To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: A Note To All The Rabble On This Forum:
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Other Sci-Tech Topics
Pages: 1, 2

kaneda
Oyez! Oyez! Read these words and tremble, mere mortals. ohmy.gif

Should you wish to debate with the HIGH AND MIGHTY EULER on this forum then these are the tasks you must pass before he will even think about debating with you :



1) I have explained to you how education works, and how making progress through any sort of educational system relies on the student learning and understanding topics, so they are able to solve problems based on the relevant material. Do you now understand this?

2) Assuming you've understood point (1), do you then understand that to progress an educational system a student is required to think on their feet, have a good understanding of that which has been learned and be able to think originally to solve problems. By all means counter this: if your conjecture regarding education is correct, then you will be able to answer all of the questions in the following exams on Black Holes, The Standard Model, SUSY, General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory. By your questionable thinking, all it takes to pass those exams is to have read the appropriate website/notes/book and to be prepared to "parrot" the work of others. I should add that you have rather a large advantage to those who actually sat the exam, since they only had access to the information stored in their brain, whereas you have, at your fingertips the worlds largest source of information. I should add, that failure to answer all those questions with relative ease doesn't do your standpoint much good.

3) I have pointed out to you that if you would like to talk about advanced topics such as black holes, you will need to take it upon yourself to do some learning (and take time to understand the material). Otherwise, you can only talk about very watered down analogies that are used to explain things to children and laypeople. Do you understand this?

If you would be so kind to respond to these points (I need to first ascertain that you've understood them), then I will provide you with a few examples of why you are ill-equipped to talk in detail about advanced topics such as black holes.

HIS HIGHNESS

Euler the First, Ruler of this Forum.


No kidding :

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=14659&st=75
Bryn Richards
All hail Euler wacko.gif
Lalbatros
This post once more illustrates how a non-moderated can turn bad.
If you want real discussions on physics, turn to http://www.physicsforums.com/ .
That's the only think I can still discuss here.
Ron
Hi Kaneda,
I've read alot of your posts and you seem to bring up good points. That said, without insulting you (I do have respect for your inputs), you seem to be taking a holier than thou position with regards to people like Euler and AN. I personally respect them tremendously and I think you've pushed your 'creative use of knowledge' to an almost which hunt proportion. I agree that your premise is correct, but if you could calm down on your being offended and read a little deeper into their inputs, you may see that they do not just parrot books. At least as a non-insulted contributer, that's the way I see them.
Again, I mean no offense. I'm just trying to give you a third party perspective.
Keep up the good words,
Peace,
Ron
Zephir
QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 17 2007, 06:30 PM)
If you want real discussions on physics, turn to ... That's the only think I can still discuss here.

If so, what are u waiting' for? If you cannot discuss here, what'ru doing here?

Let us guess.. wink.gif
Guest_truth2k
physorg forums is the best one I have ever seen:
Democracy;
Both `experts` and laymans enjoy it;
Every opinion is valuable;
Even the shameless ones can learn to be humble after they stay for a while with the forums;
.....

Long Live Physorg Forums!!!
Zephir
QUOTE (Guest_truth2k+May 17 2007, 08:23 PM)
Long Live Physorg Forums!!!

Despite of this, this socially oriented topic belongs to the off-topic section.
Darren
QUOTE (Zephir+May 17 2007, 05:10 PM)
If so, what are u waiting' for? If you cannot discuss here, what'ru doing here?

Let us guess.. wink.gif



Hi All,

I agree 100% with Zephy, one thing we have here that other forums do not have is tolerance.Long live tolerance and free speech/thought and respect for others.

Best regards
Darren
rich-cliff-han
To all the responders, I can only "parrot" what you have said.
Lalbatros
Tolerance and free speech are of extremely high value for fiving in society.
but tolerance has limits that everybory knows, even in social life.
And also free speech has limits that everybody knows, even in social life.

Furthermore, physics is not a social activity per se or a political science.
Physics is based on the scientific method.

Scientific discussions are based on principles that should be respected:

- citing the sources
- exposing the data
- exposing the arguments in all their details
- proving honestly our arguments
- expressing ideas in an intelligible language, as precise as possible
- ...
- many others
- and one special for zephir: all questions should be answered systematically, as opposed to simulated answer and tactical diversions.

There are many more expectations from people in a scientific debate.
As for the social domain, tolerance and free speech have limits in scientific discussions too.
These limits are known by most people as they are very intuitive: they aim at making the discussion possible and positive for the participants.

References to tolerance and freespeech are common by people who want to avoid elementary rules.
But when you express your opinion (as I am doing here) they turn your ideas into a mockery.
They ask you why you don't leave the discussion soon: that's their tolerance.
Rebis
QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 17 2007, 08:04 PM)
- citing the sources
- exposing the data
- exposing the arguments in all their details
- proving honestly our arguments
- expressing ideas in an intelligible language, as precise as possible

Nothing of that in e.g. Einstein's articles from 1905 and later.

Pure confusion and quasy postulates which soon after become politics, dogma and SF ideology. So

Furthermore, physics IS a social activity per se or a political science.
Physics is NOT based on the scientific method.


There is no "physics" anymore.
bukh
Lalbatros

Quote: -"Furthermore, physics is not a social activity per se or a political science.
Physics is based on the scientific method.
Scientific discussions are based on principles that should be respected:"

Perhaps one may argue that the (fine) line between physics and philosophics sometimes should be ignored. By applying empiric / deductive science there is a hazard that we develop more and more coherent syntax, which eventually ends up in more and more sophisticated ring-science.

Sometimes it is perhaps good to start from intuitively developed axioms. Therefore I would like to add as a good principle in discussions, that scientific syntax not always (at least not per definition) stands over sound thinking - and people with excellent and clever knowledge about all rules in physics - maths beware their openmindness when they are faced with intuitive thinking.
Zephir
QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 17 2007, 11:04 PM)
- citing the sources
- exposing the data
- exposing the arguments in all their details
- proving honestly our arguments
- expressing ideas in an intelligible language, as precise as possible

These ideas are apparently rational and nobody will quarrel with it. But the contemporary physics is facing the problems, like the misunderstanding and verification delay of important concepts, like the Aether, Heim's theory or cold fusion.

Especially at the latest case, this leads to the apparent lost of money, deepening of environmental problems or even global safety threats at the case of LHC experiments planned. So here's the question, whether the public control of science is really unnecessary, where are the limits of so called "scientific approach" and Poppers methodology and how the proclaimed theses quoted above are respected throughout scientific community in real situations. As everybody can see, despite of liberal atmosphere here are many castbacks from medieval times, when the proponents of new ideas have faced the pathological skepticism. As we know from the history of communism, the great ideas can often fail in real situation, just because they're result of idealism and lack of social mechanisms understanding.

QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 17 2007, 11:04 PM)
...all questions should be answered systematically, as opposed to simulated answer and tactical diversions...

This is rather proprietary rule. In general, if somebody is interested about answers, it's just the problem of his to seek the solution. The questions can be often quite misleading or even demagogic.

If somebody has a problem with Aether theory, the question "how can Aether can handle this?" is not relevant here at all. Only at the case, you can prove, some Aether solution can lead to the incorrect predictions, you can dispute this paradox as a problem. The absence of answer or predictions from my side cannot be considered as a evidence, here's no answer to such question at all. For example, the fact you or me is not able to explain some things by string theory doesn't means, the string theory is wrong, therefore I can see no reason to apply the same approach for another theories.
Euler
Perhaps now you'd care to respond? This will be the 10th time of asking. smile.gif

Lalbatros
Are you again joking, Zephir:

QUOTE
... cold fusion ... ... ... LHC


I can tell you, and I told that already earlier, when cold fusion was announced, all mainstream laboratories gave it also a try.
I know what I am talking about: I was in that field at that time.
Those laboratories had all the possibilities (equipments, expertise, ...) to check that announcement, and they did.
And they did not want to demolish the hypotheses (most oftne they did not publish), but they were mainly excited at the idea of a possible breakthrough, even if they thought it was crazy.
They were very creative to also try other methods based on using palladium in different ways, often building on their own expertise.
The outcome was clear and if all those laboratories who tried on their own published their result it would become the biggest joke ever in science.

