Re: massless or massive photon?

Eric Gisse wrote on Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:10:01 -0700:

On Jul 13, 5:35 am, "Pmb" <physics_wo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Juan R. González-Álvarez" <juanREM...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
messagenews:pan.2008.07.13.11.15.33@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Eric Gisse wrote on Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:24:46 -0700:

On Jul 12, 7:20 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 :-)

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.

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.

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.




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?

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
.