Discussion:
A game for oriel36 et al to play
(too old to reply)
palsing
2010-11-29 00:25:05 UTC
Permalink
Note; As for Palsing,I can't believe he couldn't see where this
was
going as there must be a hatred there I cannot account for unless
he
is trying to protect a family member in the empirical business,in
any
case,he can remain stuck with you for as long as he looked to you
for
consensus.
Hatred? Naw, just the opposite. You are a main source of daily
laughs
(daily, as in wrt the sun) around here. The results of your
"intuitive
intelligence" are hilarious. You obviously have a very fertile mind
to
be able to generate such fantasy.
By definition, anyone who makes observations or performs experiments
is in the empirical business. I'm pretty sure that ALL of your
Ancient
Heroes were also empiricists, what do you think of that?
Ever since coming across the Quack page...
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
... it is clear that you can't help what you are doing any more than
you could choose to quit breathing for a day, so from me, you get a
pass. Still, you are funny, and always good for a laugh. The only
concern I might have is the thought that you could influence a
newbie
to some degree, but then, we all have to take our chances, don't we?
"Take a chance and try my fare!
It will grow on you, I swear;
Soon it will taste good to you!"
- Friedrich Nietzsche
==========================================
What's really funny is siegel is the quack and palsing is the goose
trying to imitate the duck.
Test of GR.
Synchronize two vacuum enclosed identical horizontal light clocks
side-by-side and leave to run for 6 months in two identical chest
freezers (for environmental control). Note any relative drift.
<Loading Image...>
Place one horizontal light clock at the top of the Burj Khalifa
<http://www.burjkhalifa.ae/>
and leave the other at the base. Leave to run for 6 months.
Bring the clocks together again, note any relative drift.
If the clocks DO read the same count (with drift allowed) then NIST
got it wrong, there was no time dilation due to altitude difference.
<http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092...>
If the clocks do NOT read the same count (with drift allowed) due to
time dilation then NIST got it wrong, the speed of light cannot be a
universal constant.
<http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c>
Either way, NIST are useless yankee wankers and WRONG.
You know, of course you do, that not a single creditable scientist
agrees with you.
=================================================
That's why you are hilarious, palsing. You imagine Galileo, Kepler,
Newton,
Doppler and Michelson were not creditable scientists.
"It seems that Light is propagated in time, spending in its passage
from
the sun to us about seven Minutes of time:" -- DEFIN. II of Opticks
Or,
A Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflections and Colours of
Light - Sir Isaac Newton.
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity" -- 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations
Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks
-- ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein
Palsing plays the part, physically, of Bozo the clown in Einstein's
circus.
You refuse to address logic and mathematics, your sole reason for
believing
Einstein is that every other cretin like you does. You don't know, of
course,
that you are more insane than Kelleher and too cowardly to discuss
what
I
wrote above, so you babble about some vague "scientists" that don't
agree.
You are a nasty little cowardly bully with no data, palsing, a fuckin'
joke.
You want take me on with math and physics, palsing, put up your dukes
and I'll beat you to pulp, you miserable ignorant bastard.
#26 from the Quack page;
You definitely qualify as a Quack.
You don't need to be crazy to play here, but it helps...
===============================================
You belong in alt. flame, you cowardly name-calling arsehole, not in a
"sci"
newsgroup.
Even at that I can whip you, you stupid motherfucking cunt.
Q.E.D.
Keep talking, continue to prove my point...
==================================
Your only points were you are a bigot, a coward and a bully. I'll leave it
to Kelleher to take the piss out of you and wind you up since you are
incapable of discussing logic, so continue to prove your point, ignorant
motherfucker.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Do you kiss your Mother with that mouth?
================================
Do you call your mother a quack, a cunt or an arsehole?
I won't ask about your father, he might be me.
Keep ranting, continue to prove my point, anencephalous cretin, you've
obviously got nothing to say about physics, mathematics or astronomy.
I don't seem to be the guy ranting here...
palsing
2010-11-29 06:32:28 UTC
Permalink
see how long he can evade answering a simple
question...
A lot longer than you can... he is nothing if not persistent.
===========================================
How long can a quack like you evade
"It seems that Light is propagated in time, spending in its passage from
the sun to us about seven Minutes of time:" -- DEFIN. II of Opticks Or,
A Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflections and Colours of
Light - Sir Isaac Newton.
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity" -- 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations
Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks
-- ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein
Indefinitely, you have your head up Einstein's arse persistently.
Your are starting to sound desperate...
=======================================
Ah, proof #15. I'll just have to counter that with proof #16.
This is great game for palsing, savard et al to play.
Wackypedia
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
1 Direct proof
2 Proof by induction
3 Proof by transposition
4 Proof by contradiction
5 Proof by construction
6 Proof by exhaustion
7 Probabilistic proof
8 Combinatorial proof
9 Nonconstructive proof
10 Elementary proof
11 Proof by "everybody knows" (proof by popular opinion).
12 Proof by "because I say so" (proof by assertion).
13 Proof by "it is written" (proof by appeal to authority).
14 Proof by "you prove it isn't!" (proof by simple denial).
15 Proof by "what about the tooth fairy?"(proof by irrelevance).
16 Proof by "I'm smarter than you, so there!" (proof by bluster).
17 Proof by "read a text book" (proof by bluster revision 2).
18 Proof by "You're'n'asshole!" (proof by ad hominem attack).
Proof 18 is my favorite, I use it often. It is very effective when used
against proofs 11-17. Fight fire with fire, I say. Proofs 1-10 have me
defeated, they prevent me from using proofs 11-17 and I have to bite
the bullet and embarrass myself to win the argument (which I must do
at all costs upon pain of death by diarrhea of the verbal kind).
Really, really desperate...

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...