Re: Does the Electron Neutrino Have Mass and Charge?

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 07/09/04 

Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 16:39:53 +0200

kenseto wrote:
> "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
> news:ccjl1j$34r$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
>
>>kenseto wrote:
>>

[snip]

>>>>>>Well, he answers *some* of my questions. More than half of them, he
>>>>>>either ignores completely, or simply says that they are stupid and
>>>>>>don't need to be answered. But sometimes, among his insults, there
>>>>>>is an answer to one of my questions, now and then...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now to you questions above: Setos matrix is not a matrix like the
>>>>>>ones in linear algebra. It's simply a buzz word to describe
>>>>>>his "underlying substance of the world" (essentially an ether theory,
>>>>>>I would say). The E-Matrix consists of so-called "E-Strings", strings
>>>>>>with a diameter of about 10^(-30) m (he refused to explain where
>>>>>>he got this number from - he called it a "guesstimate"),
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Hey idiot....it is a guesstimate.
>>>>
>>>>*sigh* That's what I wrote above, in the parentheses. Can't you read?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>That where I got this number from.
>>>>
>>>>Even guesses need a *base*. You still have not told me on what basis
>>>>you guessed this number.
>>>
>>>
>>>The Planck length.
>>
>>Finally, after asking about five times! Why not the first time already?
>
>
> Idiot.

Yes, someone like you, who needs several reminders until he finally
answers a quite simple question, is indeed an idiot. Agreed.

>>Now, what lead you to guess that the diameter of the E-strings
>>should be approximately one Planck length?
>
>
> i am not going to waste time answering your stupid questions.

Thanks for admitting that you can't answer the question.

[snip]

>>>The paper says that there are two
>>>fundamental entities in the universe: The E-Stirng and the S-Particle.
>>
>>The paper says that the S-particles are fundamental. It does say
>>nowhere that the E-Strings are fundamental. If you think otherwise,
>>quote the relevant sentence(s), please.
>
>
> The postulates said that the E-String and the S-Particle are the only two
> things exist in the universe.

Your paper does not say that these are the only things which exist
in the universe. If you think otherwise, quote the relevant sentence(s),
please.

> What do you think that mean?

Even if it said that (which it doesn't), this would not imply that
the E-Strings are "fundamental".

[snip]

>>>>>with undefined length.
>>>>
>>>>You still have not explained why the length is undefined - not even
>>>>*how* a length can *be* undefined.
>>>
>>>
>>>Hey idiot how do you define a llength that is beyond the observable
>>>universe??
>>
>>What do you even *mean* by the expression "a length that is beyond
>>the observable universe"???
>
>
> you are a huge waste of time.

Thanks for admitting that you can't answer the question.

[snip]

>>>>>Hey idiot....emanate doesn't have to mean that the matter is the source
>>>>>of the E-Strings.
>>>>
>>>><www.m-w.org> for "emanate":
>>>>"to come from a source"
>>>>
>>>>Insisting that a word does not mean what a dictionary says it means
>>>>makes you look rather silly, if you didn't notice.
>>>
>>>
>>>Hey idiot. I already explained to you how I use the word emanate in the
>>>paper. So live with it.
>>
>>So you insist on using the word with another meaning than its defined
>>meaning in a dictionary. I.e. you insist on looking silly. Fine.
>
>
> The word emanate was suggested by the editor of the Galilean
> Electrodynamics.

Then he apparently also does not know its standard dictionary meaning.

> Everbody understands it except you.

So you plus the editor of the journal together is "everybody"?

> Does that mean you are stupid?

No, that does mean that both you and the editor of that journal
are silly, because you insist on using a word contrary to its
dictionary meaning.

>>>>>It could mean that the ponderable matter is form by
>>>>>the orbiting motion of the S-Particles around these E-Strings and thus
>>>>>these E-Strings can be considered as being emanated from the matter.
>>>>
>>>>"emanate" means "to come from a source". If you do not want to
>>>>say that matter is the source of the E-Strings, you should not say
>>>>that the emanate from the matter.
>>>
>>>
>>>Hey it doen't mean that it is start from the source.
>>
>>So you insist on using the word with another meaning than its defined
>>meaning in a dictionary. I.e. you insist on looking silly. Fine.
>
>
> Idiot.

Thanks for admitting that you have no argument left.

>>>>>>>You might as well remind him that his other readers might not take
>>>>>>>too
>>>>>>>kindly to his refusal to answer those very legitimate questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I sincerely doubt that there are many readers left in this thread.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Most of your questions are not legitimate.
>>>>
>>>>Why not?
>>>
>>>
>>>you were nit-picking.
>>
>>No, not at all
>
>
> Yes you are.

No, I was not.

>>>>>You were just trying to give me a bunch of shit.
>>>>
>>>>No, I was just trying to understand your muddled ramblings.
>>>
>>>
>>>No you were not trying to understand.
>>
>>How do you know what I was trying to do? Can you read my mind?
>
>
> If you were trying to understand you wouldn't waste so much of my time
> on the word emanate.

If you were trying to make your paper readable, you wouldn't keep
insisting that using that word makes sense.

Further, I notice that you ignored lots of my posts in the last
days, and only keep harping on the ones with such minor points as
the meaning of "emanate" here. So, *who* wastes time here?

>>>You never once ask any
>>>important questions on the MM theory of gravity.
>>
>>Did it ever occur to you that I think differently from you, and
>>therefore I need other questions in order to understand MM, not
>>the ones you consider to be important?
>
>
> So asking the meaning of the word emanate repeatedly
> --after it was explained to you repeatly -- is your way of
> understanding MM?

If you didn't notice: that was only one of quite a lot of questions.
It is not my fault that you
1) insist on using that word contrary to its dictionary definition
2) keep on harping on this point, instead of addressing my other questions.

Troll.

Bye,
Bjoern

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Does the Electron Neutrino Have Mass and Charge?
    ... >> The Planck length. ... >> Hey idiot how do you define a llength that is beyond the observable ... > meaning in a dictionary. ... The word emanate was suggested by the editor of the Galilean ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: what is etymology? (linguistics and biology)
    ... > of the English word 'idiot'. ... Let me have a look at the word idiot. ... It has a neutral meaning, it can have a positive meaning, ... preserving the positive meaning of idiot. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Loco driving wheels:
    ... (not meaning anything personal in that statement) ... correct one is arrogant and stupid. ... I'm not insisting that my understanding of a word is the only correct ... and only meaning of "American" includes Canadians. ...
    (uk.rec.models.rail)
  • Re: Does the Electron Neutrino Have Mass and Charge?
    ... > The Planck length. ... > Hey idiot how do you define a llength that is beyond the observable ... >>Insisting that a word does not mean what a dictionary says it means ... So you insist on using the word with another meaning than its defined ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Loco driving wheels:
    ... only correct one is arrogant and stupid. ... I'm not insisting that my understanding of a word is the only ... You are the only one I know who keep harping on the "correct" meaning ... the one and only meaning of "American" includes Canadians. ...
    (uk.rec.models.rail)