Re: What is your background in Physics?

From: Eric Gisse (fsegg_at_uaf.edu)
Date: 12/01/04 

Date: 1 Dec 2004 13:15:33 -0800

brendanpinto@gmail.com (BrendanPinto) wrote in message news:<588739c9.0412010753.380c66d2@posting.google.com>...
> I just wantd to post this as a survey of everyone's formal (or
> informal) education in physics. I am just wondering this as I read
> some posts from people who will call Einstein's theories hoaxes which,
> as far as I know, is practically a sin against every self respecting
> physicist I know.

Formally, not as much as I would like nor even near as much as I plan
to get. Currently im absorbing classical mechanics, with a heavy dose
of applied math tossed in on the side. The applied math consists of
solving O/PDEs analytically and numerically, systems of ODEs, Fourier
analysis, a light splattering of integral transforms with some
personal study of the inner workings to bind it together.

Informally, probably too much because I am at the point where I have
heard the story told about everything at least once. What that means
is I can say what the math supposedly says, but I am nowhere near
being able to replicate what is told to me on my own.

My education is a patchwork. I leap ahead reading random *** while
forming opinions, with my formal education trails behind me filling in
what I missed/ignored. I prefer it this way, because when I hear the
term "inner product" in one class, I am not blindsided by the
revelation regarding the existance of infinite-dimensonal dot
products.

~

About those people who perpetuate the hoaxes, let me fill you in a
little about their education.

Androcles claims he was an electrical engineer. Unless British
standards were really low back in the day, he is lying. At most, he
managed electrical engineers and via that he calls himself one.
Androcles is thoroghly ignorant in all fields of math. He regularally
makes trivial mistakes regarding algebra [Witness the arguments about
the meaning of "square root"] and calculus [the differential operator
dx is NOT d*x with x = 1, regardless of what he says]. He has no
goddamn clue, basically.

Henri Wilson claims to be many things. The most absurd of the claims
is that he did 5 years of applied math in a university. Given
Australia's status as a first world nation, he is full of ***. I have
made plenty of mistakes that I only saw in retrospect that a more
experiences person would have seen and called me upon instantly which
he ignored. Henri Wilson regularally makes claims about what Maxwell's
equations say but when pressed he is unable to work the math. I could
go on for a hour about what Henri Wilson claims to know but really
doesn't. A small sample includes: Computers [Viruses can TOO infect
your fucking programs, Henri!], numerican analysis, astronomy,
astrophysics, and particle physics [Tell me Henri, what are leptons
made of?].

Eugene Shubert claims to have a degree in math of some sort, but given
the logical errors and the raw power he puts into keeping his blinders
on regarding his "derivation" of SR, I must conclude he too is full of
***.

eleaticus: Next time he posts his canned "Einstein is full of crap"
"FAQ", read Uncle Al's canned reply. Al has it covered.

Loading