There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: "The Einstein Hoax"
Next: ALL DIZEAZZEZ ARE DEZERVED ! ESPECIALLY THE CANCER GOODY, BACKBONE OF THE JUICY DIZEAZZEZ INDUSTRY
From: NoEinstein on 6 May 2010 21:34 On May 5, 5:22 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > Dear Timo: Since physicists have been looking for the "missing mass" in the Universe for decadesand not found itits occurred to me that it was the estimates of the masses of the stars and galaxies that was wrong. The observed red/blue shifts imply the rotational speed of the arms of galaxies. Since physicists can calculate the centrifugal force that must be countered by the "central" gravity source, over- estimating the mass of stars would exaggerate the centripetal force needed to keep the stars from flying away. I also realized that it isn't 'just' the central gravity holding the galaxies together, it also includes the EFFECTIVE central gravity of all of the stars, combined. Think of that as being similar to having two equal size and mass binary stars rotating about their common centerhalfway between the two stars. Though there is no "mass" at the center, the two stars orbit as though there is a mass there. Since gravity is "distance proportional" (actually inverse proportional) stars that aren't on a 'diameter' line, can still help to keep the whole thing from flying outward. That would be like having lots of people hold hands to form a circle. If there is a 'flying out' force, the tension (gravity) in their arms will keep the circle together. NOTE: I strongly suspect that 'physicists', who aren't structural engineers (like was my training), neglected to consider the CIRCULAR routes of gravity, which could be 50 plus percent of what is holding the galaxies together! Timo, a good way to 'estimate' the gravity sensitivity needed, is to search for the accepted missing mass in the Universe (99%?); divide that in half (due to the circular paths of gravity), yields 44.5% that is unaccounted for. Since both the mass and the gravity force are about equal in the fly out predicted by Newtons errant equation, there would only need to be a 22.25% under-estimate of the gravity of the stars, and a corresponding 22.25% over-estimate in the mass of the stars. The gravity of a star is proportional to the surface area (not the mass) and the surface temperature. It isnt proportional to the internal temperatures, at all. Not counting solar flare temperatures, determine the surface temperatures of different size and color stars. Of course, that will be a plasma which you certainly cant do a Cavendish on. The change in gravity that you seek is probably linearly proportional to temperature. Assume the Earth to be zero temperature. Find what percentage of the stars surface temperature that you can achieve without melting the balls. My guess is you can get about 10% of the typical surface temperature. 10% of 22.25% means that you are hoping to detect a 2.225% increase in the gravity of the balls. If you only heat the larger ball, increase its contributing gravity by 2.225%, and leave the other ball(s) as they were. The sensitivity of a well-designed Cavendish can probably verify the gravity within .5% So, if you can run the experiment at all, the results sought should be within the sensitivity! *** However, this just occurred to me: The gravity of every possible star attractionnot just the circular and the cross-diameterwill be helping to hold the galaxies together! As proved by the Andromeda Galaxy (that has a zone without stars next to the center), Black Holes have zero gravity. So, the multi-paths of gravity, taken together, must be capable of holding, say, the Milky Way together without needing a super-massive black hole (sic) at all! My theory, counter to Newtons Law of Universal (sic) Gravity, states that the gravity of a star is directly proportional to the temperature-determined, photon emissions over the entire surface area of the star (without needing to consider the mass). But the centrifugal force of stars orbiting the galaxy is directly proportional to the MASSES of the stars. Timo, because of what Ive just reasoned your Cavendish may not be sensitive enough. Until someone does an every star gravity weave calculation for, say, the Milky Way, I dont know if there is a 22.25% underestimate of star gravity, or a 5%. Consider this: If you can heat one ball white hot, and you DO detect a greater gravity, youve confirmed my theory. I suppose that a temperature-corrected Law of Universal Gravitation could take decades to validate. But that isnt all bad! Simply by understanding that temperature affects gravity, can begin being used to design, say, gravity drive spacecrafts. And Ive got THOSE on my to-do list! NoEinstein > > On May 5, 6:27 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 4, 7:59 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > Dear Timo: Obviously, you want an 'out'. You were so insistent that > > the