Moderator: Flannel Jesus
James S Saint wrote:No. The "problem" is that You never actually discuss the topic, merely worshipfully attack the poster in an attempt to give praise to yourself and your most honorable masters.
Helandhighwater wrote:Feel free to tell me what happened today to your sphincter, and at length, I am very interested in your ass. Pun intended.
Helandhighwater wrote:James S Saint wrote:No. The "problem" is that You never actually discuss the topic, merely worshipfully attack the poster in an attempt to give praise to yourself and your most honorable masters.
I have discussed the topic on numerous occasions
James S Saint wrote:Helandhighwater wrote:James S Saint wrote:No. The "problem" is that You never actually discuss the topic, merely worshipfully attack the poster in an attempt to give praise to yourself and your most honorable masters.
I have discussed the topic on numerous occasions
Only the tiny bit to use as an excuse to attack the poster, thus... Liar.
Thus the rest of what you said is disregarded... along with just about everything you say.
You are here only by the grace of moderators who forgive the rules so that you will have a place to play. And then you curse them for letting you know. The greater problem is that children grow to the age of 80 and beyond, yet never seem to mature.
But telling a child to stop being childish is a bit pointless, as your babysitters are discovering.
Helandhighwater wrote:Feel free to tell me what happened today to your sphincter, and at length, I am very interested in your ass. Pun intended.
Ed3 wrote:PhysBang, you wrote:
"He even co-created a new field of math for GR".
I am not exactly sure about the field to which you are referring. I do know that Einstein cleaned up some tensor notation. Could you elaborate?
Twiffy wrote:HobbesChoice, this is my last response to you barring you saying something particularly interesting. I don't mean offense -- it's just that this current exchange isn't something I'm going to continue.
1) No, I'm not; Darwin was alive during a simpler era of science, and furthermore he never bragged about his new theory on ILP. For these reasons my claim doesn't apply to him. This was the point of my entire last post - read it more carefully.
2) My overall point had nothing to do with math. Even for a genius psychologist it is virtually guaranteed that he'll never generate and populate an entirely new theory on his own; and if he did, he would publish and become famous, rather than about going on ILP and bragging about his unpublished, untested and non-peer-reviewed theory.
PhysBang wrote:Hobbes Choice wrote:
No. you are squirming.
Do not fault me for your failure to read what I wrote very carefully.You attacked me when I refuted this:
[i]
2) If someone claims to have a theory that supercedes the best of the modern theories, he is a crackpot. If he tells you this theory without using a lot of complicated math, he's a stupid crackpot.
You have not refuted that, at all.
Fixed Cross wrote:Following Abstracts lead, I would argue that PtA consists of relativity itself - of the single property of being local and (thus) differentiated from homogeneity.
Hobbes Choice wrote:Then it is YOU that has not been reading properly.
Maybe had you not butted into a discussion i was having with another person, you'd not now be acting so trollishly?
Hobbes Choice wrote:Fixed Cross wrote:Following Abstracts lead, I would argue that PtA consists of relativity itself - of the single property of being local and (thus) differentiated from homogeneity.
I think there might be a cognitive problem suggesting that one sort of metaphysical abstraction "consists" of another.
Both (PtA and relativity) are unfortunate, but perhaps the only, ways of delimiting a description of a whole: the fabric of reality - I think this will always be a problem in human cognition.
It seems we chase our tails in wanting to provide a unified theory nad always have to fall back on describing it in bite size pieces.
PhysBang wrote:Hobbes Choice wrote:Then it is YOU that has not been reading properly.
Maybe had you not butted into a discussion i was having with another person, you'd not now be acting so trollishly?
Sigh.
You wrote idiotic things like, "Einstein used his imagination. He looked at a sunbeam and asked what it would be like to travel on the wave," like that weak shit is supposed to impress us..
I have no idea why you want to defend crackpots, but since that's the role you've taken up, you should get all the respect you deserve.
Fixed Cross wrote:Following Abstracts lead, I would argue that PtA consists of relativity itself - of the single property of being local and (thus) differentiated from homogeneity.
Fixed Cross wrote:Abstract was the only one here who asked the tuly difficult questions about RM. Unfortunately these questions remained unanswered in favor of debating trolls like HHW, who is only here because he's apparently obsessed with James.
Helandhighwater wrote:Feel free to tell me what happened today to your sphincter, and at length, I am very interested in your ass. Pun intended.
Helandhighwater wrote:Fixed Cross wrote:Abstract was the only one here who asked the tuly difficult questions about RM. Unfortunately these questions remained unanswered in favor of debating trolls like HHW, who is only here because he's apparently obsessed with James.
Yeah and ad hominems really make your case stronger. No one here understands the majesty of James and RM. And when he doesn't answer perfectly valid posts it's only because of trolls. Pull the other one its got bells on, you're making the same apologetics James does. Dozens of posters over the years have answered perfectly fair questions and then had their contentions ignored dozens of times.
