Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Juan R." González-Álvarez
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:16 am Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
 |
|
Eric Gisse wrote on Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:10:01 -0700:
| Quote: |
On Jul 13, 5:35Â am, "Pmb" <physics_wo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Juan R. González-Ãlvarez" <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
messagenews:pan.2008.07.13.11.15.33@canonicalscience.com...
Eric Gisse wrote on Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:24:46 -0700:
On Jul 12, 7:20 am, "Juan R." González-Ãlvarez
juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[snip]
See this is what happen when you think you know physics :-)
I was wrong on a subtle technical point. It happens.
Subtle? You call a major misunderstanding of the Lagrangian sublte?
Thinking that L = T - U works in relativity is far from being subtle.
Its a serious misunderstanding
Yet neither you or Juan could explain why it was wrong.
|
Of course crackpot!
It is pretty obvious it was just a chance we found five or more
consecutive mistakes in your posts (H = L), H < 0, the square root, (T +
V) and (T - V), H(v) and so on. I will cite the complete list in USENET
guidelines.
It was also a chance that Juan wrote the right Lagrangian and then
derived the right Hamiltonian from the Legendre...
Each time we find a mistake in your usual nonsensical postings, may be
explained like a kind of cosmic chance: it is pretty obvious that others
find your outrage and obvious mistakes but without knowing why and point
to correct expression also by magic coincidence.
This is known like the "Eric law of self-delusion".
"Self-delusion" because you are lying nobody more than yourself :-)
| Quote: |
If you want me
to persist in believing that I'm right and your not, the quickest way to
doing that is sit there and shrilly shriek about how wrong I am and then
refuse to explain yourself.
Like Daryl said, bad faith arguing.
|
Both you and Daryl proved your definition of "good faith".
You insulted to Pete several times saying that he was in mistake (when he
was just pointing your numerous errors). Pete was *right* and you
completely *wrong* as now you even accept that, still you have not
rectified not a single of your former insults to Pete.
Daryl defined a crackpot like someone who writes the correct Lagrangian
the correct Legendre, the correct Hamiltonian and point to other right
points as the fact that H cannot be negative in SR.
Daryl did not defined as crackpot someone (e.g. Eric) who wrote the wrong
Lagrangian the wrong transformation, the wrong Hamiltonian, wrong
negative energies...
Daryl just repeated the stuff contained in the original poster (e.g. the
correct transformation and the correct final Hamiltonian are in the
original poster by me) and also pointed the Lagrangian in proper frame
which, except by a minus sign was already present in a 2007 blog article
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/08/relativistic-lagrangian-and-
limitations.html
*All* Daryl wrote is already present in both the original message and the
blog article from the same author he insulted as crackpot. That is Daryl
definition of "good faith" and this will be adequately noticed in the
guidelines.
| Quote: |
Yes, I didn't know/completely forgot that the Lagrangian has to be
quadratic in the generalized velocities for that to hold - that's my
mistake, but still not a large as one as you want to believe.
|
This is another lie. You did about six or seven *serious* mistakes would
perplex any teacher or undergraduate student. Each one of your mistakes
was detected and noticed even when you negated that after.
| Quote: |
However,
both you and Juan are still intellectually dishonest people who do not
argue fairly. You treat it like it is a contest, rather than as a chance
to learn.
|
This is a very dishonest accusation will be also cited in the guidelines.
When a guy want to learn, heard others are saying him and don't start to
insult them whereas rejecting did any mistake.
For example Pete noticed that your Lagrangian was wrong since very early
but you claimed he had not noticed the lack of the square root.
And when finally proven to be wrong then you would write "Sorry I was
wrong you are right" instead trying to play this liar game.
| Quote: |
No, it was outrage mistake that nobody else did, except another
crackpot: Dono :-)
All you could do was stamp your feet and scream about how wrong I
was. When pressed you couldn't/wouldn't explain why.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
I predicted in a previous post to Pete you would try some lye as this
when you could not hide your mistake more and... look and I was
*right*.
Jesus it is "lie", lye is sodium hydroxide.