Note also that the LHC has absolutely no relation to nuclear fusion. Zephir, you should read about nuclear fusion and try not to confuse a tokamak and a particle accelerator. This is like telling 1keV and 1Gev are nearly the same thing. What a joke again.

Zephir, your are obsesed by splitting people into mainstream and creative offstream.
You should turn instead you obssession to precision, logic, rationalism, experimentation, methods, creative thinking ... instead of uncreative obsession.

Zephir
QUOTE (Euler+May 18 2007, 12:08 AM)
Perhaps now you'd care to respond? This will be the 10th time of asking.

Who is expected to respond what? You can increase your counter infinitely with such style of questioning.

QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 18 2007, 12:08 AM)
...I told that already earlier, when cold fusion was announced, all mainstream laboratories gave it also a try....

Well, this is exactly the problem. What would you say, when the cold fusion will return into peer-reviewed journals - or even better, if somebody will construct the commercially viable device during this time? How the hell is it possible, somebody is able to detect the clear evidence of nuclear reaction with common infrared camera or even by using of piece of plastics, while the all mainstream laboratories weren't successful in doing this? This is a little bit strange, don't you think?

user posted image User posted image
OldWoman1904
if any of us monkeys were educated enough to earn a living through science, i dont think we would have the time to spend chatting online about college level sciences......or in my case, elementary school level....

give the guy a break, this is the only place he can feel superior....Lord of the Flies i say!

Lalbatros
Zephir,

You should read a bit on cold fusion on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion.

This simple reading would already give you a small idea of what the scientific method might be. You will see that it is all about precision. Just read the short paragraph titled "Measurement of excess heat". You will guess what precision means.

Do you think a useful discussion on cold fusion could go on with the spirit of this forum here?
Lalbatros
Incredible sample of bad faith from Zephir:

QUOTE
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
(Lalbatros @ May 18 2007, 12:08 AM)
...I told that already earlier, when cold fusion was announced, all mainstream laboratories gave it also a try.... 

Well, this is exactly the problem.


Would the mainstream laboratories not test cold fusion, they would blamed by Zephir.
And they must be blamed (by Zephir) too if they make their own experiment.

Conclusions:
Zephir is totally partial.
In his answers he just reverse the argument, but never uses logic.
He is totally dishonest.

Further conclusion:
The article on wiki show well how science and the scientific method proceeds.
Just note that non-believers in the cold fusion have tried to check it with the best available techniques and analysis.
They did their job as well as possible and will continue for sure.
Zephir
QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 18 2007, 12:43 AM)
...They did their job as well as possible and will continue for sure....

This is nice indeed - but what if the explanation of Michelson-Morley experiment is really as easy, as the AWT supposes? What if the cold fusion can be really detected by the piece of plastics or infrared camera - despite the theory and mainstream labs are saying, it's impossible? And what if the LHC will really create the strangelet - despite the theory says, it's impossible? Will you still believe, the cold fusion case has nothing to do with LHC colliders, after then?

Samuel Johnson (?): "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Darren
QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 17 2007, 08:04 PM)
Tolerance and free speech are of extremely high value for fiving in society.
but tolerance has limits that everybory knows, even in social life.
And also free speech has limits that everybody knows, even in social life.


Yes, and what are those limits right now?, if you care to take the time and run time backwards (say 200 years), we were hanging little kids whose only crime was that they were hungry.Fortunately, due to science and physics we have progressed past that stage and so I hope, like me, you can put tremendous value on life particularly human life.Today, unlike 200 years ago, physics/science has a social responsibility which is improving all our lives,albeit rather slow.Thanks to technology, we now have this wonderful free forum.


QUOTE (Lalbatros+May 17 2007, 08:04 PM)

Furthermore, physics is not a social activity per se or a political science.
Physics is based on the scientific method.


This forum allows anyone to join, irrespective of background or level of physics understanding, my god!, do you dress in a school uniform and cheese hat before logging on to this forum? The other forum which you praise so much will,in time, end up containing just a pile of right wing thugs, they are so fixated with moderation that they have not one but many moderators of different rank and file. Good luck to them, I prefer the people here.

Cheers
Darren

Euler
QUOTE (Zephir+May 17 2007, 10:26 PM)
Who is expected to respond what?

Well the questions are open to the floor: but primarily, I'd like kaneda to respond. smile.gif
Zephir
QUOTE (Darren+May 18 2007, 01:00 AM)
Thanks to technology, we now have this wonderful free forum

The technology is important indeed - but this wonderful free forum is the result of liberal stance of the forum originators at the first line, not the technology.
OldWoman1904
QUOTE (Zephir+May 17 2007, 03:10 PM)
The technology is important indeed - but this wonderful free forum is the result of liberal stance of the forum originators at the first line, not the technology.

liberal? what liberal would give me an 80% warning?

free speech? bullcaca

like someone told me, "there is no such thing as freedom"
Darren
QUOTE (Zephir+May 17 2007, 10:10 PM)
The technology is important indeed - but this wonderful free forum is the result of liberal stance of the forum originators at the first line, not the technology.



Hi Zephy,

Yeah, I agree with you on that, I guess that one slipped by, so logical. At the same time you have put me right on this free forum. But I assure you, the designers of this forum know or knew what they were doing to start with, they knew how nature works. The other forums will grow in strength and then reach a peak and die, just like a critically damped equation.
Incidently, for those newcommers to the forum, we had a collective vote a few months ago as to whether we need heavy moderation, the NO voters won by a quite a comfortable margin, hows that for democracy?

Keep well everyone
Darren
Zephir
QUOTE (OldWoman1904+May 18 2007, 01:16 AM)
...what liberal would give me an 80% warning...

Don't worry. The people like you would be banned on physicsforums.com or physicsmathforums.com immediately.

For example, I was banned on physicsforums.com after second post, and I've 60% warning by now - so you can try to extrapolate your lifetime there... wink.gif
QUOTE (Darrent+May 18 2007, 01:16 AM)
...the designers of this forum know or knew what they were doing to start with, they knew how nature works...

Definitely it's a cheaper way. It's much better to invest the money into technical support of the forum then into salary of moderators.
Darren
QUOTE (OldWoman1904+May 17 2007, 10:16 PM)
liberal?  what liberal would give me an 80% warning?

free speech?  bullcaca

like someone told me, "there is no such thing as freedom"

Hi Oldwoman,

The forums structure is free, the designers could do no more to make it freer, those warnings you are on about came from individual members, just like you and me. The feedback system is also from individuals, as you know, we choose on an individual level who we like and don't like.

As rule, I myself do not give negs, only positives and I would never activate the warnings switch on anybody.

Cheers for now
Darren
Lalbatros
Zephir,

Why are you asking that:
QUOTE
What if the cold fusion can be really detected by the piece of plastics or infrared camera - despite the theory and mainstream labs are saying, it's impossible?


Looks like you are assuming nobody tried anything. (maybe because plastic or infrared camera are too expensive ?)
Actually a lot -really a lot- of people have tried to reproduce cold fusion in different ways.
And mainstream labs have not based their scepticism only on theory and never on belief.
Mainstream lab did many experiments. Mainstream labs did more experiments than all blindly followers of cold fusion. And at most there is a concensus to check some anomalies that are not much larger than the error bars. (use this example to think about the importance of precision and intuition in physics)

I participated myself a little bit in such an experiment. (based on a plasma with some concentration of D2 and a palladium electrode and a fusion neutron detector)

So, "cold fusion", with the current data does deserve its name, specially the word "fusion", since nobody has yet been able to prove that fusion was involved is the tiny anomaly.