If you think people are trolling report them, trolls get banned. Simple. Stop making excuses for James, whether people are or have trolled or not is no of no consequence here, and I for one mean everything I say, and hence am not trolling, and so it seems does everyone else. You need to a) stop using the troll excuse, when James is equally then culpable, and you need to stop using the RM is logical excuse, when James is guilty of making endless excuses to dodge perfectly good questions. If not then you will be guilty of the same sins as James. Obfuscate all you like, but if and when he actually tackles people instead of just ignoring them continuously, then and then will any body care what he says or think it actually is as you say: logical. The onus is on James, James because he is the one making all the big claims. If he refuses to have the onus on him, by making excuses then no one cares.
What I mean by under your definition of trolling James is trolling too, because they are not 99% of the time and James isn't trolling either, but sometimes he strays from the line, and starts deliberately setting up inflammatory posts to provoke others, not just me, then when they are provoked by them he retreats behind the excuse of ad hominem or troll to avoid having to tackle perfectly valid points. the fact remains though no matter how heated a debate gets little or none of what goes on is trolling, it's straw man. In the same but opposite way attacking someone for not justifying their argument, or for not having enough education to justify one is not an ad hominem, it is perfectly justified to say a person who never even passed a degree in physics, is unable to answer the biggest questions at the cutting edge of modern day physics. James is not attacked because he is wrong, he is attacked because he is not even wrong and shows little regard for ever being in a scientific place. His posting history shows clearly that he is not interested in discussing controversy, not interested in arguing with people who know much more about the subject than him, nor is he interested in studying enough to correctly justify his arguments, nor is he interested in evidence or proofs using maths or any other of the things we traditionally associate with science or even philosophy of science over unfounded assertion. Until he does no one should care, and no one will. If it is a conspiracy of his peers, it's a perfectly justifiable one, although who his peers actually are is moot for the same reasons.
Hobbes Choice wrote:Helandhighwater wrote:Fixed Cross wrote:Abstract was the only one here who asked the tuly difficult questions about RM. Unfortunately these questions remained unanswered in favor of debating trolls like HHW, who is only here because he's apparently obsessed with James.
Yeah and ad hominems really make your case stronger. No one here understands the majesty of James and RM. And when he doesn't answer perfectly valid posts it's only because of trolls. Pull the other one its got bells on, you're making the same apologetics James does. Dozens of posters over the years have answered perfectly fair questions and then had their contentions ignored dozens of times.
If you think people are trolling report them, trolls get banned. Simple. Stop making excuses for James, whether people are or have trolled or not is no of no consequence here, and I for one mean everything I say, and hence am not trolling, and so it seems does everyone else. You need to a) stop using the troll excuse, when James is equally then culpable, and you need to stop using the RM is logical excuse, when James is guilty of making endless excuses to dodge perfectly good questions. If not then you will be guilty of the same sins as James. Obfuscate all you like, but if and when he actually tackles people instead of just ignoring them continuously, then and then will any body care what he says or think it actually is as you say: logical. The onus is on James, James because he is the one making all the big claims. If he refuses to have the onus on him, by making excuses then no one cares.
What I mean by under your definition of trolling James is trolling too, because they are not 99% of the time and James isn't trolling either, but sometimes he strays from the line, and starts deliberately setting up inflammatory posts to provoke others, not just me, then when they are provoked by them he retreats behind the excuse of ad hominem or troll to avoid having to tackle perfectly valid points. the fact remains though no matter how heated a debate gets little or none of what goes on is trolling, it's straw man. In the same but opposite way attacking someone for not justifying their argument, or for not having enough education to justify one is not an ad hominem, it is perfectly justified to say a person who never even passed a degree in physics, is unable to answer the biggest questions at the cutting edge of modern day physics. James is not attacked because he is wrong, he is attacked because he is not even wrong and shows little regard for ever being in a scientific place. His posting history shows clearly that he is not interested in discussing controversy, not interested in arguing with people who know much more about the subject than him, nor is he interested in studying enough to correctly justify his arguments, nor is he interested in evidence or proofs using maths or any other of the things we traditionally associate with science or even philosophy of science over unfounded assertion. Until he does no one should care, and no one will. If it is a conspiracy of his peers, it's a perfectly justifiable one, although who his peers actually are is moot for the same reasons.
THis is all blancmange and no duck.
37. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
Helandhighwater wrote:Feel free to tell me what happened today to your sphincter, and at length, I am very interested in your ass. Pun intended.
James S Saint wrote:You have to love the troller who knows so little that he accuses the fish of being trolls.]
A) That list about crackpots constitutes a theory... by a crackpot... an untestable theory at that (proving himself as the crackpot that he defines).
B) I have made a variety of testable predictions, but you wouldn't know anything about those because you are not here to discuss nor learn, but to harass one individual (which says something very serious about you).
C) One of the predictions of RM:AO, the most important of all, is one that you can test yourself without extraordinary equipment. Most others require some form of equipment but in many cases merely a PC and some programming skill would do. But of course, you aren't even up to that level. You are too busy harassing to learn how to discover any truth about anything.
D) Most theories that you hear about concern expensive equipment and are done far away and the only thing you hear about them comes from a source interested in popularizing specific theories. That makes the only source you have for such theories void of integrity.
