Prev: CERN, LHC, strangelet = droplet of death. Copy this letter and send it to another forum; to physicists, politicians, prosecutors, terrorists; to citizens of Geneva and so on.
Next: NATURE: A CoGeNT result in the hunt for dark matter [?]
From: Marvin the Martian on 26 Mar 2010 13:37
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 07:44:56 -0700, PD wrote:

> All this is a rather tired and tiring exercise in debating the
> qualifications of a nebulous term like "great". The same exercise is
> applied to hockey players, presidents, and CEOs, with similar futility.
>
> There is no lack of people who are willing to try to depose a dead
> physicist from the ranks of greatness.

Lots of dead physicists are in the ranks of greatness. Newton, Maxwell,
Schrödinger, Lorentz...

Not Einstein. He's a poser who is known for other people's work. I
pointed that out a NUMBER OF TIMES already, and all you worshipper can do
is say "I don't think so". No, you don't "think" so. Someone else
programmed you to respond that way. There is no thinking on your part or
you would point out the original work that Einstein actually DID.

I really don't care what the mindless WHOREshippers spout. You just spout
what you're told to spout. It's pretty funny. I can rub your noses in it
and you're still stunned in disbelief! That's what you've been told all
your life, it CAN'T be wrong and you NEVER once questioned it. I just get
a kick of you all making fools of yourself proving you can't question
anything you've been programmed to believe.

Pretty damned funny. What a sorry species you humans are.
From: PD on 26 Mar 2010 13:50
On Mar 26, 12:37 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 07:44:56 -0700, PD wrote:
> > All this is a rather tired and tiring exercise in debating the
> > qualifications of a nebulous term like "great". The same exercise is
> > applied to hockey players, presidents, and CEOs, with similar futility.
>
> > There is no lack of people who are willing to try to depose a dead
> > physicist from the ranks of greatness.
>
> Lots of dead physicists are in the ranks of greatness. Newton, Maxwell,
> Schrödinger, Lorentz...
>
> Not Einstein. He's a poser who is known for other people's work. I
> pointed that out a NUMBER OF TIMES already, and all you worshipper can do
> is say "I don't think so". No, you don't "think" so. Someone else
> programmed you to respond that way. There is no thinking on your part or
> you would point out the original work that Einstein actually DID.

Again, I will point out that your estimation is based on YOUR metrics
and YOUR estimation of how these people met those metrics. Your
response to disagreement about that is, "Then you're brainwashed."

As an example, you apparently have it in your head that greatness
needs to be reserved for those that do WHOLLY original work, without
reliance on the work of others. By that measure, for example, Newton
falls short -- his first law of motion is Galileo's, not his.
Moreover, there is considerable controversy about whether Hooke owns
the inverse square relationship in the law of gravity. Even his
corpuscular theory of light was not original, and in fact it was
rejected in favor of Huygen's model. Similarly, Maxwell's work is
hardly original, borrowing heavily from Gauss, Ampere, Biot, Savart,
and Faraday.

As I said, nobody really cares what metric you are using to judge
these names. It appears that whatever metric you are using is being
used inconsistently. This in itself would seem to warrant good grounds
for disagreeing with you -- to which your response is to cry
"Brainwashed then!"

>
> I really don't care what the mindless WHOREshippers spout. You just spout
> what you're told to spout. It's pretty funny. I can rub your noses in it
> and you're still stunned in disbelief! That's what you've been told all
> your life, it CAN'T be wrong and you NEVER once questioned it. I just get
> a kick of you all making fools of yourself proving you can't question
> anything you've been programmed to believe.
>
> Pretty damned funny. What a sorry species you humans are.

From: Henry Wilson DSc on 26 Mar 2010 16:46
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:50:46 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 26, 12:37�pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 07:44:56 -0700, PD wrote:
>> > All this is a rather tired and tiring exercise in debating the
>> > qualifications of a nebulous term like "great". The same exercise is
>> > applied to hockey players, presidents, and CEOs, with similar futility.
>>
>> > There is no lack of people who are willing to try to depose a dead
>> > physicist from the ranks of greatness.
>>
>> Lots of dead physicists are in the ranks of greatness. Newton, Maxwell,
>> Schr�dinger, Lorentz...
>>
>> Not Einstein. He's a poser who is known for other people's work. I
>> pointed that out a NUMBER OF TIMES already, and all you worshipper can do
>> is say "I don't think so". No, you don't "think" so. Someone else
>> programmed you to respond that way. There is no thinking on your part or
>> you would point out the original work that Einstein actually DID.
>
>Again, I will point out that your estimation is based on YOUR metrics
>and YOUR estimation of how these people met those metrics. Your
>response to disagreement about that is, "Then you're brainwashed."
>
>As an example, you apparently have it in your head that greatness
>needs to be reserved for those that do WHOLLY original work, without
>reliance on the work of others. By that measure, for example, Newton
>falls short -- his first law of motion is Galileo's, not his.
>Moreover, there is considerable controversy about whether Hooke owns
>the inverse square relationship in the law of gravity. Even his
>corpuscular theory of light was not original, and in fact it was
>rejected in favor of Huygen's model. Similarly, Maxwell's work is
>hardly original, borrowing heavily from Gauss, Ampere, Biot, Savart,
>and Faraday.
>
>As I said, nobody really cares what metric you are using to judge
>these names. It appears that whatever metric you are using is being
>used inconsistently. This in itself would seem to warrant good grounds
>for disagreeing with you -- to which your response is to cry
>"Brainwashed then!"
>
>>
>> I really don't care what the mindless WHOREshippers spout. You just spout
>> what you're told to spout. It's pretty funny. I can rub your noses in it
>> and you're still stunned in disbelief! That's what you've been told all
>> your life, it CAN'T be wrong and you NEVER once questioned it. I just get
>> a kick of you all making fools of yourself proving you can't question
>> anything you've been programmed to believe.
>>
>> Pretty damned funny. What a sorry species you humans are.

Marvin is right. You are just like a bunch of parrrots...incapable of thinking
for youself.

Henry Wilson...

........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: PD on 26 Mar 2010 17:08
On Mar 26, 3:46 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:50:46 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 26, 12:37 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 07:44:56 -0700, PD wrote:
> >> > All this is a rather tired and tiring exercise in debating the
> >> > qualifications of a nebulous term like "great". The same exercise is
> >> > applied to hockey players, presidents, and CEOs, with similar futility.
>
> >> > There is no lack of people who are willing to try to depose a dead
> >> > physicist from the ranks of greatness.
>
> >> Lots of dead physicists are in the ranks of greatness. Newton, Maxwell,
> >> Schrödinger, Lorentz...
>
> >> Not Einstein. He's a poser who is known for other people's work. I
> >> pointed that out a NUMBER OF TIMES already, and all you worshipper can do
> >> is say "I don't think so". No, you don't "think" so. Someone else
> >> programmed you to respond that way. There is no thinking on your part or
> >> you would point out the original work that Einstein actually DID.
>
> >Again, I will point out that your estimation is based on YOUR metrics
> >and YOUR estimation of how these people met those metrics. Your
> >response to disagreement about that is, "Then you're brainwashed."
>
> >As an example, you apparently have it in your head that greatness
> >needs to be reserved for those that do WHOLLY original work, without
> >reliance on the work of others. By that measure, for example, Newton
> >falls short -- his first law of motion is Galileo's, not his.
> >Moreover, there is considerable controversy about whether Hooke owns
> >the inverse square relationship in the law of gravity. Even his
> >corpuscular theory of light was not original, and in fact it was
> >rejected in favor of Huygen's model. Similarly, Maxwell's work is
> >hardly original, borrowing heavily from Gauss, Ampere, Biot, Savart,
> >and Faraday.
>
> >As I said, nobody really cares what metric you are using to judge
> >these names. It appears that whatever metric you are using is being
> >used inconsistently. This in itself would seem to warrant good grounds
> >for disagreeing with you -- to which your response is to cry
> >"Brainwashed then!"
>
> >> I really don't care what the mindless WHOREshippers spout. You just spout
> >> what you're told to spout. It's pretty funny. I can rub your noses in it
> >> and you're still stunned in disbelief! That's what you've been told all
> >> your life, it CAN'T be wrong and you NEVER once questioned it. I just get
> >> a kick of you all making fools of yourself proving you can't question
> >> anything you've been programmed to believe.
>
> >> Pretty damned funny. What a sorry species you humans are.
>
> Marvin is right. You are just like a bunch of parrrots...incapable of thinking
> for youself.