I'm waiting for him to post his *derivation*. IF you'd like I can
e-mail the dervivation to you so you can compare it with Eric's sure to
be mistake? I'd post it here but I want to see if Eric can do it
himself.
Pete
Why should I? Neither of you are interesting in learning - you are just
looking for another opportunity to crow.
|
That is not true, I want learn how many idiocies a man as you can post,
how you insult other being right when simply point your mistakes, how
many ways to misread something you can, how many lies you will be
inventing for next weeks to hide your nonsenses...
I also said you that I was learning all that for a future version of
guidelines and I communicated this in public. And you agreed. Remember?
| Quote: |
If I get it wrong in any way,
you got what you are looking for. If I get it right, you simply claim I
"copied it from a textbook" to save face.
|
This was Dono accusation.
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." González-Álvarez
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:18 am Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote on Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:53:34 -0700:
| Quote: |
On Jul 13, 6:55 am, "Juan R." González-Ãlvarez
juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
A less convoluted approach starts from arguments about worldlines for
free particles with invariant action
A = \Int k ds
where k is a constant which is found to be k = -mc
...and how is that _any different_ from what Daryl did?
|
Learn to read crackpot
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." González-Álvarez
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:22 am Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
Dono wrote on Sun, 13 Jul 2008 08:02:59 -0700:
| Quote: |
On Jul 13, 7:55 am, "JuanShito R." González-Ãlvarez
juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
A less convoluted approach starts from arguments about worldlines for
free particles with invariant action
A = \Int k ds
where k is a constant which is found to be k = -mc
From the above action one can find the coordinate frame Lagrangian
A = \Int k ds = \Int L dt
PRETENDER.
|
Crackpot
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2008-07/
msg00824.html
(\blockquote
JuanShit,
You ARE an idiot, the relativistic Lagrangian is indeed:
L=-m_0*c^2 *(1-(v/c)^2)
MULTIPLICATION, Shito. Not division. PRETENDER.
)
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." González-Álvarez
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:23 am Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote on Mon, 14 Jul 2008 02:07:36 -0700:
| Quote: |
On Jul 14, 12:40 am, "Juan R." González-Ãlvarez
juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[...]
Why Tom? Why you did not comment on those obvious nonsenses?
Because it is not his job to babysit me, nor is it his job to act on
every imagined slight against you.
|
Are you Tom or Eric the crackpot?
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Eric Gisse
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:13 pm Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
[snip whatever]
I'm not going through that giant whine fest.
You have successfully blown enough smoke to cover up the initial
mistakes in your OP and initial replies by focusing on a mistake on my
part.
Yes I made it much much worse by responding the way I do, but either
you or Pete could have stopped me in my tracks. All you had to do was
take 30 seconds to explain that the classical T-V / T+V relations I
assumed to remain at some level were not true because of the
functional form of the Lagrangian. I even ASKED YOU to show the
derivation of the Hamiltonian.
Again - bad faith arguing. This is my last post to this thread, but
don't let it stop the gloating and crowing. God knows your ego needs
all the fuel it can get its' hands on since this newsgroup is the only
place in existence that lets you feel intelligent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." González-Álvarez
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:56 pm Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote on Mon, 14 Jul 2008 05:13:49 -0700:
| Quote: |
You have successfully blown enough smoke to cover up the initial
mistakes in your OP
|
I like this fantasy from you! I will add to guidelines :-)
| Quote: |
and initial replies by focusing on a mistake on my
part.
|
You are not reading crackpot: *mistakes* (plural).
| Quote: |
Yes I made it much much worse by responding the way I do, but either you
or Pete could have stopped me in my tracks.
|
We did and you reacted as the troll you are: negating and insulting.
| Quote: |
All you had to do was take
30 seconds to explain that the classical T-V / T+V relations I assumed
to remain at some level were not true because of the functional form of
the Lagrangian.
|
But you were warned about *that* and also about the other mistakes you
were doing and then you *FIRST* (and Dono next) started to insult instead
recognizing your mistakes...
| Quote: |
I even ASKED YOU to show the derivation of the
Hamiltonian.
|
Derivation is in the original poster. But ignore it, crackpot, and
continue to lie.
| Quote: |
Again - bad faith arguing. This is my last post to this thread, but
|
Sure?
| Quote: |
don't let it stop the gloating and crowing. God knows your ego needs all
the fuel it can get its' hands on since this newsgroup is the only place
in existence that lets you feel intelligent.
|
Are you looking in the mirror when writing that?
