 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » Gravitational waves could be electromagnetic waves... |
|
Page 3 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Juan R." González-Álvarez... |
 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
carlip-nospam wrote on Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:30:26 +0000:
[quote]Juan R. González-Ãlvarez <juanREMOVE at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
carlip-nospam wrote on Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:57:52 +0000:
Juan R. González-Ãlvarez <juanREMOVE at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
I have even showed how the spin-2 of gravitons emerges from the
spin-1 of photons.
In what journal is this published?
(It seems rather implausible. Gravitons couple universally; photons
don't. How does your "energent" graviton couple two neutral
particles?)
This seems a crackpot question. Can you write first the macroscopic
gravitational action derived from the EM action in the aproach cited?
I am reasonably familiar with most of the published approaches to
induced gravity. But I don't know what "the aproach cited" is. That's
why I asked
In what journal is this published?
(I'm not going to poke around in a bunch of random blogs or web pages by
people who I only know from Usenet -- for the most part, that would be a
huge waste of time. But if you can point to something published, I'll
be happy to take a look. )
In the meantime, my question stands. Some emergent gravity models, like
Sakharov's, have a metric already present; other fields just give it
some dynamics. The other models that I know of typically have an
extremely hard time getting their "graviton" to couple universally -- if
it arises from a field with a nonuniversal coupling, it remembers that.
This is a basic conceptual issue. If you have a convincing way of
resolving it, you should be able to explain that, not just throw around
"crackpot" accusations and point to some personal website.
Steve Carlip
[/quote]
I did no accusation (read what I wrote: "It seems...").
However, you are now confirming that you asked without reading first.
And being unable to write the macroscopic action, you cannot know
to *what* couples the induced gravitational h_ab of the theory.
I.e. you cannot know to *what* couples its corresponding quantum.
I already *cited* the literature in this thread. The theory I
analized and about which I did my remarks on gravitons is not a
field or a metric theory but an AAAD theory.
For instance, *that* graviton has not the unphysical self-interaction
modes that other models of gravitons have.
I do not usually waste my time giving mathematical or physical details
to guys who do not even check the literature *cited* (you also sniped
from my message to Igor one remark about that literature) or who do not
know basic stuff like what is the "relaxed form" of Hilbert-Einstein
equations :_-D
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
[...]
[quote]I already *cited* the literature in this thread. The theory I
analized and about which I did my remarks on gravitons is not a
field or a metric theory but an AAAD theory.
[/quote]
By what standard is self publication on a personal homepage "the literature"
?
[quote]
For instance, *that* graviton has not the unphysical self-interaction
modes that other models of gravitons have.
I do not usually waste my time giving mathematical or physical details
to guys who do not even check the literature *cited*
[/quote]
The "literature", as stated, is behind a password protected portal on your
personal home page with the expectation that readers will either pay 425
euro for lifetime access (HA HA HA HA HA) of 17 euros for an individual
article (HA HA HA HA HA).
But let's look at your executive summary. This is fun - you haven't
corrected your errors since the last time you posted something in PDF form.
The important ones, at least. Ten points for polishing that turd! Your PDF
is much more well presented than your previous effort, though it is in
desperate need of an editor who speaks English as his native tounge.
I like how you say "One may intutively realize that the authors of htose
textbook[sic] are really computing..." where you then write something that
not only does not appear in any reasonable derivation of the weak field
limit but rather is *completely wrong*. This is what is known as a "straw-
man attack" in which you falsely represent a wide swath of literature and
textbooks on the subject, then pummel the strawman with explanations of how
wrong it is.
The weak field limit is NOT defined as taking the limit of the magnitude of
the perturbation and taking it to zero. You've read Wald, MTW, Carroll, and
god knows what else. But apparently you've absorbed none of it.
Continuing, you assert that authors [no cites! wee!] 'force flat spatial
geometry', which is exceptionally curious because the manifold is flat with
perturbations and a manifestly non-zero curvature tensor. This is
inconsistent with your claims.
I'd like to congratulate your half decade long quest of missing the forest
for the trees by continuing to 'research' the irrelevant. Yes, it is quite
well known that the temporal parameter in Newton is not the same as in GR
given the /obvious/ nature of instantaneous vs delayed interactions. But you
continue to beat that dead horse, naysayers be damned.
[quote](you also sniped
from my message to Igor one remark about that literature) or who do not
know basic stuff like what is the "relaxed form" of Hilbert-Einstein
equations :_-D
[/quote]
You know it is quite unacceptable for you to make personal attacks like that
against physicists with numerous published works involving general
relativity, right?
