulent. For example, Baez claims I tell a story that Murray Gell-Mann finds my ideas interesting. I never told such a story. I never spent time with Gell-Mann. I did spend time with Feynman on several occassions in 1963 and 1967 and Feynman did send me a funny letter to "The Great Sarfatti" to me at UCSD in 1967. He did drive around with me in my Jaguar convertible in 1963. But I never even spoke to Gell-Mann and never said I did. Baez wrote: --------------------------------------------------------------- Used to tell people Murray Gell-Mann found his ideas interesting; someone finally checked with Gell-Mann - and found the complete quote was "Your ideas are interesting, but [looking at watch] I'm late for an appointment." Posts from .... ------------------------------------------------------------------ Also Baez falsely says I wrote letters of complaint to academic superiors of at least one other person other than him. This is a lie - the only letter of complaint I did write was to John Baez's Department Chirman and Academic Dean at UCR (where I got my Ph.D. with Fred Cummings in 1969). John and his graduate student, David Dixon, who has a history of terrorizing females on campus, have been spreading lies about me for over a year on the internet for over a year which is why I did complain to his Dean. This is not professional behavior for a promising professor without tenure and I wish he would stop it. My personal displeasure over his distortions of my ideas etc will not stop me from reading his book on Knots and Physics - but I hope his writng there is more accurate than his lies about me. What is this net.legend.FAQ which seems to be a repository of false information? " The conflict started not around 2000, but around 1994. Boy how times flies! -- Tom Potter http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/ http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos >>>Tom Potterwrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>> nonsense and that kind of crap persists today because so many >>> untutored in physics find such behavior entertaining. And many of us who are tutored in physics also find it entertaining. Fortunately, with killfiles we don't have to read any of it (not much, anyway) unless we feel like being entertained. >> His so-called history of what happened is also complete bullshit. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > As can be seen by the post by Sarfatti: > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5e708010503c494a [snip Sarfatti post] > The conflict started not around 2000, > but around 1994. > > Boy how times flies! For those following the soap opera, a cursory search of the Google archives reveals that the "Crackpot Index" was first proposed by John Baez in 1992: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/f32dd5bb05208802 He was following up to this post by Robert McElwaine: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/0ab6e7db67e6bdfb Over the next few days, he applied the new index to posts from such people as McElwaine and Alexander Abian: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/9fcb4033adb16018 http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/f6dab03c8612046c http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/6d023f1a0f958024 And himself (discussing loop quantum gravity): > In article <1992Oct14.201220.9007@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > The above article has a crackpot rating of 6, since it has 2 capitalized > words and one error of fact. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/aae73e53490da9eb Sarfatti did take particular exception to the index, though, and started two threads that week on it: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/9cb80029a7a83d5a /db40ffbb510cac50 http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/291384f45faa0367 /2a5e0e7f8691a99d He also mentioned it in: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a77ea7f093c95a23 /123a6eb7110af8fb He says to Baez, "I think you mostly post good stuff - with some slips like crackpot index." Baez's response was: > (Sarfatti also emailed me this letter and I emailed him a response, which > I will not bother to repeat here. Let me simply note that my > "crackpot index" posts and my reported "sinking feeling" upon > encountering the title "EXORCIZING THE BAEZ DEMON" were intended to > amuse, more than edify. It's called comedy, folks - comedy. If you > don't like it, well, sorry.) http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/123a6eb7110af8fb SignatureJim E. Black (domain in headers) How to filter out stupid arguments in 40tude Dialog: !markread,ignore From "Name" +"<email address>" [X] Watch/Ignore works on subthreads >>>>Tom Potterwrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Over the next few days, he applied the new index to posts from such people > as McElwaine and Alexander Abian: I am pleased to see that "Jim Black" researched to find the point at which sci.physics began to turn into a "River of sh.t", and it appears that he found the point to be in 1992. As us old timers on the net know, pre 1992, folks of all kinds, students, experts, professionals, phonies and us "scientific illiterates" interacted in a rational, intelligent, civil way. As could be seen by actually witnessing the decay, and as can be seen by researching the situation, after Baez created his "Crackpot Index" phonies like "Jim Black" and "Sam Wormley", ego trippers, ignorant people, and young students immediately began to use the list as a weapon to attack messengers, so they did not have to address messages and expose their ignorance. I suggest that "Jim Black" reflect on why anyone would create a "Crackpot Index" in the first place, and use it to demean opponents in debates and discussions. No doubt Alexander Abian and Sarfatti had a few unconventional ideas tucked in with their extensive and intensive knowledge and experience, ( Abian was a professor and great mathematical, and Sarfatti knows far, far more about physics that "Jim Black" and the phonies who rally around and defend the "Crackpot Index" like the Romans Armies defended their Standards.) but rational, intelligent, moral people attack SPECIFIC points of messages, rather than try to create generalized INSTITUTIONALIZED ICONS that can be used to demean messengers. Phonies, con-men, dishonest and immoral people create negative and positive ICONS and use them to manipulate ignorant people. Any time you see someone using icons like "Crackpot Index", Nazi, Hitler, KKK, patriot, etc. as weapons, you can be sure you are dealing with an immoral (Or stupid) person. The scientific approach is to expose and debate SPECIFIC points , not to tag those who perceive an issue differently with a negative icon, and those who