I don't invited to nasty people as you or Dono to enter in this thread.
But both of you could not resist the temptation to enter and insult
illustrating us with your pathetic wisdom of physics...
Who followed me from this newsgroup to sci.physics.foundations and
started to post there replying to my posts until being warned in public
by moderators?
Yes, one crackpot called Eric Gisse.
But I am *sure* you don't learn the lesson from this time and, in some
near future, you will troll again in some other posting from me.
Crackpots as you and Dono never learn.
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Cosmik de Bris
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 1:28 am Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:13:49 +1200, Eric Gisse wrote
(in article
<425617bb-4b25-4c6d-9839-cb9b1c8ba116@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>):
| Quote: |
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
[snip whatever]
I'm not going through that giant whine fest.
|
Eric, let Juan and Pete go, they don't contribute anything to this group and
you have. You may be a little brash at times but I've learnt a lot from you.
It's funny how Juan and Pete have dismissed and insulted the intelligence of
the most knowledgeable people on this group and just dogmatically asserted
their falsehoods with no proof. Put your time into those who want to learn.
Cheers.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." González-Álvarez
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:28 am Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
Cosmik de Bris wrote on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:28:25 +1200:
| Quote: |
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:13:49 +1200, Eric Gisse wrote (in article
425617bb-4b25-4c6d-9839-cb9b1c8ba116@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>):
Juan R. González-Ãlvarez wrote:
[snip whatever]
I'm not going through that giant whine fest.
Eric, let Juan and Pete go, they don't contribute anything to this group
and you have. You may be a little brash at times but I've learnt a lot
from you. It's funny how Juan and Pete have dismissed and insulted the
intelligence of the most knowledgeable people on this group and just
dogmatically asserted their falsehoods with no proof. Put your time into
those who want to learn.
Cheers.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
|
Then welcome to the list of people who did learn from Eric the next
nonsense
(\blockquote
No. The special relativistic Hamiltonian is
H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/ c^2 ].
)
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter M. Brown
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:47 am Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
"Juan R. González-Álvarez" <juanREMOVE@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
message news:pan.2008.07.15.08.30.00@canonicalscience.com...
| Quote: |
Cosmik de Bris wrote on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:28:25 +1200:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:13:49 +1200, Eric Gisse wrote (in article
425617bb-4b25-4c6d-9839-cb9b1c8ba116@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>):
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
[snip whatever]
I'm not going through that giant whine fest.
Eric, let Juan and Pete go, they don't contribute anything to this group
and you have. You may be a little brash at times but I've learnt a lot
from you. It's funny how Juan and Pete have dismissed and insulted the
intelligence of the most knowledgeable people on this group and just
dogmatically asserted their falsehoods with no proof. Put your time into
those who want to learn.
Cheers.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Then welcome to the list of people who did learn from Eric the next
nonsense
(\blockquote
No. The special relativistic Hamiltonian is
H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/ c^2 ].
)
|
Juan - Why are you conversing with people like Cosmik de Bris, Eric and
Dono. Each has proven that they are not worth conversing with? That's why I
blocked each a while back.
Pete |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." González-Álvarez
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:39 am Post subject: Re: new USENET guidelines (was: massless or massive photon?) |
|
|
Peter M. Brown wrote on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:47:58 -0400:
Peter M. Brown wrote on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:47:58 -0400:
| Quote: |
"Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez" <juanREMOVE@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
message news:pan.2008.07.15.08.30.00@canonicalscience.com...
Cosmik de Bris wrote on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:28:25 +1200:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:13:49 +1200, Eric Gisse wrote (in article
425617bb-4b25-4c6d-9839-cb9b1c8ba116@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>):
Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez wrote:
[snip whatever]
I'm not going through that giant whine fest.
Eric, let Juan and Pete go, they don't contribute anything to this
group and you have. You may be a little brash at times but I've learnt
a lot from you. It's funny how Juan and Pete have dismissed and
insulted the intelligence of the most knowledgeable people on this
group and just dogmatically asserted their falsehoods with no proof.
Put your time into those who want to learn.
Cheers.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Then welcome to the list of people who did learn from Eric the next
nonsense
(\blockquote
No. The special relativistic Hamiltonian is H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/
c^2 ].
)
Juan - Why are you conversing with people like Cosmik de Bris, Eric and
Dono. Each has proven that they are not worth conversing with? That's
why I blocked each a while back.
Pete
|
Hi, Pete. Let me explain that.
When I read nonsenses, insults, and other nasty messages from people like
Bilge, Dono (then Karandash2), Eric, Tom... I prepared a group of
guidelines
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
with recommendations. I know that the recommendation to ignore nasty
comment is difficult to follow sometimes. Also the recommendations to
ignore nasty posters didn't work as waited.
It only worked for the more beginner trolls, who after a time being
ignored not more reply you, but it didn't worked for trolls of poor
species as Eric and Dono.
Crackpot Dono has continued with lies, insults, and /ad hominems/ during
more than a year probably believing he could say *anything* he want
without waiting a reply from my part.
Crackpot Eric has continued to invent mistakes in my posts in his usual
pathetic style. When I ignored his insults, lies, and nonsenses in
sci.physics.relativity then he followed me to sci.physics.foundations and
sci.physics.research. To my surprise their posts passed moderation and
were posted in sci.physics.foundations!
I initially ignored Eric nonsense and /ad hominem/ on s.p.f but some
people complained about Eric messages and his usual attacks on me, and
then one discussion started in that moderated newsgroup this year, with
one moderator calling attention to "Mr. Gisse" in public:
(\blockquote
At this point I would just ask Mr. Gisse (and all) to please try to be
more polite and diplomatic in their replies.
)
Then was when I really considered the idea of changing the guidelines and
react to the permanent attacks, lies, straw man, misreadings...
The issue was how react to attacks, noticing the crackpots to novice
readers, and still maintaining the noise to a minimum all at once? This is
difficult but I think I have some ideas about that. I have discussed this
off-line with other posters of moderated and non-moderated groups. For
example Murray Arnow from sci.physics.research has provided me a guideline
is now introduced in the new version.
I am now preparing that new version of the USENET guidelines and will be
updated in a few days.
The new guidelines introduce new tactics to beat the trolls and the
crackpots and unlike the previous version also introduce examples of nasty
content. As promised before I introduce samples of nasty content from Tom
Roberts, Eric, and Dono.
For example the guidelines now include Eric above nonsense
(\blockquote
No. The special relativistic Hamiltonian is H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/ c^2
].
)
and also his arrogant "Yea but I'm smarter than both of you. By such a
wide margin it boggles the mind".
Like example of the kind of nasty troll you can find on online discussion.
Also as noticed here recently
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/brief-presentation-of-
canonical-science.html
a future Micro-thought will be "Some samples of USENET fauna"
There I will cite many examples and links to nasty content.
Crackpot Eric *mistakes* and obvious *nonsenses* (both plural).
Crackpot Dono writing nonsense and next deleting his message from Groups
and then starting a lie about all that without noticing that his nonsense
even after deleted from Groups is still archived in other servers
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2008-07/
msg00824.html
Daryl 'bad faith' and mistakes...
Tom Roberts perennial straw man and lies...
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Albertito
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:07 pm Post subject: Re: new USENET guidelines (was: massless or massive photon?) |
|
|
On Jul 16, 12:39 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Peter M. Brown wrote on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:47:58 -0400:
Peter M. Brown wrote on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:47:58 -0400:
"Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez" <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
messagenews:pan.2008.07.15.08.30.00@canonicalscience.com...
Cosmik de Bris wrote on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:28:25 +1200:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:13:49 +1200, Eric Gisse wrote (in article
425617bb-4b25-4c6d-9839-cb9b1c8ba...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>):
Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez wrote:
[snip whatever]
I'm not going through that giant whine fest.
Eric, let Juan and Pete go, they don't contribute anything to this
group and you have. You may be a little brash at times but I've learnt
a lot from you. It's funny how Juan and Pete have dismissed and
insulted the intelligence of the most knowledgeable people on this
group and just dogmatically asserted their falsehoods with no proof.
Put your time into those who want to learn.
Cheers.
** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**
Then welcome to the list of people who did learn from Eric the next
nonsense
(\blockquote
No. The special relativistic Hamiltonian is H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/
c^2 ].
)
Juan - Why are you conversing with people like Cosmik de Bris, Eric and
Dono. Each has proven that they are not worth conversing with? That's
why I blocked each a while back.
Pete
Hi, Pete. Let me explain that.
When I read nonsenses, insults, and other nasty messages from people like
Bilge, Dono (then Karandash2), Eric, Tom... I prepared a group of
guidelines
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
with recommendations. I know that the recommendation to ignore nasty
comment is difficult to follow sometimes. Also the recommendations to
ignore nasty posters didn't work as waited.
It only worked for the more beginner trolls, who after a time being
ignored not more reply you, but it didn't worked for trolls of poor
species as Eric and Dono.
Crackpot Dono has continued with lies, insults, and /ad hominems/ during
more than a year probably believing he could say *anything* he want
without waiting a reply from my part.
Crackpot Eric has continued to invent mistakes in my posts in his usual
pathetic style. When I ignored his insults, lies, and nonsenses in
sci.physics.relativity then he followed me to sci.physics.foundations and
sci.physics.research. To my surprise their posts passed moderation and
were posted in sci.physics.foundations!
I initially ignored Eric nonsense and /ad hominem/ on s.p.f but some
people complained about Eric messages and his usual attacks on me, and
then one discussion started in that moderated newsgroup this year, with
one moderator calling attention to "Mr. Gisse" in public:
(\blockquote
At this point I would just ask Mr. Gisse (and all) to please try to be
more polite and diplomatic in their replies.
)
Then was when I really considered the idea of changing the guidelines and
react to the permanent attacks, lies, straw man, misreadings...
The issue was how react to attacks, noticing the crackpots to novice
readers, and still maintaining the noise to a minimum all at once? This is
difficult but I think I have some ideas about that. I have discussed this
off-line with other posters of moderated and non-moderated groups. For
example Murray Arnow from sci.physics.research has provided me a guideline
is now introduced in the new version.
I am now preparing that new version of the USENET guidelines and will be
updated in a few days.
The new guidelines introduce new tactics to beat the trolls and the
crackpots and unlike the previous version also introduce examples of nasty
content. As promised before I introduce samples of nasty content from Tom
Roberts, Eric, and Dono.
For example the guidelines now include Eric above nonsense
(\blockquote
No. The special relativistic Hamiltonian is H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/ c^2
].
)
and also his arrogant "Yea but I'm smarter than both of you. By such a
wide margin it boggles the mind".
Like example of the kind of nasty troll you can find on online discussion..
Also as noticed here recently
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/brief-presentation-of-
canonical-science.html
a future Micro-thought will be "Some samples of USENET fauna"
There I will cite many examples and links to nasty content.
Crackpot Eric *mistakes* and obvious *nonsenses* (both plural).
Crackpot Dono writing nonsense and next deleting his message from Groups
and then starting a lie about all that without noticing that his nonsense
even after deleted from Groups is still archived in other servers
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2008-07/
msg00824.html
Daryl 'bad faith' and mistakes...
Tom Roberts perennial straw man and lies...
