Hey, Arindam, did you see this?..... ##### Re: Why do we feel aroused when two ideas contradict each other?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Perfectly safe science-fiction, earth heated from outside in?
Next: A repulsive Fifth Interaction regulates the Universe
From: Myself,PresentContinuouslyTenseMallu on 12 Apr 2010 10:10 On 4/12/2010 5:04 AM, Romanise wrote: > On Apr 11, 5:52 pm, "Myself,PresentContinuouslyTenseMallu" > <KalluMallu...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> There is not one scientific journal >> publication of yours in which you have clearly enunciated your >> 'deductive logic' and shown that your 'formula' matches experimental >> data to establish validity, and more importantly, re-interpreted old >> data to establish (internal) consistency of your 'new physics.' > >> Nothing to cheer you on about, lad. >> VB > > The guy did approach science Journals, but they made fun of him. He > did not think much of his professors guides at two IITs he boasts by. > Judging from recent threads he started and got thoroughly thrashed by > those who know better it is clear he never before even tried Usenet > except soc.culture.indian group from where it looks you forced him to > 'publish' on sci.physics etc. I don't know how much hot air this twit has generated in other newsgroups over the years, nor do I think that I am the 'external force' behind his move to sci.physics, etc - the twit has his own 'internal force,' and lots of it, from the sheer number of posts (mostly about himself). Well, if his work was rejected (and rightly so, from the sheer kookiness of the ideas), and he was genuinely concerned with the well-being of science, as he claims, he would have gone back to work on his 'deductive logic.' I do not know of a single scientist (Nobel winners included), who has not had his/her articles go through a rigorous peer-review process of established journals, and who has not made the attempts to validate his/her theories against experiments (esp. in physics). For sure lots of the established folks are about as ego-driven as this blowhard from Oz, but they too submit to the peer-review process in the end. Good publications based on good work do attract funding, students, ...., and what this unholy bungholey really craves - fame! All we have been spammed with over the last year is that he, of 'noble birth' and 'elite education,' is absolutely entitled to have his voice heard, his papers published, etc. God forbid one should disagree with this narcissistic twit. You'll be called corrupt, a quotawallah, an idiot, pro-Einsteinian (didn't know that science had degenerated into personality cults), pro-establishment, ... blah, blah. Even this would have been okay with me - free speech does come at a price. However, the supercilious twit started talking down to one and all about any and all things under the sun. Yeah, 'noble birth' and 'elite education' make this pretentious git a polymath. A 'legend' in his own mind, we were subjected to philosophy, history, politics, theater, Sanskrit, Hinduism, and something worse - his verse! Time to puncture the ego, and bring the hot-air balloon back down to earth.
From: Zinnic on 12 Apr 2010 19:24 On Apr 10, 9:41 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > On Apr 10, 1:28 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 9, 7:55 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 9, 8:00 pm, Romanise <josh...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 9, 6:24 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > > W I have written on > > > > > many important matters, > > > > > Would you care to enumerate them? > > > > Weren't you following my talks with Zinnic on various matters in > > > physics very closely? Now, more and more people are agreeing with me, > > > and they are all out to throw out the wrong ideas of einstein's > > > special relativity, following my new findings and analysis. The > > > important thing to do now, IS TO CHANGE ALL THE TEXT BOOKS ON PHYSICS > > > WHICH STILL TEACH THESE WRONG THEORIES. Only then will this subject > > > regain its vitality, and be the source of a superior technology. > > > > Cheers, > > > Arindam Banerjee > > > Arindam, you have severally cited your discussion with me as if I > > supported your views on special relativity and your "internal energy > > engine". > > All I got from you was an admission that there is an extra factor d > involved because of the Earth's movement. Everyone but you takes that for granted. It is implicit in calculations using Galilieoan/Newtonian relative or vector velocities. i.e Total distance (D +or- d) is proportional to the relative velocity (V +or- v) or the vectorial velocity. . Also everyone concedes that the MM experimental null result does not preclude that the speed of light is dependent on the speed of its emitting source but it does not disprove evidence that indicates otherwise. You fasten on to this as if you had re-invented the wheel, whilst ignoring experimental evidence that is consistent with Einstein's theory of Special relativity. Your arrogance closes your mind so that you reject any evidence that does not support your mistaken preconceptions. You learn nothing from others and your claims are based on elementary fallacies.You are heading for a deserved humiliation. Zinnic
From: Arindam Banerjee on 12 Apr 2010 19:55 On Apr 13, 9:24 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > On Apr 10, 9:41 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 10, 1:28 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > On Apr 9, 7:55 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 9, 8:00 pm, Romanise <josh...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 9, 6:24 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > > > W I have written on > > > > > > many important matters, > > > > > > Would you care to enumerate them? > > > > > Weren't you following my talks with Zinnic on various matters in > > > > physics very closely? Now, more and more people are agreeing with me, > > > > and they are all out to throw out the wrong ideas of einstein's > > > > special relativity, following my new findings and analysis. The > > > > important thing to do now, IS TO CHANGE ALL THE TEXT BOOKS ON PHYSICS > > > > WHICH STILL TEACH THESE WRONG THEORIES. Only then will this subject > > > > regain its vitality, and be the source of a superior technology. > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Arindam Banerjee > > > > Arindam, you have severally cited your discussion with me as if I > > > supported your views on special relativity and your "internal energy > > > engine". > > > All I got from you was an admission that there is an extra factor d > > involved because of the Earth's movement. > > Everyone but you takes that for granted. It is implicit in > calculations using Galilieoan/Newtonian relative or vector velocities. > i.e Total distance (D +or- d) is proportional to the relative > velocity (V +or- v) or the vectorial velocity. . > > Also everyone concedes that the MM experimental null result does not > preclude that the speed of light is dependent on the speed of its > emitting source but it does not disprove evidence that indicates > otherwise. > You fasten on to this as if you had re-invented the wheel, whilst > ignoring experimental evidence that is consistent with Einstein's > theory of Special relativity. Your arrogance closes your mind so that > you reject any evidence that does not support your mistaken > preconceptions. You learn nothing from others and your claims are > based on elementary fallacies.You are heading for a deserved > humiliation. > Zinnic- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - We'll see.
From: Arindam Banerjee on 13 Apr 2010 01:06 ..
From: Arindam Banerjee on 13 Apr 2010 01:06
.. |