agree with a positive icon. That said, anyone who doesn't agree with me is a dirty, ignorant, bigoted, Neo Nazi coward who hates America, and a zombie-parrot who has been brainwashed to worship Relativity, not to mention is a member of the KKK, a Jihad Muslim and a Communist. Regarding "Jim Black" rationalization that Baez created his "Crackpot Index" as a "joke" and that something is wrong with the folks who don't see the humor in it. It is interesting to see that Bush rationalizes his Iraqi War by asserting that something is wrong with the folks who don't go along with his war. Personally, I don't see the humor in a list designed to demean messengers, and I don't see the patriotism in a needless war against a tiny nation, located half way round the world. SignatureTom Potter http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/ http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos > I am pleased to see that "Jim Black" > researched to find the point at which [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > and I don't see the patriotism in a needless war > against a tiny nation, located half way round the world. Potter, you didn't fair well, did you, when scrutinized by the The Crackpot Index? -- http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html Contrary to your belief that it is "designed to demean messengers", it serves as a useful tool to identify potential crackpots like yourself. Should we say a little prayer for you, Potter? Your pal >> I am pleased to see that "Jim Black" >> researched to find the point at which [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > it serves as a useful tool to identify potential crackpots like > yourself. Should we say a little prayer for you, Potter? Thanks to my pal Sammy for demonstrating how the "Crackpot Index" is used by ignorant people, immoral people, and fools, when they do not have the intelligence or knowledge to address a message. For example, although I score very low on the Crackpot Index, at times a few immoral ( Or stupid ) people have tried to create the impression that I score high on this odious list. To put John Baez's "Crackpot Index" in perspective, I have created an Einstein Cult Index The Einstein Cult Index Tom Potter A simple method for rating Einstein Cult members. 1. A -5 point starting credit. 2. 5 points for using the phrase "gestalt experiment". 3. 5 points for each hype of "Einstein", "Feynman", Gel Mann, or a Jewish physicist. 4. 10 points for each claim that General Relativity models reality to 10 decimal places. 5. 10 points for each claim that General Relativity is a useful model without providing solid, WORKED OUT, real world evidence of the fact. 6. 10 points for claiming that Einstein's models were positive "paradigm shifts". 7. 10 points for claiming that non-Einsteinian models cannot be used to accurately model effects that involve changes of the frequency of oscillators with distance, velocity, acceleration, pressure, temperature, etc. 8. 20 points for claiming that slave tick accumulators are clocks, rather than instruments. 9. 20 points for claiming that the background times of all remote oscillators in the universe change, rather than that the frequency of the oscillators change with changes in their environment with respect to THE Master Oscillator that is used as a reference. 10. 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the Einstein Cult Index, or attacking me personally in the newsgroups. 11. 20 points for suggesting that Einstein deserved the Nobel prize for corrupting Planck's quantum of Action. 12. 20 points for each use of the phrases "crank", "crackpot", "stupid", 13. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein positions on politics, religion, and society are the best positions. 14. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein developed the ultimate theory of reality. 15. 30 points for claiming that Einstein was the world's most intelligent man, and deserved being named Time Magazine's "Man of the Century" over Watson, Crick, Planck, Bohr, Ford, Edison, Truman, Eisenhower, etc. 16. 40 points for using the phrase "Jewish physics". 16. 40 points for attacking those who criticize the Einstein Cult as anti-Semitics.. 18. 40 points for claiming that anti-Semitics are engaged in a "conspiracy" to demean Einstein and the works of Jewish scientists. 19. 40 points for attacking opponents as uneducated, stupid, cranks, or crackpots. 20. 40 points for avoiding debating issues involving Einstein by creating a flame web site, or using a flame web sites as a reference. 21. 40 points for claiming that when Einstein's theory is finally appreciated, the Doppler Effect, the Hubble Effect, the Galileo Effect, the temperature effect, and the DNA, Quantum Mechanics, and Classical Physics models will be seen for the shams they truly are. 22. 50 points for claiming that General Relativity was essential to the GPS System 23. 50 points for hyping models that speculate about the beginning and end of the universe, time travel, space warps, worm holes, etc. rather than accepting models that are used every day by millions of people.to make life better for mankind. 24. 50 points for being on the public payroll and not having to produce cost-effective useful results. 25. 50 points for being on the public payroll and profiting from the promotion of General Relativity. 26. 50 points for being Jewish. The bottom line seems to be that members of the Einstein Cult are either Jews, or people who have been brainwashed by the mass media to believe that Jews are intelligent, virtuous victims. rather than a cult that institutionalized bigotry and the revisionism of history. Thanks again Sammy for demonstrating how the "Crackpot Index" is used by immoral people. Your pal, SignatureTom Potter http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/ http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA.. Thanks to my pal Sammy for demonstrating how the "Crackpot Index" is used by ignorant people, immoral people, and fools, when they do not have the intelligence or knowledge to address a message. For example, although I score very low on the Crackpot Index, at times a few immoral ( Or stupid ) people have tried to create the impression that I score high on this odious list. To put John Baez's "Crackpot Index" in perspective, I have created an Einstein Cult Index The Einstein [Dingleberry] Cult Index Tom Potter A simple method for rating Einstein Cult members [aka Einstein Dingleberries] . 1. A -5 point starting credit. 2. 5 points for using the phrase "gestalt experiment". 3. 5 points for each hype of "Einstein", "Feynman", Gel Mann, or a Jewish physicist. 4. 10 points for each claim that General Relativity models reality to 10 decimal places. 5. 10 points for each claim that General Relativity is a useful model without providing solid, WORKED OUT, real world evidence of the fact. 6. 10 points for claiming that Einstein's models were positive "paradigm shifts". 7. 10 points for claiming that non-Einsteinian models cannot be used to accurately model effects that involve changes of the frequency of oscillators with distance, velocity, acceleration, pressure, temperature, etc. 8. 20 points for claiming that slave tick accumulators are clocks, rather than instruments. 9. 20 points for claiming that the background times of all remote oscillators in the universe change, rather than that the frequency of the oscillators change with changes in their environment with respect to THE Master Oscillator that is used as a reference. 10. 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the Einstein Cult Index, or attacking me personally in the newsgroups. 11. 20 points for suggesting that Einstein deserved the Nobel prize for corrupting Planck's quantum of Action. 12. 20 points for each use of the phrases "crank", "crackpot", "stupid", 13. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein positions on politics, religion, and society are the best positions. 14. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein developed the ultimate theory of reality. 15. 30 points for claiming that Einstein was the world's most intelligent man, and deserved being named Time Magazine's "Man of the Century" over Watson, Crick, Planck, Bohr, Ford, Edison, Truman, Eisenhower, etc. 16. 40 points for using the phrase "Jewish physics". 16. 40 points for attacking those who criticize the Einstein Cult as anti-Semitics.. 18. 40 points for claiming that anti-Semitics are engaged in a "conspiracy" to demean Einstein and the works of Jewish scientists. 19. 40 points for attacking opponents as uneducated, stupid, cranks, or crackpots. 20. 40 points for avoiding debating issues involving Einstein by creating a flame web site, or using a flame web sites as a reference. 21. 40 points for claiming that when Einstein's theory is finally appreciated, the Doppler Effect, the Hubble Effect, the Galileo Effect, the temperature effect, and the DNA, Quantum Mechanics, and Classical Physics models will be seen for the shams they truly are. 22. 50 points for claiming that General Relativity was essential to the GPS System 23. 50 points for hyping models that speculate about the beginning and end of the universe, time travel, space warps, worm holes, etc. rather than accepting models that are used every day by millions of people.to make life better for mankind. 24. 50 points for being on the public payroll and not having to produce cost-effective useful results. 25. 50 points for being on the public payroll and profiting from the promotion of General Relativity. 26. 50 points for being Jewish. ------------------ The bottom line seems to be that members of the Einstein Cult are either Jews, or people who have been brainwashed by the mass media to believe that Jews are intelligent, virtuous victims. rather than a cult that institutionalized bigotry and the revisionism of history. hanson wrote: .... ahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha.... It ain't quite that dire with/about and over the Jews, Tom. Here, in the real world, is where Einstein's crap is still used and where they laugh about it: = mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL sh.t" = *.edu and grantology ...................."does use REL, No sh.t" = Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the shitload" = Jews protect it as cultural heritage whether "REL is sh.t or not". But thanks for the laughs, Tom. You produced a gem here! ahahahaha.... ahahahahanson Tom Potter Thanks again Sammy for demonstrating how the "Crackpot Index" is used by immoral people. Your pal, Tom Potter http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/ http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos | AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA.. | > [quoted text clipped - 126 lines] | But thanks for the laughs, Tom. You produced a gem here! | ahahahaha.... ahahahahanson Too good not to im-moortel-ize it. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm I've added a couple myself. Androcles. | Tom Potter | Thanks again Sammy [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com | http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA.. =========== Too much !!!! =========== AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA.. "Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com> wrote the original Einstein Dingleberry Cult Index in message news:g52fgk$tap$1@aioe.org... "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote thanks for the laughs, Tom. You produced a gem here! ahahahaha.... ahahahahanson "Androcles" <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics> wrote Too good not to im-moortel-ize it. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm I've added a couple myself. --- Androcles. hanson wrote: ahahaha... Potter, extend thanks to Andro, cuz from now on all you need do is say in your posts: "as can be seen in this link: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm it says (for instance) on para 26. 50 points for being Jewish." ahahaha.. AHAHAHAHA... That is too much, guys! That must even make Einstein to pucker his sphincter and rattle his Dingleberries... ahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAhahanson > AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA.. > =========== Too much !!!! =========== [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > even make Einstein to pucker his sphincter and rattle his > Dingleberries... ahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAhahanson Andro did a great job! It's amazing how well and how fast he does graphics. I suggest that he add at the bottom how many points are needed to be a dingleberry, -- Tom Potter http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/ http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm On Jul 10, 6:41 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote: > AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA.. > =========== Too much !!!! =========== [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > even make Einstein to pucker his sphincter and rattle his > Dingleberries... ahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAhahanson Andro did a great job! It's amazing how well and how fast he does graphics. I suggest that he add at the bottom how many points are needed to be a dingleberry, -- Tom Potter http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/ http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm ===================================================== The dingleberry pass mark is 5% of the total. The total is 905, so nobody (at present) can score more than 900. 5% of 900 is 45, so that's the qualifying score. That is, you get a five point credit so you can refer to "gedanken" or "gestalt experiment" and you still only score zero, but for "Jewish physics" (clause 16) AND gedanken (clause 2) AND a hype of a Jewish physicist you fully qualify as a dingleberry. It's really quite tricky, clause 3 has an OR in it, so you cannot claim fully-paid-up dingleberry status for a hype of Einstein AND a hype of a Jewish physicist. The judge's decision is final. hahahanson is the judge, I'm just the clerk of the court (and Lord Privy Seal). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Privy_Seal If I don't keep the privy sealed the dingleberries might escape. > On Jul 10, 6:41 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote: >> AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA.. [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Privy_Seal > If I don't keep the privy sealed the dingleberries might escape. Double or quits - can you produce a theory that disagrees on predictions with Einsteins and is testably verified? Free Nobel Prize thrown in for free. SignatureDirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK Remote Viewing classes in London | > "Tom Potter" <tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5bf23eb2-10a7-4407-8582-7994b47ad593@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... | > On Jul 10, 6:41 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote: | >> AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA.. [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] | Double or quits - can you produce a theory that disagrees on predictions | with Einsteins and is testably verified? Of course, but we don't call a ring laser gyroscope a "theory", we call it existing technology. Here's how they work: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm | Free Nobel Prize thrown in for | free. Thanks, but give it to Georges Sagnac. He deserves it and I don't need it. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA.. ======= Too much !!!! & it's getting better =========== AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA.. "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote "Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com> wrote the original Einstein Dingleberry Cult Index in messagenews:g52fgk$tap$1@aioe.org... "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote thanks for the laughs, Tom. You produced a gem here! ahahahaha.... ahahahahanson "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote Too good not to im-moortel-ize it. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm I've added a couple myself. --- Androcles. hanson wrote: ahahaha... Potter, extend thanks to Andro, cuz from now on all you need do is say in your posts: "as can be seen in this link: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm it says (for instance) on para 26. 50 points for being Jewish." ahahaha.. AHAHAHAHA... That is too much, guys! That must even make Einstein to pucker his sphincter and rattle his Dingleberries... ahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAhahanson "Tom Potter" <t...@hotsheet.com> wrote Andro did a great job! It's amazing how well and how fast he does graphics. I suggest that he add at the bottom how many points are needed to be a dingleberry, "Androcles" <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics> wrote The dingleberry pass mark is 5% of the total. The total is 905, so nobody (at present) can score more than 900. 5% of 900 is 45, so that's the qualifying score. That is, you get a five point credit so you can refer to "gedanken" or "gestalt experiment" and you still only score zero, but for "Jewish physics" (clause 16) > AND gedanken (clause 2) AND a hype of a Jewish physicist you fully qualify as a dingleberry. It's really quite tricky, clause 3 has an OR in it, so you cannot claim fully-paid-up dingleberry status for a hype of Einstein AND a hype of a Jewish physicist. The judge's decision is final. hahahanson is the judge, I'm just the clerk > of the court (and Lord Privy Seal). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Privy_Seal If I don't keep the privy sealed the dingleberries might escape. "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote Double or quits - can you produce a theory that disagrees on predictions with Einsteins and is testably verified? Free Nobel Prize thrown in for free. "Androcles" <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics> wrote Of course, but we don't call a ring laser gyroscope a "theory", we call it existing technology. Here's how they work: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote Free Nobel Prize thrown in for free. "Androcles" <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics> wrote Thanks, but give it to Georges Sagnac. He deserves it and I don't need it. hanson wrote: Dirk, for crying out loud, you sound like a "Stadt Schreier", proselitizing for Einstein's Dingleberries... ahahahaha.... Have you ever taken a look at Einstein's crap with his gamma = (1/ [sqrt( 1-v^2/c^2)] which demands that when v = c --- (1) that time stands still = nothing happens, --- (2) that any particle, rod or the entire universe shrinks to zero meaning it does not exist in the moving direction = it becomes 2 dimensional,.. an illusionary shadow of itself... ahahaha... --- (3) that the mass of any particle is becoming infinitely large, a mass many time larger then the sum of all the mass in the universe. --- (4) that even when v coming close to c a small object must turn its face towards you = Terrell rotation , BUT when the object is large, of galactic size, it's not the object that turns any longer but it's now conveniently the light that sneaks around the object and shows you what behind its corners via Einstein lensing = Remote viewing.... ahahaha.... "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK Remote Viewing classes Dirk 'hanson wrote: AHAHAHA.. ahahahaha... Ahhh... there we go!... You sure are an enterprising soul... and you are making money off the yearning of your disciples with your Remote Viewing classes. That is good!... ahahahaha... Kudos & Congrats, Dirk! Tell'em at/on every occasion that "Einstein said so", because if your instructions don't work out, you can blame Albert... ahaha.. Turn around/invert the reasoning of each point in (1 - 4 ) above by which you can then clearly demonstrate that "remote viewing" is not only possible but is done in current Dingleberry astronomy by means of "Einstein Rings" and all that your students have to do is to shrink the Rings to the proper size for their own applications. Of course, as usual, blame them for them not seeing and believing in what Einstein saw, in case the remote viewing remains remote. Good luck and make a sack of absolute money... ahahahanson PS: A sidebar note here for all the teachers of and proselytizers of Albert's crap. -- I will make peace and will not ridicule nor bash on them if they will tell their students that Einstein's crap is a tale that does not apply to/in the real world...no matter how hard the jonnie-come lately teachers post and try to gain fame by "post-diction" of what has already been accomplished and done: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/dd09db9bcf2d1a72?hl=en Remember: as can be seen in the real world, here is where Einstein's crap is still used and where they laugh about it: = mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL sh.t" = *.edu and grantology ...................."does use REL, No sh.t" = Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the shitload" = Jews protect it as cultural heritage whether "REL is sh.t or not". PS2: The tortured weaseling about GTR by Einstein Dingleberries is even more pathetic than when they try to make-belief in/with STR. GTR uses in any and all of its solutions the humble "G" of Newton, "G", which Einstein & his Dingleberries were never able to get rid of... ahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHAHAHA.... | AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA.. | ======= Too much !!!! & it's getting better =========== [quoted text clipped - 126 lines] | of Newton, "G", which Einstein & his Dingleberries were never | able to get rid of... ahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHAHAHA.... The amusing thing about the ring laser gyroscope is that is actually models Einstein's "thought experiment" but for practical reasons the straight line path Einstein used is wrapped around a circle so that x' coincides with 0. Now all you need do is spin a turntable against a mark on a fixed table and you have the "stationary" and "moving" frames perfectly modelled. Do not view a ring laser gyroscope in action, your wristwatch will run slow. Maybe Dork Newpeace will give me that Nobel prize after all, but I gotta tell yer... It's a prize by dorks for dorks, I could not value it. I'll take the money, though. > > Potter, you didn't fair well, did you, when scrutinized by the > > The Crackpot Index? --http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html [quoted text clipped - 113 lines] > -- > Tom Potter Tom Potter seems to be one of the most brilliant anti-relavitists around, compared to Driscoll, etc. For those who have mastered Potter, what exactly are his theories and counter arguments? Can anyone summarize it. We know for a fact that General Relativity is not complete because it can't be reconcile with quantum mechanics and special relativity is just approximations because life really occurs in curved spacetime, not flat. Someday if we have a better theory that can duplicate all predictions of general relativity in the classical limit then it would not be called general relativity but it would behave like general relativity. Is this what Potter is claiming that his new model can predict it yet not GR? Or is he ignoring experimental data like Driscoll? If Potter is theorizing a new model that can produce the same result as GR in the classical limit, then his model deserves scrutiny esp. if it can be reconcle with QM. What is wrong with his theory for those who is familiar with him? Noke [snip whatever] Has anyone noticed that Tom Potter hasn't talked about physics for quite a long time? Cue stupid response by crackpotter that is guaran-f.cking-teed to include the phrases "faithful reader of my posts" and "points out" in reference to a point I never made. >"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5430720b-95ac-4ed6-b911-a8eb7a613a8d@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... >[snip whatever] [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >include the phrases "faithful reader of my posts" and "points out" in >reference to a point I never made. I am pleased to see that Eric Gisse who is a "faithful reader of my posts" wants to discuss physics issues, rather than engage in flame wars. This article makes rigorous definitions of a few constants, and discusses what physical properties should be considered invariant. Let us consider a system composed of one electron and one proton. 1. Let M(P) = the mass of the proton. 2. Let M(E) the mass of the electron. 3. Let C = a universal distance per time constant. ( The speed of light. ) 4. Two bodies interact about a common point in a common time. The common point is the center of mass of the system and the common time is the period of the system. Let T(C) = the common period divided by 2 times pi = L(C) / C where L(C) is the distance light travels during one radian of interaction of the electron-proton system. 5. Assume that K = a universal distance per mass constant. K = 1.0585382 x 10^13 meters per kilogram for E-M interactions. 6. Assume that fine structure(E) = ( M(P) * K / L(C) ) ^1/3 then fine structure(E)^0 * L(C) = 1 / ( 2 * Rydberg Constant ) and fine structure(E)^1 * L(C) = 2 * pi * Bohr Radius and fine structure(E)^2 * L(C) = Compton's wavelength and fine structure(E)^3 * L(C) = 2 * pi * classical electron radius = M(P) * K As interactions are symmetrical about the common center of mass, we can define a fine structure constant for the proton and obtain the following equations: fine structure(P) = ( M(E) * K / L(C) ) ^1/3 fine structure(P)^0 * L(C) = 1 / ( 2 * Rydberg Constant ) fine structure(P)^1 * L(C) = 2 * pi * Bohr Radius(proton) fine structure(P)^2 * L(C) = Compton's wavelength(proton) fine structure(P)^3 * L(C) = 2 * pi * classical radius(proton) = M(E) * K fine structure(P)^3 * M(P) = fine structure(E)^3 * M(E) 7. Let h(E) be the Planck's Constant for an electron. 8. Let h(P) be the Planck's Constant for a proton. Note that: M(E) * M(P) * K^2 = fine(E)^3 * fine(P)^3 * L(C)^2 = h(E) * fine(P) * K / C = h(P) * fine(P) * K / C Also note that: h(E) * K / C = fine(P)^3 * fine(E)^2 * L(C)^2 = M(E) * K * fine(E)^2 * L(C) and symmetrically: h(P) * K / C = fine(E)^3 * fine(P)^2 * L(C)^2 = M(P) * K * fine(P)^2 * L(C) Equations showing the simplest relationships between Planck's Constant and the Fine structure constant: fine(P) * h(P) = M(P) * M(E) * K * C fine(E) * h(E) = M(P) * M(E) * K * C Note: As K and C are universal constants, and as we are considering rest masses to be constant, h(X) and fine(X) must vary reciprocally when a system such as a hydrogen atom is changing states. The relationship between the orbital velocity of a body and the fine structure constant is: sine(X) = velocity(X) / C = fine(X) * charge ratio Comments: 1. The common period is associated with Rydberg's constant. In other words, the distance symmetrical to both bodies is the reciprocal of Rydberg's constant. The other distances ( Comptons wavelength, etc. ) relate to a particular body. 2. If we assume that rest masses are constants, we have to acknowledge that the h's and fine structure constants must vary for a system to accommodate change. The simplest system would consider the rest masses to be constant, the distance common to the masses L(C) to be an independent variable and all properties to be dependent variables. Note that the distance L(C) is related to the common period of the system. 3. Schrödinger's Equation would be symmetrical to both the electron and the proton if were based on the mass products rather than a "constant" associated with only one of the bodies. The equation works because the incoming and outgoing frequencies are common to both parties to an interaction, but the equation does not provide a symmetrical look at the classical system absorbing or emitting the frequencies. Schrödinger's Equation, like Planck's Constant is biased in favor of the electron. 4. I emphasized distances, rather than more fundamental times and angular displacements, in order to more clearly show the relationships between the common physical constants. The more fundamental approach would be to use the time intervals associated with the distances, as spaces are fundamentally time intervals. SignatureTom Potter http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/ http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos > >"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:5430720b-95ac-4ed6-b911-a8eb7a613a8d@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > >[snip whatever] [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I am pleased to see that Eric Gisse > who is a "faithful reader of my posts" DING! [snip remaining blather] >> "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5430720b-95ac-4ed6-b911-a8eb7a613a8d@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > I am pleased to see that Eric Gisse > who is a "faithful reader of my posts" > wants to discuss physics issues, > rather than engage in flame wars. You think so Potter.... I doubt it. Hey Potter--Let's talk about special relativity. I was wondering if you thought it was 1) a waste of time, or 2) a solid law of nature needing to be taken into account in numerous engineering projects? What's your take Potter? >>> "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5430720b-95ac-4ed6-b911-a8eb7a613a8d@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > nature needing to be taken into account in numerous engineering > projects? What's your take Potter? My take is, as I have pointed out for many years, velocity is a tangent function, and the addition of velocities in "special relativity" is just an expression of the addition of tangents. And as can be seen from my posts, I have never asserted that the addition of tangents, which is the basis of Special Relativity, is wrong. Who discovered the addition of tangents anyway? SignatureTom Potter http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/ http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm >> Hey Potter--Let's talk about special relativity. I was wondering >> if you thought it was 1) a waste of time, or 2) a solid law of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Who discovered the addition of tangents anyway? Do you get the same answers, Potter, with you tangent functions? Physics FAQ: How Do You Add Velocities in Special Relativity? http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/velocity.html http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/velocity.html >>> Hey Potter--Let's talk about special relativity. I was wondering >>> if you thought it was 1) a waste of time, or 2) a solid law of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Do you get the same answers, Potter, with you tangent functions? http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TrigonometricAdditionFormulas.html http://library.thinkquest.org/C0110248/trigonometry/formtangent.htm http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/AdditionFormulaForTangent2.html Here are the formulas Sammy. If you are interested in numbers, you work it out. My method is to work with models that can be falsified, and leave it to the grunts to work on the details. SignatureTom Potter http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/ http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm >> Do you get the same answers, Potter, with you tangent functions? > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TrigonometricAdditionFormulas.html > http://library.thinkquest.org/C0110248/trigonometry/formtangent.htm [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > My method is to work with models that can be falsified, > and leave it to the grunts to work on the details. Do you get the same answers, Potter, with you tangent functions? as with the formulation from: http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/velocity.html >>> Do you get the same answers, Potter, with you tangent functions? > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > as with the formulation from: > http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/velocity.html Sammy, why would anyone use a phony, pretend-to-be EDU web page as a reference? I'd rather use your regular, primary reference source, the web page of the unemployed computer programmer who took some data processing classes at a third rate California college. If you want to compare the numbers you get using the law of addition of tangents and Special relativity, I suggest that you just plug in some numbers and compute away. SignatureTom Potter http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/ http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm > Sammy, why would anyone use a phony, > pretend-to-be EDU web page as a reference? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and Special relativity, I suggest that you > just plug in some numbers and compute away. Do you get the same answers, Potter, with your tangent functions? as with the formulation from: http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/velocity.html > It is interesting to see that Bush rationalizes his Iraqi War > by asserting that something is wrong with the folks who [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and I don't see the patriotism in a needless war > against a tiny nation, located half way round the world. Tom, there is a LOT you don't see. One thing is the standard methods of politics. The difference that you are all whining about is the entry of political action into the group. Slogans, My side is always "right" and yours is always "wrong" arguments, name-calling, assertions that your opponents are "insane" which implies that their opinions can be rejected without any consideration are ALL political methods. The problem is that scientists usually HATE politics. Which is unfortunately why they are so easily manipulated by it's standard techniques! They usually don't even know they are being manipulated! Just as YOU are so easily manipulated by those in power (in your case on the left). Well there is no "humor" in a list designed to demean (and dismiss) messengers. It's all a political tactic designed to keep official physics dogma in it's place. Sure you have a cow over dogma for the masses like George's excuses for the war, but you chime right in with the dogma in physics perpetrated by the same bunch. You need to wake up. But that's the problem isn't it. If there is ANY person that makes this group need a moderator you probably rank right up there on the list! You have your agenda and work hard to bring your politics right into this discussion of other topics. Witness your references to Dubya's war. Now think about this for just a minute. I KNOW you can do it if you try. Oil is a limited resource. With the masses of the world (india, china) wanting the American good life, it's clear to any thinking person that even though there is quite a bit oil left, the price is just going to keep going up as the competition for it grows. So is your idea to just stand by and let America crash and burn as it runs out of fuel? Not what I'd call good leadership. Is your leftist idea to maybe burn food for vehicle fuel? Gosh I wonder what the unintended consequences of that one would be? How about those lefty favorites of water power, windmills, and solar cells? Obviously this is "science" by people who only know how to write good novels, but know nothing about anything else. The quantity of energy is simply not there. So what is the "solution"? Sorry bunkie, nobody knows what it is! There IS NONE! The plans for a simple free energy device are not yet on the internet! So there is ONLY one sensible thing to do. And that is jump into the cesspool with the rest of the world squabbling over the last remaining oil reserves. Grab as much as you can and sit on it like a hen hatching eggs until the end comes. In the meantime you can switch to natural gas vehicles (works for the gas companies) and coal vehicles (electric cars are essentially powered by coal). And just what did our Glorious Leader do? Duh! He grabbed one of the larger (some reports say it's actually the largest) known oil reserves for us. And now he's sitting on it like a hen hatching eggs. I don't know what YOU think, (and I don't care) but that gives me the warm fuzzies! Do I give a sh.t that Dubya had to lie his a.s off to the American people to do it? NO. What's he gonna say? "Hey, let's go grab Iraq Oil because we can and Saddam is an a.shole anyway?" Or maybe he should have just been honest and fair and said, "We are gonna do nothing about the peak oil problem. We are just going to let Iran and Russia and anyone else that has more than we do tell us what to do as time goes on. Expect to die eventually." There are NO rules in sovereign politics, save what can you get away with. The bottom line, is that YOU are the moron here who is constantly bringing politics into this science group. The problem is YOU! Yes, science people DO need to wake up and discover how they've been duped by politics, but just coming in with slogans and name-calling isn't going to do that. Probably the best answer here is that when the government finally bans all "alt." groups, they probably should ban all "sci." groups at the same time. Or at minimum install a censor (moderator) since free speech is a "collective" right and only applies to official media organizations, not to the internet. Right? >> It is interesting to see that Bush rationalizes his Iraqi War >> by asserting that something is wrong with the folks who [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > speech is a "collective" right and only applies to official media > organizations, not to the internet. Right? I think what "Benj" is trying to say is: 1. Stealing is good. 2. Might makes right. 3. It is more cost effective to wage a continuous war half way round the world that wastes enormous amounts of lives, limbs, and energy,rather than to allow the free market to operate. 4. Consume it now. Let our grandchildren eat cake. 5. The opinions of physicists about things like Relativity, black holes, dark matter, worm holes, etc. come about because "they are so easily manipulated". 6. To rationalize abuses, usurpations and crimes LIE! SignatureTom Potter http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/ http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos > > In the early days, the science groups on CompuServe, > > FidoNet, Genie, The Source, Delphi, Prodigy, AOL, etc. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > nonsense and that kind of crap persists today because so many > untutored in physics find such behavior entertaining. ---------------- i just wonder why an orchestra conductor like Sam Wormley is not locating himself in sci.physics.research and rejoice there !!??? while a crackparroter like him is positioning himself in a position of a JUDGE !! he becomes not just a crackparroter but a crook. a harmful crook and a pain in the neck fo real advance Y.Porat ---------------------------------- > > > In the early days, the science groups on CompuServe, > > > FidoNet, Genie, The Source, Delphi, Prodigy, AOL, etc. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Y.Porat > ---------------------------------- I believe Sam Wormley is a genius with an IQ running in gigahertz... Noke If we had a moderator with a brain he would get rid of the brain washed religious nuts They have no place in a science group that is looking for reality. Let them go some where else with their bible answers. I( don't want to hurt their feelings but they are just 100% crazy. This truth makes them very mad. Bert > If we had a moderator with a brain he would get rid of the brain washed > religious nuts They have no place in a science group that is looking > for reality. Let them go some where else with their bible answers. I( > don't want to hurt their feelings but they are just 100% crazy. This > truth makes them very mad. Bert You want to get rid of the physicist in a physics newsgroup? You could start alt.herbfantasyphysics and just be happy babbling away, Herb! >> If we had a moderator with a brain he would get rid of the brain >> washed religious nuts They have no place in a science group that is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You want to get rid of the physicist in a physics newsgroup? No, just the relativists. They are the religious nuts. The relativity religion of course. LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 7, 4:23 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > >> If we had a moderator with a brain he would get rid of the brain > >> washed religious nuts They have no place in a science group that is [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman Why take pot shot only at relativity, why not quantum mechanics too? In QM, a particle doesn't go from A to B. It takes all path at once.. so space and time cease to exist in quantum mechanics (before measurement). At least with relativity, things only get distorted and this only occurs perspectivewise and not on the first person state. So you still have space and time in relativity versus full reality defeating stunt in qm. So why take pot shot just at relativity? QM is even weirder. noke > On Jul 7, 4:23 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > defeating stunt in qm. So why take pot shot just at relativity? > QM is even weirder. If they say time ceases to exist, they are also just as warped as relativists and have completely lost the science of measurement. once the science of measurement is distorted or lost, the science itself is no longer there. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman Hebie Herbie G=EMC^2 Glazier, the bigoted, geriatric kike http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5a0a075d94e9752e?hl=en wrote like a typical zio-Nazi that he is: If we had a moderator with a brain he would get rid of the brain washed religious nuts They have no place in a science group that is looking for reality. Let them go some where else with their bible answers. I( don't want to hurt their feelings but they are just 100% crazy. This truth makes them very mad. Bert Sam Wormley wrote: You want to get rid of the physicist in a physics newsgroup? "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: No, just the relativists. They are the religious nuts. The relativity religion of course. LOL -- James M Driscoll Jr -- Spaceman "Noke" <gad.gets@yahoo.com> wrote Why take pot shot only at relativity, why not quantum mechanics too? In QM, a particle doesn't go from A to B. It takes all path at once.. so space and time cease to exist in quantum mechanics (before measurement). At least with relativity, things only get distorted and this only occurs perspectivewise and not on the first person state. So you still have space and time in relativity versus full reality defeating stunt in qm. So why take pot shot just at relativity? QM is even weirder. --- noke hanson wrote: Noke, your point is valid, if you extend and expand it to all theories. .... After all, theories are only shop-lingo for tales that MODEL reality. But Professor Driscoll has a very valid point too in his railings against the RELigious proselytizing of Einstein's crap by the hordes of Einstein's Dingleberries who are trying to pass it off as reality.. ahahaha.... Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahaha... ahahahanson > Hebie Herbie G=EMC^2 Glazier, the bigoted, geriatric kike > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5a0a075d94e9752e?hl=en [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > who are trying to pass it off as reality.. ahahaha.... > Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahaha... ahahahanson Sadly, All these silly religions are basically saying basic math is wrong, and then they use basic math to prove that basic math is wrong. That is truly one of the funniest things about all the dingleberries. They have lost the logic completely. and sadly, they are too brainwashed to see what they have lost. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > Hebie Herbie G=EMC^2 Glazier, the bigoted, geriatric kikehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5a0a075d94e9752e?hl=en > wrote like a typical zio-Nazi that he is: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > who are trying to pass it off as reality.. ahahaha.... > Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahaha... ahahahanson But it is reality. Particle accelerators, GPS, etc. apply relativity. At the smallest scale and fastest velocity, things are pretty distorted. Here, QM and relativity rule. You just happen to be born in a small window where newtonian laws is valid. This doesn't mean it is valid all the way to smallest scale and fastest velocity. This is simple common sense. Why can't you go on terms with it??? I have a feeling that reasons can't penetrate, hostility of physics runs too deep in your blood. So you end up as newtonian cultists. Cant you see it? Also. If relativists dig for einstenian religion.. you guys are newtonian cultists. Unfortunately. Experimental proof goes in the company of the religious relativists so you newtonian cultists lose, in light of quantum mechanics even more stranger foundation. Ponder on it hanson and driscoll. Even weirder physics is to come when the Large Hadron Collider goes online in August. Be prepared or be left behind in the medieval ages. Noke > But it is reality. Particle accelerators, GPS, etc. apply > relativity. At the smallest scale and fastest velocity, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > This is simple common sense. Why can't you go on > terms with it??? Particle accelerators would not work at all if Newtons was not mostly if not all correct. and nothing about a particle accelerator proves Newton incorrect. GPS actually provides a massive problem for relativity, because it actually uses absolutes to find absolutes in the long run so if anything "again" it needs Newtons absolutes thinking. The smallest scales work fine with Newton, It is just a matter of finding all the newtonian forces that apply, the only reason it fails is when some sort of Newtonian force was left out of the equation. > I have a feeling that reasons can't penetrate, hostility > of physics runs too deep in your blood. So you end up as > newtonian cultists. Cant you see it? Hostility towards physics? You got that 100% wrong, You see, I want physics to again provide physical causes for effects like Newton has done. but poor old Relativity lacks it completely. Relativity has not one physical cause for any of the effects it describes. > Also. If relativists dig for einstenian religion.. you guys are > newtonian cultists. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > come when the Large Hadron Collider goes online in August. Be > prepared or be left behind in the medieval ages. If you truly believe relativity has found even one physical cause you are only fooling yourself and joined the religion blindly. :) Newtons "science" explains each and every effect with "physical causes". That hardly puts it in a religious state such as relativity at all. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message