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE) http://canonicalscience.org
|
Hi Juan,
Don't forget to include in your guidelines how the
troll Dono does thousands of fake rates to posts,
exploiting that feature from google groups,
:-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
galathaea
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:50 pm Post subject: Re: new USENET guidelines (was: massless or massive photon?) |
|
|
On Jul 16, 4:39 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Peter M. Brown wrote on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:47:58 -0400:
Peter M. Brown wrote on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:47:58 -0400:
"Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez" <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
messagenews:pan.2008.07.15.08.30.00@canonicalscience.com...
Cosmik de Bris wrote on Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:28:25 +1200:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:13:49 +1200, Eric Gisse wrote (in article
425617bb-4b25-4c6d-9839-cb9b1c8ba...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>):
Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez wrote:
[snip whatever]
I'm not going through that giant whine fest.
Eric, let Juan and Pete go, they don't contribute anything to this
group and you have. You may be a little brash at times but I've learnt
a lot from you. It's funny how Juan and Pete have dismissed and
insulted the intelligence of the most knowledgeable people on this
group and just dogmatically asserted their falsehoods with no proof.
Put your time into those who want to learn.
Cheers.
** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**
Then welcome to the list of people who did learn from Eric the next
nonsense
(\blockquote
No. The special relativistic Hamiltonian is H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/
c^2 ].
)
Juan - Why are you conversing with people like Cosmik de Bris, Eric and
Dono. Each has proven that they are not worth conversing with? That's
why I blocked each a while back.
Pete
Hi, Pete. Let me explain that.
When I read nonsenses, insults, and other nasty messages from people like
Bilge, Dono (then Karandash2), Eric, Tom... I prepared a group of
guidelines
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
with recommendations. I know that the recommendation to ignore nasty
comment is difficult to follow sometimes. Also the recommendations to
ignore nasty posters didn't work as waited.
It only worked for the more beginner trolls, who after a time being
ignored not more reply you, but it didn't worked for trolls of poor
species as Eric and Dono.
Crackpot Dono has continued with lies, insults, and /ad hominems/ during
more than a year probably believing he could say *anything* he want
without waiting a reply from my part.
Crackpot Eric has continued to invent mistakes in my posts in his usual
pathetic style. When I ignored his insults, lies, and nonsenses in
sci.physics.relativity then he followed me to sci.physics.foundations and
sci.physics.research. To my surprise their posts passed moderation and
were posted in sci.physics.foundations!
I initially ignored Eric nonsense and /ad hominem/ on s.p.f but some
people complained about Eric messages and his usual attacks on me, and
then one discussion started in that moderated newsgroup this year, with
one moderator calling attention to "Mr. Gisse" in public:
(\blockquote
At this point I would just ask Mr. Gisse (and all) to please try to be
more polite and diplomatic in their replies.
)
Then was when I really considered the idea of changing the guidelines and
react to the permanent attacks, lies, straw man, misreadings...
The issue was how react to attacks, noticing the crackpots to novice
readers, and still maintaining the noise to a minimum all at once? This is
difficult but I think I have some ideas about that. I have discussed this
off-line with other posters of moderated and non-moderated groups. For
example Murray Arnow from sci.physics.research has provided me a guideline
is now introduced in the new version.
I am now preparing that new version of the USENET guidelines and will be
updated in a few days.
The new guidelines introduce new tactics to beat the trolls and the
crackpots and unlike the previous version also introduce examples of nasty
content. As promised before I introduce samples of nasty content from Tom
Roberts, Eric, and Dono.
For example the guidelines now include Eric above nonsense
(\blockquote
No. The special relativistic Hamiltonian is H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/ c^2
].
)
and also his arrogant "Yea but I'm smarter than both of you. By such a
wide margin it boggles the mind".
Like example of the kind of nasty troll you can find on online discussion..
Also as noticed here recently
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/brief-presentation-of-
canonical-science.html
a future Micro-thought will be "Some samples of USENET fauna"
There I will cite many examples and links to nasty content.
Crackpot Eric *mistakes* and obvious *nonsenses* (both plural).
Crackpot Dono writing nonsense and next deleting his message from Groups
and then starting a lie about all that without noticing that his nonsense
even after deleted from Groups is still archived in other servers
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2008-07/
msg00824.html
Daryl 'bad faith' and mistakes...
