GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Pmb on 6 Dec 2007 09:55 "Pmb" <someone(a)somewhere.net> wrote in message news:LKidnWwfvd2bmsXanZ2dnUVZ_qGknZ2d(a)comcast.com... > > "Cosmik de Bris" <cosmik.debris(a)elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message > news:47573bb5$0$26122$88260bb3(a)free.teranews.com... >> Pmb wrote: >>> "John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >>> news:oB6IY4bp4wVHFwKt(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk... >>>> Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>> Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:50:21 GMT, Tom Roberts >>>>>> <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> if there were actual indications that a ballistic approach was >>>>>>> needed, physicists would respond to them. >>>>>> There is no indication that any approach OTHER THAN the ballistic >>>>>> one is >>>>>> needed. >>>>> That is HOPELESSLY naive. >>>> If I may say so you are the one who takes everything you read as being >>>> correct. >>> >>> I disagree. Tom only accepts what he reads if it conforms to what he >>> currently accepts to be the case. At least that's the way his actions >>> appear to tell us. >>> >>> Pete >> >> Not us Pete, you. You seem to have a very limited view of Tom, who I >> believe to be one of the most informed people in this group. You may find >> some people who agree with you but they will be the "usual suspects". > > So you claim. I've experienced Tom's posting habits for the last 7 years. > I fully understand what he does. I'm not interested in taking a vote on > who agrees with me or not. I'd like to make precise what I have stated above since it appears that people like "Cosmik de Bris" will misinterpret what I meant. I do not believe that I have a better overall understanding of physics that Tom. I've never stated anything such as that or anything that can be interpreted to mean that. Those who arrive at such conclusions are doing so by reading into what I say about Tom which I never said nor believe. I mean exactly what I stated. For example: in the past Tom gave what he believes to be the definition of "proper time" for which it only applied to readings taken on a clock at rest in an inertial system. I corrected him in that proper time refers to that time recorded on an ideal clock in any type of motion whatsoever. I gave him an example of such a definition from Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics" and at that point Tom claimed that I didn't understand what he said. He then backpedaled and claimed that he meant something totally different that what he actually posted. This is what I'm referring to. No matter what, if Tom makes a simple mistake, like the definition of proper time, then he will never admit to actually making a mistake. He will instead start to insult the people who disagree with him in his only little smug (e.g. <shrug!>) way. This has occurred only with respect to definitions and interpretations of such terms as like "real force" or such. As far as what he can calculate? I haven't seen him make any calculations that I can recall. I assume that he is respected by his peers and is good at what he does. But he does have this horrible habit of backpedaling and insulting those who disagree with him. If anyone can take one of those instances which I'm refering to and prove me wrong then I invite them to do so. Most irritating people (i.e. those who are fast to start insulting) have been blocked so I won't be able to read them. An that includes "Cosmik de Bris" as of today. I have no need for irritating people and assertions in my life and will block those who are anxious to judge (like "Cosmik de Bris") without being there to actually experience discussions that have occured over the last 7 years between Tom and myself. It is that collective experience which finally convinced me that Tom is not a person to whom I wish to subject myself to his rude behaviour. I await proof of claims such as that made by "Cosmik de Bris". Only exact comments from posts will be responded to by me and I will not respond to those comments which are based on opinion but only those which are based on facts. Pete
From: bz on 6 Dec 2007 09:36 HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in news:om9fl3l6o1ug84b0ihhhiu6dr601840koq@ 4ax.com: > I will temporarily unplonk you When kill-filing someone, there is no need to announce 'plonk'. All one need do is STOP reading and RESPONDING in any way to posts by the kill-filed party. Anything else is posturing for the audience, encourages the troll and makes the plonker look silly. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Pmb on 6 Dec 2007 10:18 "bz" <bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns99FE577EE24A4WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in > news:om9fl3l6o1ug84b0ihhhiu6dr601840koq@ > 4ax.com: > >> I will temporarily unplonk you > > When kill-filing someone, there is no need to announce 'plonk'. > > All one need do is STOP reading and RESPONDING in any way to posts by the > kill-filed party. > > Anything else is posturing for the audience, encourages the troll and > makes > the plonker look silly. When I make such a statement it is only to tell the person being plonked that anything that he writes will be in vain. It is merely a courtesy. I stopped doing that because such people will almost always respond to such posts anyway so it was a waste of time. I rarely do it nowadays. I did it today so that a certain person wouldn't waste his time responding to a message I wrote since I'll never see it. Its in my nature to be as kind as I can. Although I rarely post here because people on this newsgroup have a tendancy to push my patience to the limit. Everybody thinks their an infalible experts and as such that attitudes irrtitate the hell out of me. Espectially when they attempt to tell me what people think of me, as if I care what a flamer thinks! Pete