So Zephir, and "what if God did exist" ... ... my intuition is that "cold fusion" is not cold fusion actually.
Mainstream people, like me, are really party poopers, isn't it?


OldWoman1904
QUOTE (Darren+May 17 2007, 03:49 PM)
Hi Oldwoman,

The forums structure is free, the designers could do no more to make it freer, those warnings you are on about came from individual members, just like you and me. The feedback system is also from individuals, as you know, we choose on an individual level who we like and don't like.

As rule, I myself do not give negs, only positives and I would never activate the warnings switch on anybody.

Cheers for now
Darren

you are absolutely right Darren....the feedback does come from my fellow members...but the warnings are from a moderator arent they? a moderator following certain guidlines...

but i figured out the secret....i can basically say whatever i want and practice free speech as long as i dont swear.....

so i wont swear ....... it's pretty f***** up of me to swear anyway tongue.gif just kidding....swearing is a tool for those who have dull intellectual tools...

no more swearing for me...
kaneda
Ron. I wouldn't mind if AlphaNumeric used a little imagination occasionally but I don't recall that he has ever deviated in any way from the accepted line. Ever. What's to debate? You have something other than the accepted line, then AN knows you are wrong before he has even read your post. He's solely for people who are too lazy to use a search engine to find an answer.

As to Euler, he stays away from me. I think imagination scares him.

I am happy to debate with anyone, even dad1. To tell someone ; "you can't debate with me unless...." is crazy.
kaneda
QUOTE (Guest_truth2k+May 17 2007, 06:23 PM)
physorg forums is the best one I have ever seen:
Democracy;
Both `experts` and laymans enjoy it;
Every opinion is valuable;
Even the shameless ones can learn to be humble after they stay for a while with the forums;
.....

Long Live Physorg Forums!!!

Right. Even when I have debated with someone I know to be wrong, I have seen different ways of looking at things and learned.
kaneda
QUOTE (Zephir+May 17 2007, 06:10 PM)
If so, what are u waiting' for? If you cannot discuss here, what'ru doing here?

Let us guess.. wink.gif

Zephir. Some people belong to more than one science forum since it gives them a chance to debate at different levels.
kaneda
QUOTE (Euler+May 17 2007, 10:08 PM)
Perhaps now you'd care to respond? This will be the 10th time of asking. smile.gif


Spot the loony. wacko.gif

kaneda
QUOTE (Euler+May 17 2007, 11:07 PM)
Well the questions are open to the floor: but primarily, I'd like kaneda to respond. smile.gif

Over 4,200 posts you could answer and you are too scared to pick one of them. What a dark matter particle.


(WIMP for the uninitiated).
kaneda
QUOTE (OldWoman1904+May 17 2007, 11:16 PM)
liberal? what liberal would give me an 80% warning?

free speech? bullcaca

like someone told me, "there is no such thing as freedom"

OldWoman1904. Lots of people have got lots of warnings now. Nick had four warnings about a year ago and he is one of the least offensive people I know.

If warnings were time limited, that if you were good you lost one every 2-3 months say, then they would be more effective. As it is, it would take little to get a number of people banned from the boards which I don't think the moderators really want so the warnings become less effective as they don't really dare to give people more warnings knowing that.
kaneda
QUOTE (Zephir+May 17 2007, 11:41 PM)

For example, I was banned on physicsforums.com after second post, and I've 60% warning by now - so you can try to extrapolate your lifetime there... wink.gif

Zephir. Why? Do they only allow mainstream science and nothing else?
kaneda
QUOTE (OldWoman1904+May 18 2007, 02:02 PM)
you are absolutely right Darren....the feedback does come from my fellow members...but the warnings are from a moderator arent they? a moderator following certain guidlines...

but i figured out the secret....i can basically say whatever i want and practice free speech as long as i dont swear.....

so i wont swear ....... it's pretty f***** up of me to swear anyway tongue.gif just kidding....swearing is a tool for those who have dull intellectual tools...

no more swearing for me...

OldWoman1904. I got a warning for using a euphemism for the S word. When I checked, the S word itself was on the board 41 times. Maybe I should have tried that instead? Various other swear words were on the board in quantity and people never got warnings for them.


However I was showing AlphaNumeric up as an idiot at the time so strangely got 3 warnings in just 16 days behaving the same as I have in the last 6 months here.


Nick must have really given AlphaNumeric a thrashing to get four warnings. laugh.gif
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (kaneda+May 18 2007, 04:56 PM)
However I was showing AlphaNumeric up as an idiot at the time so strangely got 3 warnings in just 16 days behaving the same as I have in the last 6 months here.

And I got a warning for saying "Pulling stuff out your backside" to you today. Oh no, it's a conspiracy against me, clearly Kaneda is an admin in disguise!!!

Wait.... wait.... no, it's just the admin seem to vary in how stringently they view insults. I get one for saying something I've said a dozen times before and you get one for being the idiot you've been dozens of times before.

No doubt you'll weave the fact I've got a warning into your little paranoid conspiracy theory. Maybe I gave myself a warning so it'd seem like I wasn't an admin? Perhaps I've got split personalities and one personality gave the other a warning?

Or maybe you got a warning because you deserved it and there's no conspiracy? You are funny, in a sad and pathetic kind of way. You just can't accept you might have been wrong laugh.gif
Euler
QUOTE (kaneda+May 18 2007, 03:46 PM)
I am happy to debate with anyone...

I think you're telling fibs. I've asked twelve times for you to engage in debate, by which you could counter the points that I've raised (which you've conveniently quoted at the beginning of this thread).

Would this not be the perfect opportunity for you to show off your debating skills?
QUOTE (kaneda+May 18 2007, 04:20 PM)
Over 4,200 posts you could answer and you are too scared to pick one of them. What a dark matter particle.

I think I've already picked one, haven't I? I am countering your stance on education, and the notion of "parroting". However, you refuse to respond: this suggests you can't actually defend your standpoint.

If any of this is unclear, by all means let me know and I shall happily elaborate. smile.gif
Euler
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 18 2007, 05:36 PM)
No doubt you'll weave the fact I've got a warning into your little paranoid conspiracy theory. Maybe I gave myself a warning so it'd seem like I wasn't an admin? Perhaps I've got split personalities and one personality gave the other a warning?

I notice his accusations of you and I being the same person seem to have diminished. A shame really, I rather enjoyed being part of a conspiracy theory.
Grumpy
If you wanted to be an architect, you would have to know a great deal about a great many designers, metalurgists, builders and masons who preceded you - and their work would profoundly influence yours. If you wanted to be a top chemist - same thing. But when it comes to wanting to be an physicist, kenada seems to have very little knowledge of , and a great deal of contempt for the work and writings of the physicists who have come before him. We stand on the shoulders of giants and knowing the work of these giants, inside and out, is an enormous advantage. Understanding their approaches and techniques gives you tools you might otherwise never develop. And knowing what has come before helps eliminate avenues which have not proven effective to pursue.

kenada

Euler and Alpha have been trying to get you to understand this. Most great science is 10% inspiration and 90% persperation, you seem to think inspiration is all you need but without learning the work of those who have come before you will end up having to reinvent the wheel when you are trying to build a car, and you end up getting it wrong most of the time(as you have shown).

Grumpy cool.gif
N O M
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+May 19 2007, 04:36 AM)
Wait.... wait.... no, it's just the admin seem to vary in how stringently they view insults. I get one for saying something I've said a dozen times before and you get one for being the idiot you've been dozens of times before.

It does seem to be inconsistent. Bishadi appears to get away with offensive posts by just blanking a letter as in :
QUOTE (Bishadi+May 17 2007, 04:18 AM)
f ---ck
Um... I wonder what he meant by that?
kaneda
AlphaNumeric. After a year of insulting people you finally got a warning. It was only because I highlighted what you had done and had you not got a warning, everyone would have known you were a moderator.
kaneda
Duplicate post.
kaneda
Debating with Euler -



[What do you think of black holes?]

Euler : 1+1=2

[What do you think of superstrings?]

Euler : 1+1=2

[What do you think of the big bang?]

Euler : 1+1=2

[Do you quote from text books?]

Euler : If you want to debate with me you're going to have to pass this exam first.

kaneda
QUOTE (Euler+May 18 2007, 07:42 PM)
I notice his accusations of you and I being the same person seem to have diminished. A shame really, I rather enjoyed being part of a conspiracy theory.

Euler. I know you are AlphaNumeric. For a self-confessed genius it was not smart giving me negative feedback when I was waiting for negative feedback from AlphaNumeric, having given him some.

As Euler you did not post on 19th, 20th, 21st February. You did however come on the board on the 20th ONLY to give me negative feedback, though I had never posted against you previously, or posted where you posted.

On 20th, AlphaNumeric was posting from early morning till past midnight and would have me believe that he had not noticed his feedback had dropped one point.

He then blundered again by saying his NF was 36 hours after the Euler NF (still in my feedback) when it was only 15 hours (within 2 minutes). It was a deliberate ploy to try and make out he had posted a day later, 24+15 = 39. Not 36. How could a self confessed maths wizard like AN make such a mistake unless he was busier fiddling things, like trying to make up for accidentally giving me NF under the wrong alias?

I don't really care how many aliases you have provided you don't abuse the feedback system like pupamancur/manco did.
kaneda
Grumpy. Surely you cannot expect me to debate with someone who cannot even spell a six letter word correctly?

kaneda, not kenada (twice, so not an accident).
Euler
QUOTE (kaneda+May 19 2007, 08:59 AM)
Euler. I know you are AlphaNumeric.

Hooray! And I'm back in the conspiracy theory.

Would you mind having another glance over this post of mine (or is it AlphaNumeric's?):

QUOTE (Euler+May 18 2007, 07:37 PM)
QUOTE (kaneda+)
I am happy to debate with anyone...

I think you're telling fibs. I've asked twelve times for you to engage in debate, by which you could counter the points that I've raised (which you've conveniently quoted at the beginning of this thread).

Would this not be the perfect opportunity for you to show off your debating skills?
QUOTE (kaneda+)
Over 4,200 posts you could answer and you are too scared to pick one of them. What a dark matter particle.

I think I've already picked one, haven't I? I am countering your stance on education, and the notion of "parroting". However, you refuse to respond: this suggests you can't actually defend your standpoint.

If any of this is unclear, by all means let me know and I shall happily elaborate. smile.gif


You keep talking about your debating skills and how they instil fear in others, but you don't seem to keen on demonstrating them. Can we at least ask why?
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (kaneda+May 19 2007, 08:59 AM)
For a self-confessed genius it was not smart giving me negative feedback when I was waiting for negative feedback from AlphaNumeric, having given him some.

I don't have to negative back people who have given me a negative comment. Zephir gave me one last night and I've not 'retaliated'.
QUOTE (kaneda+May 19 2007, 08:59 AM)
AlphaNumeric. After a year of insulting people you finally got a warning. It was only because I highlighted what you had done and had you not got a warning, everyone would have known you were a moderator.
No, you would have thought I was a moderator because you're paranoid and desperate for some reason to ignore my posts given you've got no valid physics to say.
QUOTE (kaneda+May 19 2007, 08:59 AM)
As Euler you did not post on 19th, 20th, 21st February. You did however come on the board on the 20th ONLY to give me negative feedback, though I had never posted against you previously, or posted where you posted.
Wow, is that your evidence? 3 months ago Euler doesn't post for 3 days but reads one of your posts and thinks it's stupid enough to warrant a negative feedback?

That is the best you've got? laugh.gif You're unable to accept that other people might think some of your posts are ignorant and moronic, so you have to invent a conspiracy.
QUOTE (kaneda+May 19 2007, 08:59 AM)
He then blundered again by saying his NF was 36 hours after the Euler NF (still in my feedback) when it was only 15 hours (within 2 minutes). It was a deliberate ploy to try and make out he had posted a day later, 24+15 = 39. Not 36. How could a self confessed maths wizard like AN make such a mistake unless he was busier fiddling things, like trying to make up for accidentally giving me NF under the wrong alias?
Wow, I'm not infallible and the 1 hour difference and the midnight change over went by unnoticed when I left a feedback.

Shock horror, I made an error. Unlike you Kaneda, I don't believe in my self perfection and infallibility. Yes, I was wrong, it was only 15 hours instead of the extra 24 I thought it was. As for 36 instead of 39, ever heard of a 'rough calculation' ? If it's the middle of the night, then it's not uncommon to refer to the lunchtime the previous day as "36 hours ago", you know, a day and a half.

But once again, you don't actually have anything which shows we're the same person, you just have to point out I didn't notice a date on a post properly. Wow, that really is shameful for me, isn't it? laugh.gif
QUOTE (kaneda+May 19 2007, 08:59 AM)
Debating with Euler -
You were asked direct questions by both Euler and myself and you ignored them. Euler tried to start a discussion with you about why learning things isn't a bad thing and I tried to start a discussion with you about the specifics of black holes. You ignored us both. When I talked about the specifics of any bit of physics, if you didn't agree with it you didn't try to enter a discussion, you just say "You're wrong! Hawking is wrong! MIT is wrong! You're all wrong!".

The thread is open for anyone to read Kaneda and so trying to bend the truth isn't going to do you any favours.
QUOTE (kaneda+May 19 2007, 08:59 AM)
Surely you cannot expect me to debate with someone who cannot even spell a six letter word correctly?
Surely you can't expect me to be able to debate with someone about physics who doesn't present evidence or derivation of their claims, ignores anyone else presenting those things and refuses to learn anything about that area of physics even when extremely ignorant of it.

I manage to have discussions with people about a variety of physics topics, you just post "You're wrong!" and even when the effort is made to engage you in a specific topic you ignore it.
QUOTE (kaneda+May 19 2007, 08:59 AM)
Euler : If you want to debate with me you're going to have to pass this exam first.
I guess that proves you never managed to understand what he was trying to get across to you. To you learning is just something other people do isn't it? A requirement that The All Knowing Kaneda doesn't have to submit to. After all, why put in the effort of learning the group work of thousands of people when it's difficult and requires effort, when the alternative (making up BS as you go along and ignoring everyone else) is so much easier.
Gorgeous
QUOTE (N O M+May 19 2007, 03:34 AM)
It does seem to be inconsistent. Bishadi appears to get away with offensive posts by just blanking a letter as in :Um... I wonder what he meant by that?

you think that's bad?

try this...


QUOTE
Squirm, you supercilious, smug b*tch, everyone sees you for what you are. If you think I have derived great pleasure from this post, you're right.

Physfan

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=6365&st=495


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Squirm, you supercilious, smug b*tch, everyone sees you for what you are. If you think I have derived great pleasure from this post, you're right.

Physfan

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=6365&st=495


That's a deep old sackful of hate you've got there, BITCH! ohmy.gif - photojack

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=6365&st=405



this is apparently acceptable here. sad.gif





g.
Gorgeous
...although, strangely, this post is now missing from the thread...

QUOTE
QUOTE (Physfan @ Mar 4 2007, 09:21 PM)
Apparently, you have a problem with irony too.


*rsehole more like! Sanctimonious pr*ck.

Physfan



http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=6365&st=330



g.
N O M
They aren't likely to post a list of what isn't acceptable, though if it turns into a "***" on posting it's a good sign they don't like it.

So if someone needs to hyphenate a word, or deliberately spell it wrong, just to post it, they are deliberately breaking the rules.
Gorgeous
yeah, but that doesn't matter if you are the ones making the 'rules' in the first place.

you see yourself as an authority, and therefore faultless, so whatever 'rules' you make can be bent to your own liking. thus, empires crumble from within.



i only mentioned it to see what kind of puppet-thinkers would respond to the 'dialogue' thread. ph34r.gif i knew they would unconsciously resurrect it.

in this way it is possible to write 'notes to all the rabble on this forum', get them to do exactly as you wish without engaging them yourself...AND stay on-topic with the thread!

AND practice the real-time SCIENCE of psychology all at the same time, staying true to the essence of a science forum...



g.

1..2..3..
kaneda
AlphaNumeric. Last time Zephir gave you negative feedback (6th May), you gave him negative feedback 23 minutes later. You just haven't got around to it yet but I shell keep an eye on his feedback watching for when you do so. I see that you again insulted mott.carl for "word salad" though you know he speaks a foreign language and has to use a translator. Do you hate his guts because he's Portuguese? Do you hate all people who are not drunk in the gutter 100% English? You are beneath contempt little man.

You are the one who has tried to deny the proofs I have given you. A fool totally lost in mathsworld and heading for a dead end job for life on minimum wage.

That is ample evidence as anyone but a fool stuck in mathsworld would know.

You had been posting all day on this forum. No use lying now, Euler. So much rubbish to post, one ID is not enough to do it with.

I gert bored with proving you wrong, whatever identity you choose to use. What would you know of the truth? Come across the word in a text book and had to look it up in a dictionary to find out what it meant?

You're debating with me on another thread and denying the truth like a dad1. What a loser.

What are your posts if they are not "you're wrong"? That is your sole argument outside of text book quotes, even when faced with facts which show you wrong.

If I don't know anything, how is it that I can prove you wrong time after time, leaving you whining in the dust? You have proven you know nothing about super-strings, nothing about black holes, or anything else. You just try to blind people with nonsensical babblings and arrogance. What do they teach kids at McDonalds these days?

kaneda
Euler. I've made over 4,200 posts and you could have answered any of them as many others have. Instead you arrogantly grandstand and demand that I pass your test first before I can debate with you. I bet you're a lot of fun in the school playground. Yes, you are still a coward who is afraid to debate with me on other threads as anyone can see, despite all your boastful yappings.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (kaneda+May 20 2007, 05:17 PM)
You just haven't got around to it yet but I shell keep an eye on his feedback watching for when you do so.
So now when I do decide a post of his deserves a neg rep (and let's face it, they all do) it'll be woven into your paranoia with "Look, look, you retaliated!".

Clearly you have some kind of paranoid obsession with myself if you have to spend your time hunting around people's feedback to find when I posted or when Euler did.
QUOTE (kaneda+May 20 2007, 05:17 PM)
I see that you again insulted mott.carl for "word salad" though you know he speaks a foreign language and has to use a translator. Do you hate his guts because he's Portuguese? o you hate all people who are not drunk in the gutter 100% English? You are beneath contempt little man.
Yep, you got me, I'm a racist, particularly against Portuguese people. rolleyes.gif

It's not like I've tried to start discussions with him on many occasions, asking him (like I ask you) direct questions about his posts and he's just continued to post ignoring me.

Take Mott.Carls 'tour de force' thread here. Seeing Mott was doing his usual word salad I poked fun at him, then decided it'd be more obvious he was word salading if I tried to engage him in conversation. I posted several times asking a series of direct questions about his posts and what does he do? Ignore me.

I don't call him an idiot and a poster of word salad because he's Portuguese (but you're desperate for something against me so you have to resort to accusing me of racism!), but because he doesn't try to enter discussions and anyone competent at such physics sees right through him. He is able to speak good enough English to get by if he wishes, he's engaged people like Neil Boyd in conversation but only because he knows Neil hasn't a clue about physics.

If he wished, he could reply to my questions, even in poor English. He doesn't even try, he ignores my questions because he knows he's full of crap. Just like why you avoid my questions.
QUOTE (kaneda+May 20 2007, 05:17 PM)
You had been posting all day on this forum
I've been sitting at my computer all day trying to program a routine which bridges Mathematica and an algebraic geometry program called Singular. Amazingly, some of us can balance work and reading the internet. It is a Sunday and I am awake for around 16 hours a day.
QUOTE (kaneda+May 20 2007, 05:17 PM)
What are your posts if they are not "you're wrong"?
Links to published papers, books, lecture notes, information websites and descriptions of model derivations and physical experiments. All of which demonstrate the lack of validity of your claims.

Or do you deny that I've been doing things like linking to published papers and websites authored by MIT lecturers? What did Rpenner do? Linked to a published paper demonstrating your claims wrong and you could do nothing but say "But...but...but .... it's wrong!".
QUOTE (kaneda+May 20 2007, 05:17 PM)
....rest of post....
Nothing but a mixture of assumptions, paranoia and ignorance.

Like I've been saying Kaneda, anyone can read the threads in question and anyone can check up on the things I've been talking about (or just ask me for more explaination). You are unable to fool those who actually think and (unlike you) have an inquisitive mind.
kaneda
AlphaNumeric. I'm not surprised mott.carl wants nothing to do with you after they way you have abused him on feedback.

QUOTE
He doesn't even try, he ignores my questions because he knows he's full of crap. Just like why you avoid my questions.



Yes you are right. I avoid your questions because I know you are full of crap too. I have to admit that it's unusual for someone to be so honest about their own failings as you are.

I gave links too and you just said that the astronomical observations were wrong and that your maths was right because Professor Nobody and Dr Lalala from MIT said it was. If maths contradicts the real world, then it is wrong!

Now you are claiming to be able to think. If you had said you were 200 feet high and bright green I might have believed it, but making out you can think is ridiculous.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (kaneda+May 23 2007, 09:41 AM)
I gave links too and you just said that the astronomical observations were wrong

No, I explained how the observations didn't contradict what I said and that infact it all fitted together coherently.

Clearly you don't read posts, you just imagine what you hope they say.
QUOTE (kaneda+May 23 2007, 09:41 AM)
and that your maths was right because Professor Nobody and Dr Lalala from MIT said it was. If maths contradicts the real world, then it is wrong!
Which brings up an interesting point. The 'maths' of describing the electron as an extended object with radius within an order of magnitude or two of the nucleus is wrong. The predictions simply don't match experiments.

Therefore, by your own logic, your claims about the electron being not much smaller than the nucleus are wrong. Of course you never worked out any maths but the fact remains that experiment precludes such a model with ease.

The maths of point particles works very nicely up to current experimental energies.

Both Rpenner and I explained this to you, give you a number of links to published papers so you could read more if you were interested. You obviously weren't. You continued to ignore direct questions and now that Rpenner has pointed out a large list of flaws with your logic you've decided to stop replying. I wonder why laugh.gif
kaneda
AlphaNumeric. You have yet to explain why an accretion disk should be further from a black hole other than that is where gravity put it. If there was less gravity, it should be further in. That is the way it works. Why do you keep babbling that is wrong and you are right? Don't you even understand the basics of gravity?

Again you are jabbering that maths world is right and the real world is wrong. Delusional!

Why do atheists debate with creationists? Not for fun but because the know nothings will claim they are right if not constantly shown wrong, which is what you are doing.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (kaneda+May 24 2007, 10:47 AM)
AlphaNumeric. You have yet to explain why an accretion disk should be further from a black hole other than that is where gravity put it. If there was less gravity, it should be further in. That is the way it works. Why do you keep babbling that is wrong and you are right? Don't you even understand the basics of gravity?

Both Rpenner and I explained the subtleties of what we were talking about. Obviously you didn't understanding.

An object a distance X from a black hole of mass M will feel a force of F
An object a distance X from a black hole of mass 2M will feel a force of 2F

Noone denied that.