numbers be right, and the math be done before performing > > experiments, that I assumed you were wanting ME to do all of those > > things. > > There is very little point in doing the experiment without knowing how > big the effect is supposed to be. If I know in advance that our > Cavendish apparatus isn't sensitive enough, there isn't any point in > trying the measurement using it. But this is simply a very elementary > idea in experimental physics, so you will already be thoroughly > familiar with it. > > Which is why your continued reluctance to actually say how large the > expected effect should be is truly baffling. Why, even a typical > physicist - an imbecile by your exalted standards - would be able to > do the quantitative prediction without too much trouble, perhaps with > a few hours of work. A genius of your level should have no trouble at > all, and certainly shouldn't take more than a few hours. Why would it > even take that long? Likely some tens of minutes at the most would > suffice. > > But once again, you refused to answer the question. Obviously, the > hotter the balls, the larger the effect, but _how much_ larger? Don't > you know? Can't you be bothered doing a calculation which should take > well under an hour for somebody of your claimed ability when it would > lend tremendous and convincing support to your theory? > > > But if you are wishing to do the experiment, yourself, why > > didn't you say just that? > > I did say just that. But it seems Mr Genius can't understand plain > English, or simply can't be bothered reading, because he's too busy > writing irrelevant essays to distract attention from having had an > error of billions of dollars per year pointed out. > > But because you showed so abundantly that you're a rude and abusive > arsehole, it clearly isn't worthwhile donating one's time, effort, and > equipment to you. > > Besides, you can't be bothered providing information - trivial for one > of your intellect to provide - that's necessary for experiment to be > useful, so again, it isn't worthwhile doing it. > > Getting concrete experimental support for your theory would be vastly > more convincing than endlessly repeating waffle, but you seem to > prefer the waffle. Enjoy!
From: NoEinstein on 6 May 2010 21:39 On May 5, 7:55 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear mpc755: The 'red' shifts at greater distances are due to the WEDGING effects of light rays crossing the paths of other light rays. The greater the distances, the longer the wedging processes have been going on. That's why the Universe isn't expanding! NoEinstein list! NoEinstein > > On May 5, 4:50 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 4, 9:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On May 4, 8:12 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 3, 11:54 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear mpc755: Like... the chicken or the egg, ETHER came before there > > > > was matter. The ether started spiraling as soon as the first star > > > > emitted light. That's how ether flows (like water down a drain)! So > > > > the ether was in close sync with the motions of the masses, not > > > > because the masses moved the ether, but because they were partners in > > > > a common DANCE! NoEinstein > > > > What is thought to be a 'Big Bang' is more of a 'Big Ongoing'. > > > IT NEVER HAPPENED AT ALL! NE > > It is more correct to say it is continually occurring. > > What is thought to be a 'Big Bang' is more of a 'Big Ongoing'. > > What we see in our telescopes is matter moving away from us. That does > not mean the universe itself is expanding. > > The following can be considered to be an image of an ongoing process: > > http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html > > The following can be considered to be an image of the universe, or the > local universe: > > http://www.feandft.com/BlackHole.jpg > > The top of the 'Black Hole' where the jet stream begins is analogous > to the 'Quantum Fluctuations' in the previous image. > > What is presently considered to be the 'Big Bang' is an ongoing > process. Material is continually emitted into the universal jet stream > at the ejection point which is the 'Quantum Fluctuations' point in the > previous image. This material is aether. At the '1st Stars' point of > the previous image is where the pressure is great enough to compress > aether into matter. As the matter continually moves away from the > emission point it enters the 'Development of Galaxies, Planets, etc.' > stage. This is where the matter expands in already existing three > dimensional space. This is what we mistake for an expanding universe. > This process continues until the material 'falls over the waterfall' > and winds up at the Rindler Horizon (the blue disk in the latter > image). The material is eventually re-emitted into the jet stream. > This is a continual process associated with the universe, or the local > universe.
From: NoEinstein on 6 May 2010 21:42 On May 5, 10:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: If you have "other" supporting evidence for Lorentz (ha!), paraphrase it! You are all bluster and no substance! NoEinstein > > On May 4, 7:22 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 4, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Whatever the truth is, PD contorts it. "Rubber Rulers" has no > > supporting experiment! Lorentz, the imbecile, used RR to 'explain' > > the nil results of M-M. Then, supposed scientists say that M-M > > SUPPORTS Lorentz! Where are the brains, and WHERE is the scientific > > method! NE > > Of course there are supporting experiments, John. You seem to be under > the impression that the MMX was the only experiment ever done to test > relativity and that the whole of relativity rests on this one > experiment, so that if you somehow fault the MMX, then all of > relativity falls. > > Nothing could be further from the truth, John. Relativity has been > tested in scores of experiments, all independent of each other. > > > > > > > > On May 3, 9:43 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 3, 11:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On May 1, 8:25 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 1, 11:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: You just said that "physics isn't > > > > > > determined by logic". Of course, you would think that! That's > > > > > > because you don't know HOW to reason! > > > > > > Well, it's because physics is a science, which means that it invokes > > > > > the scientific method, and it determines truth by experimental test, > > > > > not by logic. > > > > > Dear PD: WHERE was the "scientific method" when Lorentz proposed his > > > > ANTI-ENGINEERING, "rubber ruler" explanation for the nil results of M- > > > > M? > > > > Lorentz's proposal was subject to experimental test, NoEinstein. > > > That's how science works. > > > And what on earth makes you think that this stuff is "anti- > > > engineering"? > > > Perhaps you don't know that engineers make use of relativity in their > > > designs whenever it is needed? If it's anti-engineering, why are > > > engineers happy to use it as needed? > > > > > And where was the scientific method when both Coriolis and > > > > Einstein wrote energy equations that were exponential, and thus in > > > > violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy? > > > > Those energy equations have also been thoroughly tested in experiment, > > > John, exactly as I was stating. You on the other hand are trying to > > > rule them out with your bandy-legged logic, rather than considering > > > independently verified experimental tests. > > > > > When the truth be > > > > known, PD, is this low I. Q. flunky who compensates by constantly > > > > faulting his superiors. He has never stated a single contribution > > > > that he has made to science. For one who devotes so much time to.... > > > > 'science' shouldn't PD have... "something" to show for it? > > > > NoEinstein > > > > What do you think I should have to show for it, John? > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 6 May 2010 21:50 On May 5, 11:36 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD: When Maxwell urged Michelson to conduct the M-M experiment, they were expecting a uniform, velocity-proportional, drag on light. The major variant was the orientation of the instrument relative to Earth's velocity vector. Since velocity alone has NO effect on the length of any material (or ruler), then it's moot, indeed, to argue whether the plot of the... contraction (sic) is a waterfall curve, or linear. Neither contraction occurs! NoEinstein > > On May 5, 2:40 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 4, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 3, 9:43 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 3, 11:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On May 1, 8:25 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 1, 11:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: You just said that "physics isn't > > > > > > determined by logic". Of course, you would think that! That's > > > > > > because you don't know HOW to reason! > > > > > > Well, it's because physics is a science, which means that it invokes > > > > > the scientific method, and it determines truth by experimental test, > > > > > not by logic. > > > > > Dear PD: WHERE was the "scientific method" when Lorentz proposed his > > > > ANTI-ENGINEERING, "rubber ruler" explanation for the nil results of M- > > > > M? > > > > Lorentz's proposal was subject to experimental test, NoEinstein. > > > Dear PD: Show me any "test" proving that all materials shrink (or > > expand) an identical percentage in response to velocity changes, and > > the same amount regardless of the size and shape of the material. > > First of all, it would help if you understood what relativity actually > says. > * It does not say that materials shrink "an identical percentage in > response to velocity changes". The functional relationship between > length and velocity is certainly not a proportional one. It involves > the factor 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), which is nothing like a proportionality > to v. > * You seem to think that this shrinkage would be obvious to the naked > eye if it were in effect. It would be worth it for you to sit with a > calculator and actually figure out how much shorter something is if > it's moving at 10 mph, 100 mph, 1000 mph. Take a paper clip, measure > it, and then use the factor above to calculate how much shorter it > would be at those speeds. Then tell me whether this is in fact > something you should expect to notice with the naked eye. Numbers are > important, John. > * The shrinkage predicted by relativity only applies to reference > frames in which the object is observed to be *moving*. The paper clip > sitting on your desk is not moving in your reference frame, is it? (If > you claim it is, then you claim you are as well, and in that case, I > would ask you what you think your velocity is right this second. You > don't even have to give me a number. Just tell me how you *would* > calculate it. What is the reference point that you would mark your > velocity with respect to?) > > > If > > such a contraction occurred, loose paperclips on your desk would > > rotate like compass needles to be aligned perpendicular to the > > compressive force (sic) of velocity. Additionally, all of the matter > > in the Earth would be alternately squeezed and relaxed (due to the > > ever-changing velocity component of the Earth), until either the Earth > > became a molten BLOB, or until the Earth stopped rotating on its axis > > and orbiting the Sun. > > Again, you have a confusion about what relativity actually says. > Relativistic length changes are NOT due to a physical compression like > squeezing something in a vise or driving something through a wind. > > > > > > > Of course, all of those would mean that none of > > us are alive... So very sad... that you are so BRAINLESS! Ha, ha, > > HA! NoEinstein > > > > That's how science works. > > > And what on earth makes you think that this stuff is "anti- > > > engineering"? > > > Perhaps you don't know that engineers make use of relativity in their > > > designs whenever it is needed? If it's anti-engineering, why are > > > engineers happy to use it as needed? > > > > > And where was the scientific method when both Coriolis and > > > > Einstein wrote energy equations that were exponential, and thus in > > > > violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy? > > > > Those energy equations have also been thoroughly tested in experiment, > > > John, exactly as I was stating. You on the other hand are trying to > > > rule them out with your bandy-legged logic, rather than considering > > > independently verified experimental tests. > > > > > When the truth be > > > > known, PD, is this low I. Q. flunky who compensates by constantly > > > > faulting his superiors. He has never stated a single contribution > > > > that he has made to science. For one who devotes so much time to.... > > > > 'science' shouldn't PD have... "something" to show for it? > > > > NoEinstein > > > > What do you think I should have to show for it, John? > > You haven't answered this question, John. > > > > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 6 May 2010 21:54
On May 5, 11:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > OH? Then please explain, PD, how a UNIFORM force inputthe static weight of the falling objectcan cause a semi-parabolic increase in the KE. Haven't you heard?: Energy IN must = energy OUT! NoEinstein > > On May 4, 6:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 3, 11:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: IF, as you've just said, everyone knows > > that the KE equation (KE = 1/2mv^2) is inconsistent with the Law of > > the Conservation of energy, then you've just agreed that the former is > > WRONG! > > But I didn't say that, John. I said that the KE equation above is > completely CONSISTENT with the Law of Conservation of Energy. > > I think I've isolated the source of your great difficulties, John. You > cannot comprehend the meaning of a single sentence that you read. Did > you understand THAT? > > > > > The physicists whom YOU