From: bz on 6 Dec 2007 10:31 "Pmb" <someone(a)somewhere.net> wrote in news:5JGdnVGkoINUj8XanZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d(a)comcast.com: > > "bz" <bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > news:Xns99FE577EE24A4WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... >> HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in >> news:om9fl3l6o1ug84b0ihhhiu6dr601840koq@ >> 4ax.com: >> >>> I will temporarily unplonk you >> >> When kill-filing someone, there is no need to announce 'plonk'. >> >> All one need do is STOP reading and RESPONDING in any way to posts by >> the kill-filed party. >> >> Anything else is posturing for the audience, encourages the troll and >> makes >> the plonker look silly. > > When I make such a statement it is only to tell the person being plonked > that anything that he writes will be in vain. It is merely a courtesy. I > stopped doing that because such people will almost always respond to > such posts anyway so it was a waste of time. I rarely do it nowadays. I > did it today so that a certain person wouldn't waste his time responding > to a message I wrote since I'll never see it. Its in my nature to be as > kind as I can. Although I rarely post here because people on this > newsgroup have a tendancy to push my patience to the limit. Everybody > thinks their an infalible experts and as such that attitudes irrtitate > the hell out of me. Espectially when they attempt to tell me what people > think of me, as if I care what a flamer thinks! :) I was talking to Henri, specifically. Several times, over the past few days, he has 'plonked' A and then responded, again to A. I try to help Henri, when I can and I wanted him to realize the effect he was having was probably NOT what he wants. As for people and trolls, everyone I meet knows something that I don't know. Patience comes from remembering that each person thinks, in their heart, that they are right. I am still trying to learn patience with some forms of trolling, however. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Cosmik de Bris on 6 Dec 2007 15:00
Pmb wrote: > "Pmb" <someone(a)somewhere.net> wrote in message > news:LKidnWwfvd2bmsXanZ2dnUVZ_qGknZ2d(a)comcast.com... >> "Cosmik de Bris" <cosmik.debris(a)elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message >> news:47573bb5$0$26122$88260bb3(a)free.teranews.com... >>> Pmb wrote: >>>> "John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >>>> news:oB6IY4bp4wVHFwKt(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk... >>>>> Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>> Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:50:21 GMT, Tom Roberts >>>>>>> <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> if there were actual indications that a ballistic approach was >>>>>>>> needed, physicists would respond to them. >>>>>>> There is no indication that any approach OTHER THAN the ballistic >>>>>>> one is >>>>>>> needed. >>>>>> That is HOPELESSLY naive. >>>>> If I may say so you are the one who takes everything you read as being >>>>> correct. >>>> I disagree. Tom only accepts what he reads if it conforms to what he >>>> currently accepts to be the case. At least that's the way his actions >>>> appear to tell us. >>>> >>>> Pete >>> Not us Pete, you. You seem to have a very limited view of Tom, who I >>> believe to be one of the most informed people in this group. You may find >>> some people who agree with you but they will be the "usual suspects". >> So you claim. I've experienced Tom's posting habits for the last 7 years. >> I fully understand what he does. I'm not interested in taking a vote on >> who agrees with me or not. > You won't see this because you have killfiled me but anyway. > I'd like to make precise what I have stated above since it appears that > people like "Cosmik de Bris" will misinterpret what I meant. What exactly are people like me Pete? > I do not > believe that I have a better overall understanding of physics that Tom. I've > never stated anything such as that or anything that can be interpreted to > mean that. Those who arrive at such conclusions are doing so by reading into > what I say about Tom which I never said nor believe. I mean exactly what I > stated. You said" "Tom only accepts what he reads if it conforms to what he currently accepts to be the case." And I disagreed with you, no insults, just disagreement. I've seen Tom admit his mistakes many times. > For example: in the past Tom gave what he believes to be the > definition of "proper time" for which it only applied to readings taken on a > clock at rest in an inertial system. I corrected him in that proper time > refers to that time recorded on an ideal clock in any type of motion > whatsoever. I gave him an example of such a definition from Jackson's > "Classical Electrodynamics" and at that point Tom claimed that I didn't > understand what he said. He then backpedaled and claimed that he meant > something totally different that what he actually posted. This is what I'm > referring to. No matter what, if Tom makes a simple mistake, like the > definition of proper time, then he will never admit to actually making a > mistake. He will instead start to insult the people who disagree with him in > his only little smug (e.g. <shrug!>) way. This has occurred only with > respect to definitions and interpretations of such terms as like "real > force" or such. As far as what he can calculate? I haven't seen him make any > calculations that I can recall. I assume that he is respected by his peers > and is good at what he does. But he does have this horrible habit of > backpedaling and insulting those who disagree with him. > > If anyone can take one of those instances which I'm refering to and prove me > wrong then I invite them to do so. Most irritating people (i.e. those who > are fast to start insulting) have been blocked so I won't be able to read > them. An that includes "Cosmik de Bris" as of today. I didn't insult anyone, you seem to be very sensitive to simple disagreement. I have no need for > irritating people and assertions in my life and will block those who are > anxious to judge (like "Cosmik de Bris") I didn't judge, you did, I defended. > without being there to actually > experience discussions that have occured over the last 7 years between Tom > and myself. It is that collective experience which finally convinced me that > Tom is not a person to whom I wish to subject myself to his rude behaviour. > > I await proof of claims such as that made by "Cosmik de Bris". Only exact > comments from posts will be responded to by me and I will not respond to > those comments which are based on opinion but only those which are based on > facts. Well you won't see mine so I won't bother. And who judges what the facts are? You I guess. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |