| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"YBM" |
| Date: |
03 Aug 2005 05:46:35 PM |
| Object: |
Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
These last days someone completely rewrote the two Wikipedia
articles relative to the Bogdanov affair.
All critics has been removed or ridiculized, on the french page
a very elogious biography has been put in place of the
relatively critic original text.
It appears that these anonymous modification and the complete
blanking of the discussion tab has been committed by Igor
Bogdanov from his home in Paris.
Just have a look to the history of this pages, the discussion
tab and its own history :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_et_Grichka_Bogdanoff
(everything from 82.123.*.* is in fact from Igor Bogdanov)
(a little reminder about this running affair :
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanoff/ )
.
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
03 Aug 2005 06:50:30 PM |
|
|
YBM wrote:
These last days someone completely rewrote the two Wikipedia
articles relative to the Bogdanov affair.
All critics has been removed or ridiculized, on the french page
a very elogious biography has been put in place of the
relatively critic original text.
It appears that these anonymous modification and the complete
blanking of the discussion tab has been committed by Igor
Bogdanov from his home in Paris.
Just have a look to the history of this pages, the discussion
tab and its own history :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_et_Grichka_Bogdanoff
(everything from 82.123.*.* is in fact from Igor Bogdanov)
(a little reminder about this running affair :
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanoff/ )
"Baez" confuses his incompetence with fraud.
.
|
|
|
| User: "YBM" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
03 Aug 2005 06:56:11 PM |
|
|
Schoenfeld a écrit :
"Baez" confuses his incompetence with fraud.
Given that there is a complete evidence of fraud in this very
case, I guess one could have some confidence in Baez' competence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
03 Aug 2005 07:39:51 PM |
|
|
YBM wrote:
Schoenfeld a =E9crit :
"Baez" confuses his incompetence with fraud.
Given that there is a complete evidence of fraud in this very
case, I guess one could have some confidence in Baez' competence.
If you expect ordinary folk to believe such statements on the basis of
accusers credibility, then your chances of success are as unlikely as
night following day.
Hint: *Any* "physics" papers dealing with the planckian universe is
speculative at best.
Hint2: Almost all modern physics and math papers deliberately obfuscate
and complicate otherwise simple concepts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
04 Aug 2005 04:21:47 AM |
|
|
Schoenfeld wrote:
YBM wrote:
Schoenfeld a écrit :
"Baez" confuses his incompetence with fraud.
Given that there is a complete evidence of fraud in this very
case, I guess one could have some confidence in Baez' competence.
If you expect ordinary folk to believe such statements on the basis of
accusers credibility, then your chances of success are as unlikely as
night following day.
Hint: *Any* "physics" papers dealing with the planckian universe is
speculative at best.
Hint2: Almost all modern physics and math papers deliberately obfuscate
and complicate otherwise simple concepts.
And your qualifications for judging this are what?
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
04 Aug 2005 05:01:41 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
YBM wrote:
Schoenfeld a =E9crit :
"Baez" confuses his incompetence with fraud.
Given that there is a complete evidence of fraud in this very
case, I guess one could have some confidence in Baez' competence.
If you expect ordinary folk to believe such statements on the basis of
accusers credibility, then your chances of success are as unlikely as
night following day.
Hint: *Any* "physics" papers dealing with the planckian universe is
speculative at best.
Hint2: Almost all modern physics and math papers deliberately obfuscate
and complicate otherwise simple concepts.
And your qualifications for judging this are what?
Before I answer your question, may I ask what qualifications one needs
and where one acquires them?
=20
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bruce Scott TOK" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
04 Aug 2005 06:09:32 AM |
|
|
"Schoenfeld" wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
And your qualifications for judging this are what?
Before I answer your question, may I ask what qualifications one needs
and where one acquires them?
A real name and a publication record would suffice. The publications do
not have to be peer reviewed, just publicly available so others can make
their own judgements.
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
04 Aug 2005 05:50:35 AM |
|
|
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
YBM wrote:
Schoenfeld a écrit :
"Baez" confuses his incompetence with fraud.
Given that there is a complete evidence of fraud in this very
case, I guess one could have some confidence in Baez' competence.
If you expect ordinary folk to believe such statements on the basis of
accusers credibility, then your chances of success are as unlikely as
night following day.
Hint: *Any* "physics" papers dealing with the planckian universe is
speculative at best.
Hint2: Almost all modern physics and math papers deliberately obfuscate
and complicate otherwise simple concepts.
And your qualifications for judging this are what?
Before I answer your question, may I ask what qualifications one needs
and where one acquires them?
For judging if "modern physics and math papers deliberately obfuscate
and complicate otherwise simple concepts", one first needs a quite
good understanding of modern physics and math, don't you think?
It's quite obvious *who* is obfuscating here...
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
04 Aug 2005 07:17:47 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
YBM wrote:
Schoenfeld a =E9crit :
"Baez" confuses his incompetence with fraud.
Given that there is a complete evidence of fraud in this very
case, I guess one could have some confidence in Baez' competence.
If you expect ordinary folk to believe such statements on the basis of
accusers credibility, then your chances of success are as unlikely as
night following day.
Hint: *Any* "physics" papers dealing with the planckian universe is
speculative at best.
Hint2: Almost all modern physics and math papers deliberately obfuscate
and complicate otherwise simple concepts.
And your qualifications for judging this are what?
Before I answer your question, may I ask what qualifications one needs
and where one acquires them?
For judging if "modern physics and math papers deliberately obfuscate
and complicate otherwise simple concepts", one first needs a quite
good understanding of modern physics and math, don't you think?
Well then you may consider me qualified. A good paper is written
clearly and unambiguously and as simple as possible. It should interest
an outsider but not necessarily offend a "professional" in that field.
Today's junk substitutes content with obfuscation. For this reason, the
paper in question by the original poster is no different than most
other recent papers. It's not a fraud, it's modern physics.
It's quite obvious *who* is obfuscating here...
I'll bet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
04 Aug 2005 08:32:54 AM |
|
|
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
YBM wrote:
Schoenfeld a écrit :
"Baez" confuses his incompetence with fraud.
Given that there is a complete evidence of fraud in this very
case, I guess one could have some confidence in Baez' competence.
If you expect ordinary folk to believe such statements on the basis of
accusers credibility, then your chances of success are as unlikely as
night following day.
Hint: *Any* "physics" papers dealing with the planckian universe is
speculative at best.
Hint2: Almost all modern physics and math papers deliberately obfuscate
and complicate otherwise simple concepts.
And your qualifications for judging this are what?
Before I answer your question, may I ask what qualifications one needs
and where one acquires them?
For judging if "modern physics and math papers deliberately obfuscate
and complicate otherwise simple concepts", one first needs a quite
good understanding of modern physics and math, don't you think?
Well then you may consider me qualified.
So you say that you have a good understanding of modern physics and
math? Care to provide evidence for that? As Bruce already pointed out:
a real name and a publication record would suffice.
A good paper is written
clearly and unambiguously and as simple as possible.
Full agreement.
It should interest
an outsider but not necessarily offend a "professional" in that field.
I disagree with the first half of your sentence. Why should a paper
in a very specialized field interest an outsider?
Today's junk substitutes content with obfuscation.
That's your opinion. So far, you haven't presented evidence that you
are qualified to judge that.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
04 Aug 2005 09:13:31 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
YBM wrote:
Schoenfeld a =E9crit :
"Baez" confuses his incompetence with fraud.
Given that there is a complete evidence of fraud in this very
case, I guess one could have some confidence in Baez' competence.
If you expect ordinary folk to believe such statements on the basis =
of
accusers credibility, then your chances of success are as unlikely as
night following day.
Hint: *Any* "physics" papers dealing with the planckian universe is
speculative at best.
Hint2: Almost all modern physics and math papers deliberately obfusc=
ate
and complicate otherwise simple concepts.
And your qualifications for judging this are what?
Before I answer your question, may I ask what qualifications one needs
and where one acquires them?
For judging if "modern physics and math papers deliberately obfuscate
and complicate otherwise simple concepts", one first needs a quite
good understanding of modern physics and math, don't you think?
Well then you may consider me qualified.
So you say that you have a good understanding of modern physics and
math? Care to provide evidence for that? As Bruce already pointed out:
a real name and a publication record would suffice.
Your requirement was simply an understanding of the subject, now you
are changing to include publications. Well I have none (that would
interest you), so therefore I guess I'm not qualified.
Don't forget to tear up your number theory, calculus and relativity
texts since they are wrong by transitive consequence of unqualified
original inventors.
A good paper is written
clearly and unambiguously and as simple as possible.
Full agreement.
It should interest
an outsider but not necessarily offend a "professional" in that field.
I disagree with the first half of your sentence. Why should a paper
in a very specialized field interest an outsider?
If an outsider (i.e. a non-professional in that field) has an interest
in that field then they should be able to comprehend a paper in that
field with reasonable effort. A chemist should be able to understand a
physics paper with reasonable effort. A physicist should be able to
understand a maths paper with reasonable effort. This can be made so
most of the time, but usually is not. Take a look at Shannons paper on
Information Theory and compare that with the latest from arxiv and
you'll see a difference. Compare Feynman's paper on the least action in
QM and compare that with the latest and you'll see a difference. The
difference is important. It is the difference between good work and
bad.