know may not be concerned, but the > > Laws of Nature are very, very mad, indeed! NoEinstein > > > > On May 1, 8:25 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 1, 11:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: You just said that "physics isn't > > > > determined by logic". Of course, you would think that! That's > > > > because you don't know HOW to reason! > > > > Well, it's because physics is a science, which means that it invokes > > > the scientific method, and it determines truth by experimental test, > > > not by logic. That is taught to 4th graders. Were you absent that day, > > > or did you determine in the 4th grade that your science teachers > > > didn't know what they were talking about and you realized then that > > > all of scientific truths could be determined by logic? > > > > > Einstein got physicists > > > > believing that ILLOGIC is where the most... I.Q. is. Since you > > > > understood nothing taught to you in physics (the right stuff nor the > > > > WRONG), you figured your strength was to fight anything and everything > > > > that wasnt COOKBOOKED from some out-of-date, McGraw-Hill, Jewish > > > > publication. > > > > > Tell me, PD, WHO on this EARTH is a qualification to confirm YOUR > > > > ideas about science? Anyone who understands math, and knows what the > > > > Law of the Conservation of Energy requires, will immediately confirm > > > > that Coriolis and Einstein had no earthly idea that KE and 'E' must > > > > not be exponential equations, but LINEAR equations (or additive). > > > > I'm sorry, John, but just about everyone except for you knows that the > > > Law of Conservation of Energy is completely consistent with the > > > expressions for kinetic energy and total energy. It seems to be only > > > you with the problem. Shouldn't that be a flag to you? > > > > If everyone in the world points to the same animal and calls it a > > > zebra, and you call it a penguin, does that make you a world-class > > > genius or a world-class fool? > > > > > Since you don't think COASTING increases an object's distance of > > > > travel, it is YOU, not me, needing others to confirm your stupidity! > > > > Ha, ha, HA! NoEinstein > > > > > > On Apr 30, 10:05 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 3:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: "We" (you and I) aren't having a > > > > > > discussion about science. You simply take the anti-thesis of any > > > > > > science truth, knowing that there are some naive readers who won't > > > > > > know the difference. It may sound 'high-and-mighty' for you to keep > > > > > > referring to... the experimental evidence, and the 'textbook' > > > > > > definitions, but you NEVER paraphrase a possible counterargument. You > > > > > > only claim that there is 'something', somewhere that disagrees with > > > > > > me. And you expect me to go look that up. > > > > > > Yes, indeed, because physics is not something that is settled by > > > > > puffed-up posturing and debate. > > > > > It is not something that is determined by force of logic. > > > > > You may be confusing physics with philosophy. > > > > > > Ultimately, the truth in physics is determined by careful and > > > > > independently confirmed experimental measurement. > > > > > That body of experimental evidence is documented and available to you. > > > > > It is referred to in textbooks, and references to it have been made > > > > > here to you. > > > > > > So yes, you are expected to look it up. > > > > > > ANYBODY doing physics is expected to look it up. > > > > > > > Folks, PD is the deep thinker (sic) who said that atomic decay is a > > > > > > "chemical reaction". And just today, he said that a car which is > > > > > > COASTING isn't increasing its "displacement". He has just proposed > > > > > > that... "displacement" is only apt to calculating, or measuring, an > > > > > > object's unit velocity. And since the unit velocity of the car > > > > > > doesn't change, he claims that coasting isn't increasing the distance > > > > > > of travel of the car. Can't most of you see how little PD cares about > > > > > > truth and logic? Does he think everyone but him is a fool? > > > > > > > *** Tell us this, PD: How many science experiments, of any kind, have > > > > > > YOU designed, built, and successfully tested? > > > > > > Are you sure you want to ask this question? My professional history is > > > > > as an experimental physicist, and my record is public. > > > > > Please don't puff yourself up as a songwriter when talking to a > > > > > professional musician. > > > > > It's not smart to put on airs as an expert on law when talking to a > > > > > judge. > > > > > > > I've made