What's remarkable, Henri, is that you believe that, even if the
thinking for yourself results in blindingly stupid conclusions, it is
nevertheless a virtue.

>
> Henry Wilson...
>
> .......A person's IQ = his snipping ability.

From: BURT on 26 Mar 2010 18:58
On Mar 26, 2:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 3:46 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:50:46 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Mar 26, 12:37 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 07:44:56 -0700, PD wrote:
> > >> > All this is a rather tired and tiring exercise in debating the
> > >> > qualifications of a nebulous term like "great". The same exercise is
> > >> > applied to hockey players, presidents, and CEOs, with similar futility.
>
> > >> > There is no lack of people who are willing to try to depose a dead
> > >> > physicist from the ranks of greatness.
>
> > >> Lots of dead physicists are in the ranks of greatness. Newton, Maxwell,
> > >> Schrödinger, Lorentz...
>
> > >> Not Einstein. He's a poser who is known for other people's work. I
> > >> pointed that out a NUMBER OF TIMES already, and all you worshipper can do
> > >> is say "I don't think so". No, you don't "think" so. Someone else
> > >> programmed you to respond that way. There is no thinking on your part or
> > >> you would point out the original work that Einstein actually DID.
>
> > >Again, I will point out that your estimation is based on YOUR metrics
> > >and YOUR estimation of how these people met those metrics. Your
> > >response to disagreement about that is, "Then you're brainwashed."
>
> > >As an example, you apparently have it in your head that greatness
> > >needs to be reserved for those that do WHOLLY original work, without
> > >reliance on the work of others. By that measure, for example, Newton
> > >falls short -- his first law of motion is Galileo's, not his.
> > >Moreover, there is considerable controversy about whether Hooke owns
> > >the inverse square relationship in the law of gravity. Even his
> > >corpuscular theory of light was not original, and in fact it was
> > >rejected in favor of Huygen's model. Similarly, Maxwell's work is
> > >hardly original, borrowing heavily from Gauss, Ampere, Biot, Savart,
> > >and Faraday.
>
> > >As I said, nobody really cares what metric you are using to judge
> > >these names. It appears that whatever metric you are using is being
> > >used inconsistently. This in itself would seem to warrant good grounds
> > >for disagreeing with you -- to which your response is to cry
> > >"Brainwashed then!"
>
> > >> I really don't care what the mindless WHOREshippers spout. You just spout
> > >> what you're told to spout. It's pretty funny. I can rub your noses in it
> > >> and you're still stunned in disbelief! That's what you've been told all
> > >> your life, it CAN'T be wrong and you NEVER once questioned it. I just get
> > >> a kick of you all making fools of yourself proving you can't question
> > >> anything you've been programmed to believe.
>
> > >> Pretty damned funny. What a sorry species you humans are.
>
> > Marvin is right. You are just like a bunch of parrrots...incapable of thinking
> > for youself.
>
> What's remarkable, Henri, is that you believe that, even if the
> thinking for yourself results in blindingly stupid conclusions, it is
> nevertheless a virtue.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Henry Wilson...
>
> > .......A person's IQ = his snipping ability.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

We can't predict in which direction a particle will vibrate but that
uncertainty means absolutely nothing at all.
Unceratainty in its proper place is not what QM want to think it is.
"God does not play dice with the universe."
But particles do vibrate and even radiate stochastic.

Mitch Raemsch
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Prev: CERN, LHC, strangelet = droplet of death. Copy this letter and send it to another forum; to physicists, politicians, prosecutors, terrorists; to citizens of Geneva and so on.
Next: NATURE: A CoGeNT result in the hunt for dark matter [?]