E) I am here personally to answer actual questions for those very few who might be interested. Obviously you are not one of those. Such would involve you actually thinking, not mouthing.
Helandhighwater wrote:Feel free to tell me what happened today to your sphincter, and at length, I am very interested in your ass. Pun intended.
Helandhighwater wrote:Hobbes Choice wrote:Helandhighwater wrote:Yeah and ad hominems really make your case stronger. No one here understands the majesty of James and RM. And when he doesn't answer perfectly valid posts it's only because of trolls. Pull the other one its got bells on, you're making the same apologetics James does. Dozens of posters over the years have answered perfectly fair questions and then had their contentions ignored dozens of times.
If you think people are trolling report them, trolls get banned. Simple. Stop making excuses for James, whether people are or have trolled or not is no of no consequence here, and I for one mean everything I say, and hence am not trolling, and so it seems does everyone else. You need to a) stop using the troll excuse, when James is equally then culpable, and you need to stop using the RM is logical excuse, when James is guilty of making endless excuses to dodge perfectly good questions. If not then you will be guilty of the same sins as James. Obfuscate all you like, but if and when he actually tackles people instead of just ignoring them continuously, then and then will any body care what he says or think it actually is as you say: logical. The onus is on James, James because he is the one making all the big claims. If he refuses to have the onus on him, by making excuses then no one cares.
What I mean by under your definition of trolling James is trolling too, because they are not 99% of the time and James isn't trolling either, but sometimes he strays from the line, and starts deliberately setting up inflammatory posts to provoke others, not just me, then when they are provoked by them he retreats behind the excuse of ad hominem or troll to avoid having to tackle perfectly valid points. the fact remains though no matter how heated a debate gets little or none of what goes on is trolling, it's straw man. In the same but opposite way attacking someone for not justifying their argument, or for not having enough education to justify one is not an ad hominem, it is perfectly justified to say a person who never even passed a degree in physics, is unable to answer the biggest questions at the cutting edge of modern day physics. James is not attacked because he is wrong, he is attacked because he is not even wrong and shows little regard for ever being in a scientific place. His posting history shows clearly that he is not interested in discussing controversy, not interested in arguing with people who know much more about the subject than him, nor is he interested in studying enough to correctly justify his arguments, nor is he interested in evidence or proofs using maths or any other of the things we traditionally associate with science or even philosophy of science over unfounded assertion. Until he does no one should care, and no one will. If it is a conspiracy of his peers, it's a perfectly justifiable one, although who his peers actually are is moot for the same reasons.
THis is all blancmange and no duck.
a) that isn't a rebuttal it's just air, which makes it worthless.
If you had said something, I might have made a rebuttal.
b) you've only been here 5 minutes you are unaware of James's posting habits or history so I don't see any basis to judge.
I am fully aware of his useless posting habits. I just don't know why you are bothering with him.
c) do you have any qualifications in physics with which to make any judgement about James serial endless waffling with not the slightest proof or differentiation in it, let alone evidence?
Enough to know that your last post was not on topic.
d) amongst his triumphs are denying relativity works in the real world, denying quantum mechanics is a viable scientific concern, claiming people are looking for things they aren't, claiming scientists are brainwashed by presumably evidence and objectivity, something James doesn't have, claiming scientists are part of a cult, claiming that there is an active scientific attempt to keep ideas like his down. Let's face it James is a luddite who denies everything about science its method and wants us all to return to a golden era where any old idea passes master on the basis of his say so. James in short is straight out of the past. If he had his way he'd dismantle all science and practice and return us to the dark ages. If you want to condone that sort of sloppy subjective garbage go ahead, but you're wasting your time as is anyone else who buys into his religion.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Out of the 37 points on this table, James gets a big tick on 27. That's quite a high score even for crackpots.37. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
This one doesn't help either.
James S Saint wrote:You have to love the troller who knows so little that he accuses the fish of being trolls.![]()
A) That list about crackpots constitutes a theory... by a crackpot... an untestable theory at that (proving himself as the crackpot that he defines).
B) I have made a variety of testable predictions, but you wouldn't know anything about those because you are not here to discuss nor learn, but to harass one individual (which says something very serious about you).
C) One of the predictions of RM:AO, the most important of all, is one that you can test yourself without extraordinary equipment. Most others require some form of equipment but in many cases merely a PC and some programming skill would do. But of course, you aren't even up to that level. You are too busy harassing to learn how to discover any truth about anything.
D) Most theories that you hear about concern expensive equipment and are done far away and the only thing you hear about them comes from a source interested in popularizing specific theories. That makes the only source you have for such theories void of integrity.
On the contrary. It makes it very much full of integrity, as very little money is ever spent on pure science, the projects that are chose and baed on painstaking peer review and more scrutiny that your feeble imagining s could deal with,
E) I am here personally to answer actual questions for those very few who might be interested. Obviously you are not one of those. Such would involve you actually thinking, not mouthing.
Return to Science, Technology, and Math
Users browsing this forum: No registered users