[quote]
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
eric gisse wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 04:37:13 -0800:
[quote]Juan R. González-Ãlvarez wrote:
[...]
I already *cited* the literature in this thread. The theory I analized
and about which I did my remarks on gravitons is not a field or a
metric theory but an AAAD theory.
By what standard is self publication on a personal homepage "the
literature" ?
[/quote]
Can you even read? :-(
[quote]For instance, *that* graviton has not the unphysical self-interaction
modes that other models of gravitons have.
I do not usually waste my time giving mathematical or physical details
to guys who do not even check the literature *cited*
The "literature", as stated, is behind a password protected portal on
your personal home page with the expectation that readers will either
pay 425 euro for lifetime access (HA HA HA HA HA) of 17 euros for an
individual article (HA HA HA HA HA).
[/quote]
Please stop, my stomach hurts from laughing so hard :_-D
[quote]But let's look at your executive summary. This is fun - you haven't
corrected your errors since the last time you posted something in PDF
form. The important ones, at least.
[/quote]
I agree that your pretension to revise stuff beyond your undergrad edu is
very fun!
[quote]Ten points for polishing that turd!
Your PDF is much more well presented than your previous effort, though
it is in desperate need of an editor who speaks English as his native
tounge.
I like how you say "One may intutively realize that the authors of htose
textbook[sic] are really computing..."
[/quote]
You are not an editor Eric, you are fantasizing again :-D
Just a few words below says "textbooks". It is evident that was a minor
typo in that line. However, this 57 pages long report will be improved in
a future version.
Your fantasy is still more laughable because *you* wrote "intutively" and
"htose" instead the correct words in the PDF that you pretend edit using
your "tounge" :_-D
[quote]where you then write something
that not only does not appear in any reasonable derivation of the weak
field limit but rather is *completely wrong*. This is what is known as a
"straw- man attack" in which you falsely represent a wide swath of
literature and textbooks on the subject, then pummel the strawman with
explanations of how wrong it is.
The weak field limit is NOT defined as taking the limit of the magnitude
of the perturbation and taking it to zero. You've read Wald, MTW,
Carroll, and god knows what else. But apparently you've absorbed none of
it.
[/quote]
Your above is a straw man argument; i.e., an informal fallacy based on
misrepresentation of an opponent's position. Your goal is to argue
indefinitely over a moot point 
[quote]Continuing, you assert that authors [no cites! wee!] 'force flat spatial
geometry', which is exceptionally curious because the manifold is flat
with perturbations and a manifestly non-zero curvature tensor. This is
inconsistent with your claims.
[/quote]
The surprise of an undergrad dropout on the absence of citations in an
Executive Summary is very related to his complete ignorance of the
academic world that rejected him :_-D
Evidently, I will ignore the rest of your straw man.
[quote]I'd like to congratulate your half decade long quest of missing the
forest for the trees by continuing to 'research' the irrelevant. Yes, it
is quite well known that the temporal parameter in Newton is not the
same as in GR given the /obvious/ nature of instantaneous vs delayed
interactions.
[/quote]
I would like to congratulate you by missing the point again :-D
[quote]But you continue to beat that dead horse, naysayers be damned.
[/quote]
A horse that hits your head with every kicks :_-D
[quote](you also sniped
from my message to Igor one remark about that literature) or who do not
know basic stuff like what is the "relaxed form" of Hilbert-Einstein
equations :_-D
You know it is quite unacceptable for you to make personal attacks like
that against physicists with numerous published works involving general
relativity, right?
[/quote]
To remind that certain folk asked in his message for the "relaxed form" of
Hilbert-Einstein equations because he did not know is not a personal
attack.
Personal attack is, for instance, when you call someone dishonest, a
crying bitch... You may know all this very well because you have been
blocked and/or warned in several forums by this same reason :-(
Do you need some links to your own messages to refresh your memory Eric?
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Juan R. González-Álvarez <juanREMOVE at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[quote]carlip-nospam wrote on Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:30:26 +0000:
[/quote]
[...]
[quote]I am reasonably familiar with most of the published approaches to
induced gravity. But I don't know what "the aproach cited" is. That's
why I asked
In what journal is this published?
(I'm not going to poke around in a bunch of random blogs or web pages by
people who I only know from Usenet -- for the most part, that would be a
huge waste of time. But if you can point to something published, I'll
be happy to take a look. )
[/quote]
[...]
[quote]I already *cited* the literature in this thread. The theory I
analized and about which I did my remarks on gravitons is not a
field or a metric theory but an AAAD theory.
[/quote]
I'm sorry, I must have missed this -- all I saw was a link to a personal
website. Could you please repost the specific journal reference?
[...]
[quote]I do not usually waste my time giving mathematical or physical details
to guys who do not even check the literature *cited* (you also sniped
from my message to Igor one remark about that literature) or who do not
know basic stuff like what is the "relaxed form" of Hilbert-Einstein
equations :_-D
[/quote]
I think you're mixing me up with someone else -- I certainly know what
the "relaxed form" of the Einstein field equations is.
Steve Carlip |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:01 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3253
|
On Nov 5, 1:56 pm, carlip-nos... at (no spam) physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
[quote]Juan R. González-Álvarez <juanREM... at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
carlip-nospam wrote on Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:30:26 +0000:
[...]
I am reasonably familiar with most of the published approaches to
induced gravity. But I don't know what "the aproach cited" is. That's
why I asked
In what journal is this published?
(I'm not going to poke around in a bunch of random blogs or web pages by
people who I only know from Usenet -- for the most part, that would be a
huge waste of time. But if you can point to something published, I'll
be happy to take a look. )
[...]
I already *cited* the literature in this thread. The theory I
analized and about which I did my remarks on gravitons is not a
field or a metric theory but an AAAD theory.
I'm sorry, I must have missed this -- all I saw was a link to a personal
website. Could you please repost the specific journal reference?
[...]
I do not usually waste my time giving mathematical or physical details
to guys who do not even check the literature *cited* (you also sniped
from my message to Igor one remark about that literature) or who do not
know basic stuff like what is the "relaxed form" of Hilbert-Einstein
equations :_-D
I think you're mixing me up with someone else -- I certainly know what
the "relaxed form" of the Einstein field equations is.
Steve Carlip
[/quote]
A gravity wave cannot be absorbed.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:55 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3253
|
On Nov 5, 7:18 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
[...]
Imagine that. No substantive argument.
And this is why the "literature" is on a personal homepage instead of what
is actually called literature.
[/quote]
Light cannot derive any of its energy from its motion. C is a constant
and that would mean that light would always have the same energy from
motion. No light's energy is from its waves oscillation frequency.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
[...]
Imagine that. No substantive argument.
And this is why the "literature" is on a personal homepage instead of what
is actually called literature. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Juan R." González-Ãlvarez wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:26:13 +0000:
[quote]carlip-nospam wrote on Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:30:26 +0000:
Juan R. González-Ãlvarez <juanREMOVE at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
carlip-nospam wrote on Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:57:52 +0000:
Juan R. González-Ãlvarez <juanREMOVE at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
I have even showed how the spin-2 of gravitons emerges from the
spin-1 of photons.
In what journal is this published?
(It seems rather implausible. Gravitons couple universally; photons
don't. How does your "energent" graviton couple two neutral
particles?)
This seems a crackpot question. Can you write first the macroscopic
gravitational action derived from the EM action in the aproach cited?
I am reasonably familiar with most of the published approaches to
induced gravity. But I don't know what "the aproach cited" is.
That's why I asked
In what journal is this published?
(I'm not going to poke around in a bunch of random blogs or web pages
by people who I only know from Usenet -- for the most part, that would
be a huge waste of time. But if you can point to something published,
I'll be happy to take a look. )
In the meantime, my question stands. Some emergent gravity models,
like Sakharov's, have a metric already present; other fields just give
it some dynamics. The other models that I know of typically have an
extremely hard time getting their "graviton" to couple universally --
if it arises from a field with a nonuniversal coupling, it remembers
that.
This is a basic conceptual issue. If you have a convincing way of
resolving it, you should be able to explain that, not just throw around
"crackpot" accusations and point to some personal website.
Steve Carlip
I did no accusation (read what I wrote: "It seems...").
However, you are now confirming that you asked without reading first.
And being unable to write the macroscopic action, you cannot know to
*what* couples the induced gravitational h_ab of the theory. I.e. you
cannot know to *what* couples its corresponding quantum.
I already *cited* the literature in this thread. The theory I analized
and about which I did my remarks on gravitons is not a field or a metric
theory but an AAAD theory.
[/quote]
One important remark. The author calls it an AAAD theory of gravitation.
Wheeler, Feynman, Hoyle, and Narlikar also call their underlying theory
of EM an "AAAD theory", but they are not true AAAD theories.
[quote]For instance, *that* graviton has not the unphysical self-interaction
modes that other models of gravitons have.
I do not usually waste my time giving mathematical or physical details
to guys who do not even check the literature *cited* (you also sniped
from my message to Igor one remark about that literature) or who do not
know basic stuff like what is the "relaxed form" of Hilbert-Einstein
equations :_-D
[/quote]
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
carlip-nospam wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:56:23 +0000:
[quote]Juan R. González-Ãlvarez <juanREMOVE at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
carlip-nospam wrote on Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:30:26 +0000:
[...]
I am reasonably familiar with most of the published approaches to
induced gravity. But I don't know what "the aproach cited" is.
That's why I asked
In what journal is this published?
(I'm not going to poke around in a bunch of random blogs or web pages
by people who I only know from Usenet -- for the most part, that
would be a huge waste of time. But if you can point to something
published, I'll be happy to take a look. )
[...]
I already *cited* the literature in this thread. The theory I analized
and about which I did my remarks on gravitons is not a field or a
metric theory but an AAAD theory.
I'm sorry, I must have missed this -- all I saw was a link to a personal
website.
[/quote]
Go to oculist then!
[quote]Could you please repost the specific journal reference?
[/quote]
Only if you promise to stop asking me without even
reading the stuff *first*. The reference is
Gravitational interaction in the relational approach 2008: Grav. and Cosm. 14(1), 41—52. Vladimirov, Yu. S.
[quote][...]
I do not usually waste my time giving mathematical or physical details
to guys who do not even check the literature *cited* (you also sniped
from my message to Igor one remark about that literature) or who do not
know basic stuff like what is the "relaxed form" of Hilbert-Einstein
equations :_-D
I think you're mixing me up with someone else -- I certainly know what
the "relaxed form" of the Einstein field equations is.
[/quote]
I didn't mix you. Above I am explaining my phylosophy in front of different
situations. I did not give names above. I know who he is because I replied
to him about this giving a link to Will living review. He also knows who is
and remain silent now .
[quote]Steve Carlip
[/quote]
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
[quote]eric gisse wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:18:54 -0800:
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
[...]
Imagine that. No substantive argument...
because you sniped all.
[/quote]
....because you didn't actually respond with anything approaching a
substantive explanation of the issues I raised.
For example, why is it you feel that the weak field limit is defined as
taking the limit of the magnitude of the perturbation as it goes to zero
instead of simply being a perturbation as explained in every book on the
subject?
[quote]
And this is why the "literature" is on a personal homepage instead of
what is actually called literature.
:_-D
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
eric gisse wrote on Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:55:34 -0800:
[quote]Juan R. González-Ãlvarez wrote:
eric gisse wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:18:54 -0800:
Juan R. González-Ãlvarez wrote:
[...]
Imagine that. No substantive argument...
because you sniped all.
...because you didn't actually respond with anything approaching a
substantive explanation of the issues I raised.
[/quote]
You usually receive funny responses fitting to your funny level.
[quote]For example, why is it you feel that the weak field limit is defined as
taking the limit of the magnitude of the perturbation as it goes to zero
instead of simply being a perturbation as explained in every book on the
subject?
[/quote]
Learn to read before asking your usual idiocies :-D
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:46 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3253
|
On Nov 6, 11:53 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
eric gisse wrote on Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:55:34 -0800:
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
eric gisse wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:18:54 -0800:
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
[...]
Imagine that. No substantive argument...
because you sniped all.
...because you didn't actually respond with anything approaching a
substantive explanation of the issues I raised.
You usually receive funny responses fitting to your funny level.
For example, why is it you feel that the weak field limit is defined as
taking the limit of the magnitude of the perturbation as it goes to zero
instead of simply being a perturbation as explained in every book on the
subject?
Learn to read before asking your usual idiocies :-D
If you don't think the weak field limit is defined that way, you should
probably read your 'summary' and fix the repeated error then.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
There is no limit to the radioactivity force. I don't think
radioactivity even needs a force. Why not some form of atomic
configuration instability that occures when they get too big?
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
[quote]eric gisse wrote on Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:55:34 -0800:
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
eric gisse wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:18:54 -0800:
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
[...]
Imagine that. No substantive argument...
because you sniped all.
...because you didn't actually respond with anything approaching a
substantive explanation of the issues I raised.
You usually receive funny responses fitting to your funny level.
For example, why is it you feel that the weak field limit is defined as
taking the limit of the magnitude of the perturbation as it goes to zero
instead of simply being a perturbation as explained in every book on the
subject?
Learn to read before asking your usual idiocies
[/quote]
If you don't think the weak field limit is defined that way, you should
probably read your 'summary' and fix the repeated error then.
[quote]
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
eric gisse wrote on Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:53:17 -0800:
[quote]Juan R. González-Ãlvarez wrote:
eric gisse wrote on Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:55:34 -0800:
Juan R. González-Ãlvarez wrote:
eric gisse wrote on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:18:54 -0800:
Juan R. González-Ãlvarez wrote:
[...]
Imagine that. No substantive argument...
because you sniped all.
...because you didn't actually respond with anything approaching a
substantive explanation of the issues I raised.
You usually receive funny responses fitting to your funny level.
For example, why is it you feel that the weak field limit is defined
as taking the limit of the magnitude of the perturbation as it goes to
zero instead of simply being a perturbation as explained in every book
on the subject?
Learn to read before asking your usual idiocies :-D
If you don't think the weak field limit is defined that way, you should
probably read your 'summary' and fix the repeated error then.
[/quote]
Before asking for fixings you would:
* First learn to read
* Second learn to write
* Third learn physics
* Fourth learn some research.
* Five learn some good manners.
Did you do the first point? Nope and you ask for idiocies :-D
Did you do the second point? Nope and you suggested 'editor' changes like
"intutively", "htose", and "tounge" :-D
Did you do the third? Nope you are and dropout undergrad and for years
you are been saying nonsense about both special and general relativity.
One of your last fiascos was when you pretended to review a paper but
you could not do elementary computations as g_ab g^bc, explained in
GR textbooks:
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-ii.html
It is interesting that the profile in your behavior said:
"After this new fiasco Eric Gisse stooped from reviewing the paper.
But don't be confused. In some few time, when the waters calm down
and Eric think that everyone has forgotten his mistakes, Eric will
return claiming how wrong the scientist was and how right and smart
he is."
And the prediction was mostly verified becasue the day 17 you attacked
again him
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/def283a7014a4157
where, of course, your hillaring superb mistake was relabelled by you
as minor "tangential point" :_D
Did you do the fourth point? Nope and then you get suprised because
Executive summaries have no citations. Well, really your emphasized this
as another of your attempts to show how smart and knowledeable you are
but finally once again you were exposed Eric. How unsurprising, true? :-D
Did you did the five point? Nope. Many readers, moderators, and friends have
warned you about your bad manners. Myself said you this last vacations you
would relax and think about your future. You ignored all of us and
continue your agressive insulting liar style :-D
In one of your last crisis, you have been trolling certain academician blog
with truly hillaric stuff as:
"Great, wrote up a nice fat comment then stupidly clicked a link to
read something so I have to write it aaaaaaaaalllllll over again.
Double the snark now!"
"The quantity being considered is not the “curvature†of space-time,
which is horrifically misleading, "
"Juan: Thanks for being a cosmic jackass by importing an argument you
lost onto a medium that has people who are capable of reading for
comprehension."
"As I was reduced to explaining things using small words and pantomime
to a child with a learning disability, the overall argument should be
simple to follow for people who can read for comprehension."
"Taganov’s argument is, quite frankly, as full of shit as you are."
"I skimmed this thread and noticed an incredibly amusing similarity
between two other loud and stupid groups of people: anti-relativity
kooks, and “apollo hoax†kooks.
All the hallmarks are there. Wingnut supporters, rampant intellectual
dishonest, inability to stay on topic, constantly moving goalposts, etc."
"I wish my professors dressed like Capecchi once in awhile. The most
exciting outfit I have seen any of them wear was a leather jacket and
that was for one day."
"Holy shit I love this guy.
Sean, you write good textbook(s?) but this guy knows how to get a solid
laff out of me."
"The most dressed up any of my professors get for class is shirt and
slacks. If I saw any of them wearing a tie, I’d wonder what the event
is.
Hm, that makes me realize something – I have never seen a woman wear
a tie. You’d think a tie would be something that works /with/ cleavage."
"Oh dear, the replies are extra cranky today."
"What, are we playing by pottery barn rules now?"
"The horrors of perspective geometry – not everything is where you
expect it to be."
"Sucks to be the guy parked at (0,0)."
"Isn’t that just fucking peachy?"
"Shut the hell up."
Now more people knows *you* really, including the one
who replied to you:
"who the hell is Eric Gisse, and what is his problem, exactly? Was he
dropped on his head when a baby?"
Congrats Eric, you are spreading your fame to places where you were unknown.
P.S: those messages and your recent nonsenses and lies will added to a new
update of the page devoted in your honor :-D
Don't thanks me. All the merit is your.
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Nov 27, 2009 3:46 pm
|
|