two most > > > > > > definitive tests which support the LOGIC that Coriolis's KE equation > > > > > > is not only WRONG, its so obviously in violation of the Law of the > > > > > > Conservation of Energy, that no experiments are needed, at all, to > > > > > > disprove: KE = 1/2mv^2; nor to similarly disprove E = mc^2 / beta. > > > > > > For you, a proof is only valid if it involves experiments which you > > > > > > have never cited, nor paraphrased, and definitions that you claim are > > > > > > in textbooks, but which you never quote. > > > > > > Two comments: > > > > > 1. Your experimental results will be worth something when confirmed by > > > > > an independent investigator. That is how it is done in science. Until > > > > > then, you are a self-feeding loop. > > > > > 2. Yes, I expect you to look up textbooks, as they are easy to find > > > > > even in your local library. I'm assuming that you are not under house > > > > > arrest, you aren't bedridden, that you have bus fare to get you > > > > > downtown, and that you are capable of reading when you get there. I'm > > > > > also assuming that you are not so pathologically lazy that you refuse > > > > > to budge your butt from your chair. > > > > > > > I recently told you that I had suspected that the readers agreed with > > > > > > my correctness our yours by two to one. But in light of your recent > > > > > > statements of utter stupidity, that number is probably closer to ten > > > > > > to one! > > > > > > This is just like you, to suspect something is true without a single > > > > > shred of tangible evidence. It's your style. > > > > > > > *** No scientist on Earth has more credibility than yours > > > > > > truly. *** If any think that they do, I would love for them to go > > > > > > head-to-head with me, so that I can kick their asses into solar > > > > > > orbit. Like those purported scientists, you, PD, dont have a leg, > > > > > > nor a stump to stand on. NoEinstein > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 2:18 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 10:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear PD: Some readers, who don't know either of us from Adam, may > > > > > > > > think that your sidestepping of science is credible. An attack on... > > > > > > > > the messenger (me) is a quick put-down that you had to have learned > > > > > > > > (tongue-in-cheekha!) very early won't work on me. If the regular > > > > > > > > readers of my posts and replies got to vote, they'd probably say that > > > > > > > > I'm beating you in the "one-up-manship" by a two to one margin. But > > > > > > > > you're still around because you won't stay on any discussion long > > > > > > > > enough to get the life squished out of your... 'science'. I enjoy > > > > > > > > knowing that you haven't won; can't; and won't win, PD. That > > > > > > > > qualifies you as a looser; doesn't it? NoEinstein > > > > > > > > I'm fascinated by this idea you have of winning or losing. > > > > > > > > We're having a discussion about physics. I'm explaining to you what we > > > > > > > know matches experiment, and what the definitions of the words are > > > > > > > that are used in physics, what the equations mean, and how that is > > > > > > > exemplified in measurements, and the fact that none of what we're > > > > > > > talking about is beyond 7th grade science level. > > > > > > > > You on the other hand seem to be more worried about winning some kind > > > > > > > of battle or contest, and to you winning means: > > > > > > > - that you talk longer than anyone else, ensuring that you always have > > > > > > > the last word > > > > > > > - that no one can *force* you to believe what 7th graders have no > > > > > > > difficulty understanding > > > > > > > - that no one can *force* to you stop talking > > > > > > > - that you stick by your guns, no matter what, regardless of how > > > > > > > stupid it starts to sound even to you > > > > > > > - disparaging your respondents by calling them negativists and other > > > > > > > assorted names > > > > > > > - that you have offered a retort to every single response to your > > > > > > > posts. > > > > > > > > By that metric, someone who firmly believes that 17+4=32, and who > > > > > > > insists on this long after the last person has walked away, and who > > > > > > > insists that 2nd grade math teachers are obviously wrong, and who is > > > > > > > proud that no one has been able to get him to stop saying 17+4=32, and > > > > > > > who calls people who believe otherwise to be ninnies and brainwashed > > > > > > > -- well, by golly, in your eyes that person has won > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |