Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jeffâ–²Relf
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:04 am Post subject: Tom Roberts, Eric Gisse and Uncle Al. |
 |
|
I don't know much about Tom Roberts, I've never really engaged him;
I read him when he cross-posts to Sci.Physics, which isn't often.
So, at least for now, I find he's worth reading but not very engaging.
Eric Gisse and Uncle Al heckle me once in awhile ..
no big deal, I reply back and that's basically where it ends. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pmb
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:17 am Post subject: Re: new USENET guidelines (was: massless or massive photon?) |
|
|
"Juan R. González-Álvarez" <juanREMOVE@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
message news:pan.2008.07.16.11.40.50@canonicalscience.com...
| Quote: |
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.
|
There was a time when I used to respond to all the nonsense posts by people
like Tom Roberts, David Waite, Androcles etc. But a time came (i.e. I had a
staphy infection which once again threatened my life -> I became a
Christian) to a point where I realized that it just wasn't the way I wanted
to behave. Plus it stressing me out having to deal with the constant streams
of flames and ignorant comments. So I stopped wasting my time. It takes a
few days to notice who the new ones are, or to remember who I have forgotten
are flamers. Thus my recent blocking of Dono, Oh no, and Eric Gisse. They're
too irritating to bother with.
E.g. I was explaining something about how to view relativistic mass as an
invariant quantity, i.e. the scalar product of the particle's 4-momentum
with the observer's 4-velocity. The thread was called "Comment on
"definition".
If you find and read that thread you'l have a solid example of Tom Roberts
(TR) horrible personality quirk, i.e. he could care less on what you're
trying to say and whines about what you posted, ignoring possible errors
that might have been made in posting when you find them and point them out.
E.g. I made the mistake of writing "U = 4-velocity of particle " when I
meant to write "U = 4-velocity of observer". Tom Synder was kind enough to
point my error out to me (without being condescening as TR usually is). Did
Tom stop there? Nope. Not at all. He ignored my correction and kept
whinning as if I never corrected myself. Oy! Typical Tom Roberts behaviour.
I believe that this is what a "straw man" arguement is? The others are much
worse. At least Tom knows the basics, although not as well as he should know
them.
| Quote: |
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.
|
Yeah, I know. Some people can't stop flamming for some reason.
| Quote: |
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.
|
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.
| Quote: |
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!
|
IT was probably Oh no's fault. He has proven to be an idiot/flamer. You
should contact the moderators and complain when that happens.
| Quote: |
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.
|
You have to find people who really know physics. That's rather difficult and
takes time. But when people start flaming its easy to see whether they know
physics that well or not. When flaming people tend to make serious errors,
some times on purpose in order to avoid admitting their mistakes. Eric did
that when he refused to either shut up or admit his mistakke of thinking
that L = T - V holds in relativity (T = kinetic energy and V = potential
energy) for the non-covariant Lagrangian.
| Quote: |
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.
|
It would be wise to mention Tom Roberts famous ploy of ignoring
clarifications and corrections in order to suit his needs to be
condescending. You should note how condescending comments are used. Tom is
famous for that.
| Quote: |
and also his arrogant "Yea but I'm smarter than both of you. By such a
wide margin it boggles the mind".
|
Heh heh! I got a good laugh out of that. Eric has a poor understanding of
relativity as evidenced by his total lack of commenting on the counter
examples provided where the "mass = proper mass" fails to work. Have you
noticed that? Eric refuses to respond to those in hopes that people won't
notice that he's clueless in those areas, i.e. has a lack of understanding
on the most general situations in relativity.
| Quote: |
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
|
Both are very true. Sad specimens are they indeed! (Do you know who used the
term "sad specimen" when referring to his college professor? )
Very true. Still you'd be better off ignoring them now that you've done all
that work.
Pete |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pmb
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:18 am Post subject: Re: new USENET guidelines (was: massless or massive photon?) |
|
|
"galathaea" <galathaea@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5a54075c-8dd1-4f05-af4f-cf5395148e10@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
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
|
<snip>.
All very true and good advice
Pete |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mitch Raemsch
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:18 am Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
Light singularity is at the beginning of expansion and at the end of
contraction.
Light singularity is when light has concentrated mass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Y.Porat
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:06 am Post subject: Re: massless or massive photon? |
|
|
On Jul 17, 10:18 am, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Light singularity is at the beginning of expansion and at the end of
contraction.
Light singularity is when light has concentrated mass.
|
---------------------
beginning , expansion , or contraction....
never mined all that
concentrated or not concentrated -never mind as well
just mind that
photons has mass!
and mind that
there i s *** only one kind of mass***
no need to invent each Sunday and Friday
a new kind of mass !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." González-Álvarez
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." González-Álvarez
Guest
|
|
| 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
