Re: A decisive argument in favour of the existence of an aether frame in a state of absolute rest.

Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:

eric gisse wrote on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:04:31 -0800:

Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:

[...]

Indeed, you again deleted the rest of queries, including the one about
your supposed education, which you always allude to but always fail to
give.

You seem to labor under the impression that I owe you something.

You have the bad habit of doing false accusations against others but
failing to show any one of the claims about yourself.

I don't owe you - or this newsgroup - anything.

You have been making outlandish claims for years against the entire
physicist community. Should you be held to the same standard you hold me?


Since you have never pursued an undergraduate education in anything,

Open a map. Last time I checked Europe was not Alaska.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Undergraduate_education#Other_European_systems

"In many other, particularly continental European systems, an
'undergraduate' degree in the American sense does not exist."

Nice feigning of ignorance. The meaning translates, and you know it.

Then this proves you were lying once again :-D

Like you said, Europe does not have the American education system. So I'm
technically correct - the best kind of correct.

[...]

That is rather true. Originally, I tried to maintain a civilised and
scientific discussion with everyone. Then I understood this goal is not
possible with crackpots, liars, trolls...

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/4208ba309b56b6f0

The insults first started after I told you to read the article you are
arguing about - an ironic claim for all. Ponder the significance.



(...)

But it was done clear in USENET that in that supposed course you
supposedly took was not explained to you the most basic stuff of
mechanics such as how to obtain the Hamiltonian H from a given
Lagrangian L.

Oh, you really want to get into this again? Since you won't let it go,
FINE.

I was laboring under the assumption that the shortcuts I was taught in
my GRADUATE MECHANICS COURSE continued to be valid for special
relativity. What was briefly mentioned in both Symon [full of Brief
Mentions, Louiville's theorem was 1 paragraph at the end of a chapter]
as well as Goldstein was that the Lagrangian needs to be quadratic in
the generalized velocities in order for L = T - V & H = T + V relations
to hold.

I explained to you before but since you like the topic I will repeat.

The issue was not that you did a STRONG mistake, but you did a STRONG
mistake plus you INSULTED others, plus you said that OTHERS (giving the
right result unlike you) were wrong, plus you claimed that you were
supported by TEXTBOOKS, plus you LIED, plus you were ARROGANT...

I'll always act that way when I think I'm right, which happens to be far
more often than not.

You act the same way too, even when I'm handing you the quotes that explain
exactly why you are wrong so please don't act like you are any better than
me in that respect.

Ponder the significance of acting exactly like me and then attacking me for
it. Not exactly, of course, because I don't do childish and borderline
stalker-ish things like setting up shrines highlighting every perceived
slight.

[...]

Etc.

Now count the number of times I've done that when being overwhelmingly right
instead of being subtly wrong.



Here the course on mechanics was an entire year and not easy (but not
the most hard, the most hard was the course on "structure of matter").
In any case, we did learn to get H from a given L the first month.

Congratulations. Now how long was spent on detailing the conditions
which L = T - V hold?

I wannot start again another thread in your misconceptions.

You are, however, perfectly willing to keep bringing it up for several years
every time I say something to which you would rather not respond.

How's the manuscript going, Juan? Will 2010 be the magic year?



I don't mind that I screw up on occasion.

It is more something as above a hundred of occasions :-D

Yet you can only find a few out of several years of posting. I'm
perfectly OK with that kind of ratio of right v. wrong.

I have only collected several dozens of your misconceptions, lies, and
insults in three or four groups.

Several dozen you say? Let's see if you can actually find a dozen mistakes.

The boilerplate "mistake list" you've been spamming for awhile now contains
only 2 mistakes and the rest are straight up lies about me. I imagine the
ratio will hold in your "several dozen", most of which will probably be
times where I told you that you were wrong and how you still won't change
your mind.

Have you ever admitted error about anything?


Everyone can find more, just searching in Groups.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=Eric+Gisse

(...)

, that p=mv holds in
relativity,

Liar. I never said that.

You did. Your words are reproduced next

http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-
ii.html

Referencing yourself again? You continue to be curiously unable to cite me
saying that p = mv holds in relativity. I've been asking for a reference for
quite awhile now...


that there is not
distances in Newton-Cartan theory,

Liar. I claimed that Newton-Cartan theory is not a metric theory of
gravitation, which is trivially verified by doing a basic reading on the
subject.

Your words and link to your nonsensical message are reproduced next

http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-
ii.html

Or we can read my exact words!

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.foundations/msg/5125c7f23d3c5b39?dmode=source

"...but the Cartan reformulation of Newton (which is what was referred to)
is not a metric theory of gravitation.

What that means, in practice, is that means is that there is no metric
to determine distances. There is a connection chosen such that it
reproduces Newton, but that's about as interesting as it gets."

I told you to read Chapter 12 of MTW which is my primary reference on the
subject as opposed to Wikipedia. Unfortunately you never read it, because
you dismissed the classic textbook on general relativity in the most asinine
way:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.foundations/msg/a21961272b884159?dmode=source

"Yes, i know Cartan-like formulation and your citing of chapter in a old
undergrad textbook is of none help for this research work."

I would have gladly discussed my interpretation of what I read in MTW, but
instead you promoted me to crank status and refused to even consider what I
was saying. Real mature to behave this way.


(...)

that H=L is always valid when V=0,

It is, under specific assumptions.

We already knew that, but you did *not*

Well so long as you keep posting that while knowing you are looking like a
jackass...


http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-
ii.html

that Schwarzschild radius
is fictitious,

I never claimed that, fuckwit. I said something rather specific, with
both a context written by myself and a knowledge of historical context
which you leave out.

You did. Your words and link to your nonsensical message are reproduced
next

http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-
ii.html

Or we can go straight to the source, and see my immediate response in
sci.physics.research in which I explain that is neither what I said or
meant. It is really, really poor form to quote only a part of a sentence.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/4fa4246a4a6b86c6?dmode=source

The coordinate singularity - the Schwarzchild radius - is an artifact. You
ignore historical context in which physicists argued for close to 50 years
about this subject.

The event horizon is not an artifact. No time have I ever said otherwise. In
fact, I have argued many times that the point in spacetime that corresponds
to the event horizon is -NOT- an artifact.

The best you can claim is that I worded it poorly. Which doesn't even pass
muster when I immediately expounded further when you revealed that my
wording confused you.

[...]

You fantasized about pursuing several degrees at once, and you were very
arrogant about this, lying about the education of everyone else,
including recognized expertises!

It is poor form to continue lying to my face.


Regardless of my expertise, I do have the ability to read for
comprehension. So the next time I give you an article that supports my
position, please don't insult my intelligence by saying the article
claims something that it explicitly disagrees with in the very next
sentence.

You are again fantasizing about literature supporting your crackpot
ideas. But this is well-covered in the next link:

"Eric modus operandi is the same, he start saying some nonsense and
when corrected he tries to lie about the subject. This includes his
misquoting of references really saying the contrary that him. His
ridiculous pretense to equate the scientific term "black hole
candidate" with his "unicorn candidate"

http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-
ii.html



You picked the wrong time to pull /that/.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.1105

On the subject of the event horizon at Sgr. A*:

"Recent infrared and mm-VLBI observations imply that if the matter accreting
onto Sgr A* comes to rest in a region visible to distant observers, the
luminosity associated with the surface emission from this region satisfies
Lsurf/Lacc . 0.003. Equivalently, these observations require that 99.6% of
the gravitational binding energy liberated during infall is radiated in some
form prior to finally settling. These numbers are inconsistent by orders
of magnitude with our present understanding of the radiative properties of
Sgr A*?s accretion flow specifically and relativistic accretion flows
generally. Therefore, it is all but certain that no such surface can be
present, i.e., / an event horizon must exist /. [Author's emphasis]

Yeah, what a fantasy.

Let's look at YOUR amusing quotation of the article, though. This never
ceases to crack me the *** up.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/7605b30fbe330a1c?dmode=source

"It seems they showed the existence of a "blackbody" surface:"

I still don't know how you can possibly claim that. The stuff you quote
directly undermines your point, too! " We will use this fact to rule out
the possibility that accreted material in Sgr A* settles in a region
visible to outside observers, and in doing so make the argument that a
horizon /must/ exist. "

Basically you are simply mad that someone you hate manages to be correct
more often than not. The literature is on my side, and no amount of
selective quoting and denial will change that very, very apparent fact. I'll
gladly restart the argument in the moderated newsgroup of your choice if you
feel otherwise.


.

Quantcast