Re: The Fifth Dimension

From: David McAnally (D.McAnally_at_i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au)
Date: 06/27/04 

Date: 27 Jun 2004 01:29:19 GMT

First of all, I notice that you have adopted a policy of only replying to
those who respond favourably to you, and ignoring those who respond
unfavourably to you. If you are going to acknowledge yes-men only, then
how are you ever going to get a realistic and concrete perspective of the
true worth of your ideas and postings?

I also note that you could do with a few English lessons, since a lot of
what you write below does not even have a meaning in English. You are
using words with completely different meanings from the meanings that they
genuinely have in English.

leoppard@MailAndNews.com (Leonard Pardin) writes:

>"Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<2k2pg5F16vgi5U1@uni-berlin.de>...
>> "Leonard Pardin" <leoppard@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> > Remember that under the Pardin theory, dk = -c. Multiplying both
>> > sides by -1, we get c = - dk. This revelation leads to some
>> > interesting results. If we write Einstein's e = mc^2 as c^2 = e/m, we
>> > can get
>> > _____
>> > c = \/ e/m. Substituting -dk for c, we get
>> > ____
>> > -dk = \/e/m.
>> >
>> > Again multiplying both sides by -1, and we have
>> > ____
>> > dk = - \/e/m.
>> >
>> > The result must be a negative number for both mass and energy.
>> > In other words, I have determined the source of antimatter.
>> >
>> > Now be honest, Mr. Potter. Be brutal. Don't be afraid to hurt my
>> > feelings. Do you think the government would be willing to fund my
>> > work, considering all the money spent on trying to prove Einstein's
>> > theories, and worm holes, warped space, time travel, black holes,
>> > etc.?
>>
>> You are obviously on to something big,
>> and it is clear that your model is more powerful
>> than current models, because it not only addresses
>> the discrete/continuous problem,
>> but it also addresses the sentient/non-sentient problem.

> You're very kind. But I don't want to take all the credit. You must
>admit that Einstein's work is at least equally non-sentient.

Of course your work and Einstein's work are equally non-sentient. They
are not alive, and something has to be alive before it can be conscious,
i.e. something has to be alive before it can be sentient. So both your
work and Einstein's work fail one of the necessary criteria for sentience:
neither is alive. Theories are *not* breathing living things. It is
shocking that you perceived the possibility that they were.

>Einstein
>must be recognized as the father of non-sensate physics.

Not at all. Physics was done in the minds of people before Einstein.
For example, Maxwell, just by using his mind, with pen and paper, derived
the equations that bear his name. So for you to claim that Einstein was
the first to do physics not through his five senses of sight, hearing,
touch, smell and taste, makes you utterly and completely wrong.

You truly are pathetic. If you are going to use a word in English, at
least look the word up in a dictionary to make entirely sure that you are
using the correct word.

>I am simply
>following in his giant footsteps.

In order to answer what you were presumably *trying* to say, before you
stuffed it up with your ignorance of English vocabulary, I would suggest
that you have deliberately denied yourself the background necessary to be
able to make a competent judgement about how sensible or otherwise
Einstein's work is. In view of the fact that you have deliberately kept
yourself ignorant of the physics background that is necessary for
understanding (view for example, the complete and utter shambles you made
with kinetic energy when you first posted under your "fascination with
E = mc^2" thread), you are intellectually dishonest in delivering an
appraisal that you have absolutely no competence to deliver. Einstein
understood the laws of logic, and he applied them. You have no
understanding of the laws of logic, and you would not be able to
distinguish between a valid syllogism and an invalid syllogism if your
life depended on it. All that you have to fall back on is your pathetic
"Big Picture" philosophy, where you deny yourself learning even of
Newtonian mechanics, on the basis that learning would destroy the bloom of
your ignorance (to pursue an analogy used by Lady Bracknell), and it would
destroy the deep understanding of physics that you think your complete
ignorance of the subject gives you.

It is not the job of physical theories to conform to your prejudices.
It is the job of a physical theory to provide a self-consistent logical
construct with which to explain and predict the results of physical
experiments. Relativity is self-consistent. And, in its range of
applicability, the experimentalists tell us that special relativity is
so far 100% reliable.

David

        And all dared to brave unknown terrors, to do mighty deeds,
        to boldly split infinitives that no man had split before -
        and thus was the Empire forged.

-----

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Definition of truth
    ... and that's only of the "true" truth. ... behaviors are well established and documented in Physics. ... if you wish to put specific meaning on certains ... Yeah, probably I should have, but didn't know at the time that English ...
    (rec.skiing.alpine)
  • Re: Can ID be Tested?
    ... I to distinguish between the intelligent designer hypothesis and the ... many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics? ... understanding while discovering another layer of ignorance. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Property of photon.
    ... Perhaps you and I have a different understanding of what Planck's basic ... Why don't you start by explaining what your ... With my poor English it is not easy to explain something like that. ... a discussion in English about physics with you is going ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: More journalistic "standards" from Alekhines Parrot
    ... But I thought this was an emphasis on physics? ... early to influence much of the land-use and sociology of the middle middle ... Except in English we would say, ... limits', unless the intent of the 'its' is to refer to the same vague ...
    (rec.games.chess.politics)
  • Re: New Cubic Atomic Model explains electron energy levels and bonding
    ... Eric Gisse wrote: ... > You obsfucate your already-muddled theories with your shitty English. ... >> why cant you answer it by physics documentation. ... to bring evidence for 32 electrions in shell No 4 ...
    (sci.physics)