Tom Roberts perennial straw man and lies...
|
juan
please don't waste your time on these guys
really
they are losers
they have always been losers
and they know it too
so they try desperately to be "better" than others
thinking that's what will make them not-losers
and they grasp onto any certainty they can find
this is what attracts them to physics
because they think if they remember enough "truths"
that they find in books they think are authoritative
they will know more than others
and can then demean them and feel good about themselves
and they fail at even that
mistaking "currently well-accepted models" as truth
and regularly falling for the same fundamentalism
that they will happily attack others for
just move on
most intelligent readers will enjoy your posts
which regularly show earnest appreciation for exploration
and a well-rounded knowledge of the literature
i know it can seem unfair
when only the bigots post responses to you
and no one steps in and says
"hey, but he's right about x, y, and z"
but that is a burden of time many don't want
even if they think it while reading
if you'd like some cheering up
possibly you'd enjoy a thread with bilge and i
dating all the way back to 2003
my involvement started with a post on bohmian mechanics
correcting some of bilge's (pop-physics) misunderstandings
on the nature of quantum theory
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/7164ddd0fa54d2bf
it quickly devolved
as bilge began to hold onto certain wrong arguments
a bit uncomfortably long even for him i suppose
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/26b76d1a85a31a4b
and then his argument suddenly switched
once he realised even his source believed the points i was making
fortunately
his quick searches of the internet turned up another
flawed
argument for him to hold onto
he started snipping out his old errors
and i so renamed the thread and switched the name
so i could summarise the thread so far and present references
which i had hoped would satisfy him
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/7e364f47559e66cc
unfortunately
as i am sure you have found out quite well by now
bilge doesn't read references
at least
not when he is trying to maintain
his fundamentalising avoidance obsessions
unable to understand the math
he quickly moved to questioning the dates of the arguments
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/680c5f535b083354
eventually i have to hold his hand on the arguments
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/b77f79bc5129f1e1
and then the thread devolves into
bilge creating new arguments and abandoning quickly
bilge snipping any real math or derivations
and all the while
to the bitter end
bilge is still fully convinced he is right
as you will see if you explore the thread
i wasted a good month of usenet posting
(actually a bit more)
on this waste of space
bilge has no shame
neither does eric
they will continue to be eric and bilge
to the bitter end
it may be frustrating to you
because they do have "just enough" knowledge
that it looks like they are earnestly interested in physics
they are not
their posting history makes it very clear what their drive really is
they just want to be better than you
you won't change that
i won't change that
let's not waste any _more_ of our time on them...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dono
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:40 pm Post subject: Re: new USENET guidelines (was: massless or massive photon?) |
|
|
On Jul 16, 2:17 pm, "Peter M. Brown-nose" <some...@someplace.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
As you know I've recently seen an example of that, i.e. his changing of what
is recorded in google. Have you reported this to google yet? He could get
into very serious trouble for this. He'd deserve everything he got too. In
fact I think I'll E-mail Google now on this point.  So whatever Dono says
must be assumed to be a lie unless one already knows differently.
|
Still spending time with your nose up Juanshito's ass, Petey? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dono
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:42 pm Post subject: Re: new USENET guidelines (was: massless or massive photon?) |
|
|
On Jul 16, 4:39 am, "JuanShit R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
<snip Juanshito's "foam at the mouth">
Juanshito, coming from somebody that crossdresses in high-
heels,thong,garter belt and fishnet stockings and posts as troll "Lady
Chacha" this is rich:-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dono
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:45 pm Post subject: Re: new USENET guidelines (was: massless or massive photon?) |
|
|
On Jul 16, 4:39 am, "JuanShito R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Crackpot Eric *mistakes* and obvious *nonsenses* (both plural).
Crackpot Dono writing nonsense
Daryl 'bad faith' and mistakes...
Tom Roberts perennial straw man and lies...
--
|
Heck, I am in good company, Juanshito
And you continue to eat shit. Bon apetit! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
97 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