However, what sparked off the 'debate' was the nature of the event horizon. I claimed that the forces at the event horizon decreased as you increased the mass. This can be derived in an approximate way fairly simply and I did explain it to you before.

Event horizon radius ~ M (R = 2GM/c^2)
Gravitational force F ~ M/R^2 ~ M/M^2 ~ 1/M

So while for a set distance from the black hole the forces increase as mass increases, the event horizon is a function of mass too and thus the force at the event horizon will actually go down! This is because the event horizon increases so fast in terms of mass.

See the difference? Remember, the event horizon is tiny compared to the radius of accretion disks and so when you're talking about distances of 10AU or the like, bigger is stronger. However, at the event horizon, which varies with mass, the way that the radius increases but the gravity drops off leads to the forces at the event horizon decreasing.

Thus, the comment of mine which originally sparked off the discussions (that for a sufficently large black hole someone can pass through the event horizon and survive the forces involved) is utterly consistent with accretion disk models.

Black hole accretion disk models use the same space-time metrics as the people who derive that the forces on the event horizon decrease as the mass goes up. It's all completely consistent and you'd realise this if you bothered to look into it.

But rather than doing that, you just proclaim you couldn't possibly be wrong and you denounce any explaination or offer of explaination people give to you. I did ask you several times, even highlighting it in red, if you'd point out specifically where you disagree with the logic or what you didn't understand but you ignored those questions.

Now whose afraid to talk science? wink.gif laugh.gif
GeneSplicer
QUOTE (kaneda+May 19 2007, 04:02 AM)
Grumpy. Surely you cannot expect me to debate with someone who cannot even spell a six letter word correctly?

kaneda, not kenada (twice, so not an accident).

This is a rather poor argument considering that you regularly engage in intentional distortions of people names.

Was it simply too difficult to reply to Grumpy’s comments or was it easier to use this excuse?

I see you still seem to assume that people make such mistakes intentionally. There are others using the name kenada instead of kaneda. It is not like Grumpy distorted it in an obvious and intentional manner to be insulting.

This is also the second thread that I know of in which you seek to complaint about a specific poster on this forum, or rather posters in this one. I’m sure this post will just inspire more insults from you and another negative feedback post, but why do you feel the need to create threads to insult, castigate and vent about such posters you have problems with?

I’ve mentioned before that I have found many of your posts of the past rather well constructed and informative, but that you harm your reputation and create a bias when people see your posts when you engage in such actions. Let your arguments speak for themselves. If there is any problems with the person you are debating with that are obvious to you then they are also most likely obvious to most if not everyone following and involved in the thread.
Grumpy
kaneda

Since you used the excuse of my inadvertent(and unimportant) misspelling of your name I thought I would try again and remove that excuse from the post. Besides, I always thought your nom de guerre was a phonic mispelling of Canada.

Now, what is it you disagree with in this paragraph???

If you wanted to be an architect, you would have to know a great deal about a great many designers, metalurgists, builders and masons who preceded you - and their work would profoundly influence yours. If you wanted to be a top chemist - same thing. But when it comes to wanting to be an physicist, kaneda seems to have very little knowledge of , and a great deal of contempt for the work and writings of the physicists who have come before him. We stand on the shoulders of giants and knowing the work of these giants, inside and out, is an enormous advantage. Understanding their approaches and techniques gives you tools you might otherwise never develop. And knowing what has come before helps eliminate avenues which have not proven effective to pursue.

kaneda

Euler and Alpha have been trying to get you to understand this. Most great science is 10% inspiration and 90% persperation, you seem to think inspiration is all you need but without learning the work of those who have come before you will end up having to reinvent the wheel when you are trying to build a car, and you end up getting it wrong most of the time(as you have shown).

Grumpy cool.gif
kaneda
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+May 24 2007, 02:03 PM)
This is a rather poor argument considering that you regularly engage in intentional distortions of people names.

Was it simply too difficult to reply to Grumpy’s comments or was it easier to use this excuse

Oh no! It's the looney stalker. Totally wacko.gif

I don't reply to wackos either.
kaneda
Grumpy. From the Akira film.

Possibly you would like everyone to live in tiny terraced houses? Forget the skyscrapers, all the modern designs and so on? What I said to Euler before you butted in was that you build on what you have learned. Euler and AlphaNumeric are incapable of doing so and if they were builders would build exactly what their teacher had built and no more.

Great science is 90% inspiration and 10% persperation. What you are blathering about is repetition of past science. This is what I expected of you from dire personal experiences in the past which is why I hoped you might go back to your hut in the woods with your six fellow workers.

I can understand how someone of your limited intellect thinks AN & E are right so I'd rather have the idiocy first hand from them rather than your parrotings of it.
kaneda
AlphaNumeric. Still denying reality I see. Those white walls you see around you aren't lab walls. Notice how nice and soft they are?
thinkbig!
QUOTE (kaneda+May 26 2007, 01:25 PM)
AlphaNumeric. Still denying reality I see. Those white walls you see around you aren't lab walls. Notice how nice and soft they are?

laugh.gif haha
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (kaneda+May 26 2007, 02:25 PM)
AlphaNumeric. Still denying reality I see. Those white walls you see around you aren't lab walls. Notice how nice and soft they are?

Kaneda, in two threads now I've posted a large post explaining the derivation of the event horizon results in a fairly straightforward manner. I also posted an explaination of how this matches the observations about accretion disks. Rpenner also posted experimental evidence along the same lines. The post here covers it and says I'm willing to discuss the specifics of it with you.

What do you do? You ignore any actual science and just say "You're wrong". You don't even realise I never denied anything about reality. It's there in black and white for all to see, yet you deny it.

The offer to discuss the science still stands, just point out the specific point of logic you disagree with.

It would seem you're the one whose got difficulty accepting things as they really are. Yet you continue to make up things, despite your lies being so transparent. Do you have a problem with insecurity? Are you unable to engage in conversation if there's the possibility you might be shown wrong? Not once have you replied to any direct questions so it would seem you are incapable.
Grumpy
kaneda

QUOTE
Great science is 90% inspiration and 10% persperation. What you are blathering about is repetition of past science. This is what I expected of you from dire personal experiences in the past which is why I hoped you might go back to your hut in the woods with your six fellow workers.


I expected you to not understand, given your complete lack of even a basic understanding of physics. You are not willing to do the necessary work(sweat) to even have an inspirational thought, so you like to disparage others who have "paid their dues".

You remind me of an air guitarist, one who is unwilling to learn how to play the instrument, but is totally convinced he can put on a rock show.

I once had the pleasure and honor of buying a meal for Isaac Asimov after he gave a talk for our Mensa Society at the University of Tennessee. I asked him how he was able to write so many books about so many subjects. He told me that before someone can erect a statue, one must build a pedestal to put it on. He said he read everything written he could get his hands on by all the scientists in the field he was writing about, applying his not inconsiderable intellect to filter the good from the not so good, and then he simply put his understanding of the subject down in words. His brilliance was in the filter of his intelligence and his ability to explain complex subjects in clear, concise and logical terms. But his intellect needed the work of those who came before in order to understand those subjects, he certainly didn't have time to do ALL the research and go down ALL the dead ends himself.

So, yes, 90% sweat, 10% inspiration is about right, even Einstein studied for years in physics and math to have a foundation for his insights.

And seeing the obvious lack of understanding of even the simplest principles of physics you have displayed in your posts I'm not expecting any contributions from your direction.

Grumpy cool.gif
kaneda
AlphaNumeric. The post you quote gives the evidence against you. I understand that your delusions have gone so far now that you point to evidence against you as evidence for you. Poor, poor AlphaNumeric.
AlphaNumeric
Here's another post where I explain how the accretion disk results (which I have never denied) square up with the results of reduced forces on the event horizon.

If you disagree with the results, say where. If you fail to do so and reply with just another "You're denying reality" then it would seem you're unable to justify your claims.

Can you point me to a specific post where I said the accretion disk results were wrong? Can you point me to a post where I said the results on the event horizon were inconsistent with the accretion disk results?

You cannot claim to have proven me wrong with evidence I have explained is consistent with the event horizon results. Do you understand this or do you need me to explain it to you in small words and with the aid of crayons?

If you think the evidence goes against me, you're going to have to show how. I keep asking you to and you keep avoiding it. Says a lot doesn't it... Are you scared? Are you unwilling to answer because you know your claims are incorrect?

You claim to have nothing to hide yet you keep avoiding talking science. Every offer to discuss things, you've ignored.
kaneda
Grumpy. You have been a bad dwarf again. You are not smart enough to post science yourself so just criticise others who do. You are not even smart enough to quote from a text book.

What Asimov tried to explain to you and failed was that you build on what has gone before. NOT that you do exactly the same as what has gone before, which seems to be the total ambition of a number of people on this board. Civilisation has advanced because of NEW ideas, not because of repetition of old ideas.

So what original science have you contribued to this board? As to me, I can't dumb down my stuff enough so that you would understand. Just stick to your usual insults and be a good little dwarf.
kaneda
AlphaNumeric. You have put an unrealistic interpretation on evidence to support a mathsworld belief. The fact that it does not fit a real world interpretation is where you parted with reality. Just another fudge which is unfortunately becoming more and more prevalent in science now.

Do you think that if you continue to repeat something unrealistic I'm going to suddenly agree with you? Or are you just trying to build up a post count with irrelevancies like alokmohan?
Grumpy
kaneda

Since ad hom seems to be the totality of your talents might I suggest a career in standup comedy??? Don Rickles is no longer active so they have a slot open just right for the only abilities you have shown. As for physics, not so much.

As Alpha and others have so eloquently shown, when it comes to basic physics you don't have a clue and you're only defense is denigrating your mental superiors. Unfortunately for you that includes everyone on this forum, even dad1. It sucks to be you!!!

Grumpy cool.gif
Ron
Hi All,
Hey Grumpy, You actually had lunch with Issac Asimov! That must have been fascinating. The first 3 or 4 books that I read when I first became interested in the field was "Asimov on ..."! He really does know how to explain very difficult concepts to the masses. Thanks for sharing that, man.
Peace,
Ron
Grumpy
Ron

Yes, it was one of the most fascinating and enjoyable meals I ever ate, but I can't recall what I ate! Dr. Asimov and his daughter were great company!!! He even gave me some tips for writing my Doctorate Thesis!!!

I had been to two other talks he had given before this but at this time I happened to be an officer on the steering commitee of our Mensa chapter at the school and helped arrainge his visit (travel, lodging, etc.).

I think I've read all of his books(some more than once) about physics and science, his critiques of the Bible and all of his fiction. Of course that leaves hundreds of his books I haven't read, but there is only so much time!!! When he passed on I thought the world lost one of the greats, he has been and remains today my favorite author.

Grumpy cool.gif
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (kaneda+May 28 2007, 03:12 PM)
You have put an unrealistic interpretation on evidence to support a mathsworld belief.

The 'mathworld' interpretation which predicts and describes the accretion disk behaviour and which is totally physically consistent with observations.
QUOTE (kaneda+May 28 2007, 03:12 PM)
The fact that it does not fit a real world interpretation is where you parted with reality.
Except it does. I keep asking for you to demonstrate how it doesn't and suprise suprise you don't.
QUOTE (kaneda+May 28 2007, 03:12 PM)
Do you think that if you continue to repeat something unrealistic I'm going to suddenly agree with you?
Well after Rpenner and I explained (in the same thread which sparked off the event horizon 'debate') that experiments and theory put the electron and quark radius at extremely small, if not pointlike, you changed your mind and here you're telling bm1957 what we told you.

Of course you didn't admit you were wrong or say you'd accepted our explainations and the slew of evidence we put infront of you, you just stopped talking about it and quietly changed your mind.

So yes, it would seem if you have enough explainations put infront of you you accept you're wrong, though you aren't man enough to say it out loud.

Besides, every time I post an explaination of my comments, asking for you to point out the error and you're unable to do so, it just makes you look more and more like a fanatical nut who is a lot less competant at physics than he likes to think.

But prove me wrong, let's actually talk about relativity. Point out where in the derivation you don't understand or you don't agree with and I'll be happy to explain and elaborate.

Not much to ask for if you want to put me in my place now is it? If you actually had substance to your claims you'd be shoving it in my face, but since you aren't it would seem quite clear you don't.
kaneda
AlphaNumeric. I try not to debate with loonies and stalkers because mentally unstable people come out with all sorts of craziness. They have delusions, lie, make misleading statements and are always 100% sure they are right despite all other evidence.
kaneda
AlphaNumeric. IF you bother reading the post you linked will see that I merely quoted point sources as what some people believe but that earlier I had said, as you well know, that quarks are 1/1000 the size of protons.

I have shown that quarks cannot be just a little smaller than a proton since we would have a size estimate foir them as we do for a proton.

To claim that three point source quarks can be protons is nonsense. It is like claiming that three protons can be something the size of the Earth.

I proved you wrong so long ago that even Isaac Newton read about it. You just keep repeating the same old trash as though somehow I will change my mind and admit you were right. Why don't you just admit you lost the argument and move on? This hatred is ruining your life.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (kaneda+May 29 2007, 01:25 PM)
They have delusions, lie, make misleading statements and are always 100% sure they are right despite all other evidence.

Considering you're the guy who denied several published papers describing the match between experiment and theory, denies the explainations of MIT and Cambridge professors, who denies every explaination and iota of evidence given to him, that's pretty funny laugh.gif

You're so confident you're right yet not once have you been able to answer a direct question. I have constantly addressed your claims and explained your errors. If you were right, you'd have demonstrated it by now, but since you aren't and you know it, you're trying to justify avoiding discussing things with people.

Euler, Rpenner and I have all tried to engage you in discussion, asking questions or providing topics of discussion which could spark conversation and for all your claims of wanting to discuss science you have avoided every single one of them.

Who do you think you're kidding Kaneda? It's obvious you're just having to deny reality yourself and make claims you can't justify.

If you proved me wrong, show it. Explain precisely how my explaination about the consistency of event horizon results and accretion disk observations is wrong. You claim they are inconsistent but you've been unable to show either Rpenner or myself wrong.

Not much to ask to put me in my place is it? What's the matter? Worried to be exposed as a liar? laugh.gif
QUOTE (kaneda+May 29 2007, 01:25 PM)
This hatred is ruining your life.
AHAHAHAHA!!! laugh.gif It's a constant source of amusement to watch you lie through your teeth and pretend you've proven Rpenner, Euler, myself, Hawking and Einstein wrong. It's funny you pretend to take the high ground while you hurl insults at the physics we post. It's funny to see you claim you're open to a discussion about physics when you avoid every question which attempts to engage you in scientific discussion.

It's not ruining my life, it's a tiny tiny little aside I have where I derive amusement from you being a hypocritical liar. laugh.gif So go on, post again about how you've proven me wrong, you just can't actually say where and how. It'll be good for a chuckle. wink.gif
GeneSplicer
QUOTE (kaneda+May 29 2007, 08:25 AM)
AlphaNumeric. I try not to debate with loonies and stalkers because mentally unstable people come out with all sorts of craziness. They have delusions, lie, make misleading statements and are always 100% sure they are right despite all other evidence.


You mean like making boldly a historically inaccurate claim and when proven wrong, you launch into a litany of personal castigations against the person who illustrated your error. And let’s not forget your excuse of a slow internet connection as to justify the mistake.

QUOTE (kaneda+May 29 2007, 08:39 AM)
I proved you wrong so long ago that even Isaac Newton read about it. You just keep repeating the same old trash as though somehow I will change my mind and admit you were right. Why don't you just admit you lost the argument and move on? This hatred is ruining your life.


Hatred? Interesting you should mention that, especially after you consider the ease in which you launch into one insulting post after another, juvenile name misspelling included. Then there is all of that bipolar feedback you have strewed across the forum. Or what about the desperate debating tactic of complaining about typos and misspelling while doing so in a post where you make typos and misspell.

Even if you ignore the threads you create to whine, piss and moan about posters you have a personal problem with, there is the long list of people you simply insult because they dare to challenge your unsupported or erroneous claims.

That list would include Grumpy, Author and two of the most respected posters here, Steveo and Kaeroll.

Odd how you keep acting exactly in the manner you claim you despise. But please, tell me again how you will not reply to me and reply to me. Hypocrisy appears to be the least of your more colorful aspects not to mention intellectual non sequiturs like calling replies within a thread stalking. That’s almost as good as when AP called standard internet cookies from my website Trojans.

You have mentioned Ockham’s Razor before when it suited you, so let’s apply it now. Which is more likely. That all of the people you launched into irrational and personal crusades against are the uneducated and vile people you describe? Or is it more likely that the problem lies with a person who starts threads to insult those he has a problem with, makes claims with nothing to back them up, will not retract claims that have been proven to be erroneous or blames something else for the error, disrupts threads he is not involved in with non-related and personally insulting posts or who summarily vilifies and castigates the multitudes of formally educated people as simplistic “book quoters”.

When dad1 engages in such activity, he is rightfully seen as a polarized, irrational and close-minded poster. It is no different when you act in exactly the same manner.

I have mentioned several times that it is your reputation and standing as a rational person, thinker and debater you are effecting negatively with such activities. I’m sure it is of no interest to you considering the low opinion you seem to have of so many posters and the administrators of this forum, but judging by the most recent reactions, your reputation appears just as bad as that of the more problematic posters on this forum. Judging by your diction alone, you are not what you claim to be.

But, at this point, the last thing I expect from you is a rational response. What I do expect is more negative comments, claims that I and Steveo are one in the same, more non sequitur claims like stalking and the use of emoticons for flavor.
GeneSplicer
It has been three days and Kaneda has yet to reply in any thread?

It’s not like him to drop arguments.
Gizmo
The title of this topic is...

QUOTE
A NOTE TO ALL THE RABBLE ON THIS FORUM


...what's with all the 'rabble' business?

mad.gif

Not a great title, as titles go, is it?

ohmy.gif

kaneda
AlphaNumeric. All you have done is continue to repeat that you are right and that I am wrong. You have quoted mathsworld and I have quoted astronomy. You prefer delusions over reality so are beyond any help I can give.
kaneda
[removed]

57% of your posts are on the Creation/Evolution forum. Your few ventures off that forum are usually off topic stuff. You are a boring know nothing fool who needs is filled with hatred. Go stalk someone else.
kaneda
[QUOTE=GeneSplicer,Jun 1 2007, 02:29 PM] It has been three days and Kaneda has yet to reply in any thread?

[removed]
kaneda
QUOTE (Gizmo+Jun 1 2007, 04:44 PM)
The title of this topic is...


...what's with all the 'rabble' business?

Euler knows a bit of maths (but apparently not that much as buddy, AlphaNumeric doiesn't ask him for help) and requires that you answer some maths questions before you are allowed to debate with him.

Trouble is, once off of maths, Euler is dad1 dumb so doesn't dare debate with anyone and so hides behind a facade of arrogance.

Euler.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (kaneda+Jun 2 2007, 03:25 PM)
AlphaNumeric. All you have done is continue to repeat that you are right and that I am wrong. You have quoted mathsworld and I have quoted astronomy. You prefer delusions over reality so are beyond any help I can give.

And you have yet to demonstrate the contradiction between my comments and astronomy. I never said the astronomic observations were wrong. Your misconceptions, misunderstanding, lack of thought and inability to swallow your pride have led you to lying about what I've said.

I have quoted results from relativity which are inline with all observations, including the ones you quoted. Both Rpenner and I have explained it many times and many times have I asked you to prove those explainations wrong. You haven't.

Your unwillingness or inability to show how my comments do not match observations, despite being asked many times to do so is evidence you cannot.

Instead you avoid direct discussion, you avoid answering questions and you resort to lying. You still haven't pointed to a post of mine where I denied the validity of the astronomy results. You lied.

Your self delusion is humerous. You seem to be descending into more and more irrational behaviour with each passing day. Not one of the rational posts Rpenner, myself, GeneSplicer or anyone else has addressed to you have you managed to respond in kind. You claim all I'm posting is "I'm right, you're wrong!", despite it being on the same page of a thread where I give a long explaination of your misconceptions. You lie despite the evidence to the contrary being only a few posts further up the page!

If you're so desperate that you'd lie with contradictory evidence in full view, one has to question your grip on rationality.
QUOTE (kaneda+Jun 2 2007, 03:25 PM)
Euler knows a bit of maths (but apparently not that much as buddy, AlphaNumeric doiesn't ask him for help)
While this might come as a shock, since you obviously don't bother learning much maths, but the area of mathematics is vast. So vast that two people can spend their entire lives working on entirely disjoint areas of it. The maths I now use is completely different to the maths Euler does. Of course you seem blissfully unaware of this since you do not bother to learn much about areas you proclaim to understand.

Though you have had this explained to you before, but as you demonstrate with your constant repetition of lies, you are having to resort to bending the truth and making statements of ignorance because you have no real substance to your claims. laugh.gif
rpenner
QUOTE (kaneda+Jun 2 2007, 02:34 PM)
57% of your posts are on the Creation/Evolution forum.

That might be because GeneSplicer has actual training in the Biological Sciences which are underrepresented on the bulk of the this board's forums.

Few of the loonies express a claim like "17 genes suffice to synthesize a bacterium," but if that were asserted, GeneSplicer is who I would count on to have evidence to the contrary.

Now if only we had a Mental Health professional to answer questions like "Why are all the biological loonies on the Creationism side?" or "Why do the incompetent not only feel that the areas they are ignorant of are trivial, but feel compelled to lecture on them?" dry.gif
Euler
For all his downfalls, I wouldn't want the guy to stop posting. He's worth his weight in comedy gold.
kaneda
AlphaNumeric = dad1


Denial! Denial! Denial!
kaneda
rpenner. A while back I made a post in answer to Derek1148 listing all of General Patton's misspent life. I made one mistake and when GeneSplicer pointed it out to me, I owned up to it. But he would not let it drop and ranted and ranted on about it, and even after I stopped posting on Creation/Evolution to get away from this seriously unstable character, he followed me elsewhere and continued his rantings. The posts are still there.

GeneSplicer is not mentally stable in my opinion and I want nothing to do with him. I try to discourage him whenever he stalks me.
kaneda
QUOTE (Euler+Jun 2 2007, 09:40 PM)
For all his downfalls, I wouldn't want the guy to stop posting. He's worth his weight in comedy gold.

Do they have comedy in mathsworld, AlphaNumeric, sorry Euler?


Boy! Hurry up with that McChicken. I'm still waiting.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (kaneda+Jun 3 2007, 01:14 PM)
Denial! Denial! Denial!

Ah, so I see you're unable to back up any of your claims with physics so you have to resort to just ignoring questions, comments and explainations aimed at you. The only person suffering from denial is yourself Kaneda. I've always said I'm open to discussing this and you refuse to. laugh.gif

I wonder just who you think you're fooling here. Your denial increases with every post. laugh.gif
rpenner
QUOTE (kaneda+Jun 3 2007, 12:23 PM)
rpenner. A while back I made a post in answer to Derek1148 listing all of General Patton's misspent life.
Actua