Today's junk substitutes content with obfuscation.
That's your opinion. So far, you haven't presented evidence that you
are qualified to judge that.
Neither have you.
=20
[snip]
=20
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
05 Aug 2005 04:44:18 AM |
|
|
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
YBM wrote:
Schoenfeld a écrit :
"Baez" confuses his incompetence with fraud.
Given that there is a complete evidence of fraud in this very
case, I guess one could have some confidence in Baez' competence.
If you expect ordinary folk to believe such statements on the basis of
accusers credibility, then your chances of success are as unlikely as
night following day.
Hint: *Any* "physics" papers dealing with the planckian universe is
speculative at best.
Hint2: Almost all modern physics and math papers deliberately obfuscate
and complicate otherwise simple concepts.
And your qualifications for judging this are what?
Before I answer your question, may I ask what qualifications one needs
and where one acquires them?
For judging if "modern physics and math papers deliberately obfuscate
and complicate otherwise simple concepts", one first needs a quite
good understanding of modern physics and math, don't you think?
Well then you may consider me qualified.
So you say that you have a good understanding of modern physics and
math? Care to provide evidence for that? As Bruce already pointed out:
a real name and a publication record would suffice.
Your requirement was simply an understanding of the subject, now you
are changing to include publications.
Huh? I am simply pointing out that I would like to have *evidence*
for your assertion that you have the necessary qualifications (i.e.
a good understanding). Providing a publication list would be one way
to provide that evidence.
Well I have none (that would
interest you), so therefore I guess I'm not qualified.
Well, you are free to think of other ways to show that you indeed
have the necessary qualifications (the good understanding). As long as
you haven't shown that, in light of your posting record I conclude
that you don't have them.
Don't forget to tear up your number theory, calculus and relativity
texts since they are wrong by transitive consequence of unqualified
original inventors.
Say, do you have severe reading comprehension problems, or do you
deliberately misrepresent what I actually said?
[snip]
[A good paper] should interest
an outsider but not necessarily offend a "professional" in that field.
I disagree with the first half of your sentence. Why should a paper
in a very specialized field interest an outsider?
You did not answer that question below. You only told me that a paper
should be written so that it can be understood by someone outside the
field, but interested in it, with "reasonable effort". That has little
to do with your original assertion that a good paper should "interest
an outsider".
If an outsider (i.e. a non-professional in that field) has an interest
in that field then they should be able to comprehend a paper in that
field with reasonable effort. A chemist should be able to understand a
physics paper with reasonable effort. A physicist should be able to
understand a maths paper with reasonable effort.
Since working in a specialized field required usually months if not
years of education additional to the education required for a general
physicist/chemist/etc., I don't think that is possible.
This can be made so most of the time,
Do you work yourself in physics, chemistry or math research? If not,
why do you think you are able to judge if this if your request
is possible to fulfill?
but usually is not. Take a look at Shannons paper on
Information Theory and compare that with the latest from arxiv and
you'll see a difference.
That's an entirely false analogy. For starters, Shannon's paper
essentially started a new area of research, whereas most papers today
rely on well-established knowledge in fields of research which have
been in existence for several decades.
Compare Feynman's paper on the least action in QM and compare that
with the latest and you'll see a difference.
Essentially same comment.
The difference is important. It is the difference between good work and
bad.
No, it is the simple difference between starting a new area of research
and contributing to an area of research which has been established for
several decades already.
Today's junk substitutes content with obfuscation.
That's your opinion. So far, you haven't presented evidence that you
are qualified to judge that.
Neither have you.
Who is better qualified to judge the quality of publications and
research? The one who works in research and publishes himself papers,
or an outsider?
I have a PhD in physics and do research in theoretical chemistry. I.e.
I have hands-on experience with research in physics and chemistry
myself. Apparently you don't have that (since you admitted just above
that you don't have any publications).
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bruce Scott TOK" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
05 Aug 2005 08:33:03 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
[talking to ``Schoenfeld'']
I have a PhD in physics and do research in theoretical chemistry. I.e.
I have hands-on experience with research in physics and chemistry
myself. Apparently you don't have that (since you admitted just above
that you don't have any publications).
The guy won't even tell us all who he is, let alone give us a paper.
Any paper. Even a screed on a website, which could tell us not only how
qualified he might be, but (aghast!) who he is.
I think the latter is what he is afraid of.
I'm not interested in any of the attempts to hoax or rewrite GR, but I
am indeed interested in the Bogdanovs' attempts to falsify the open
record regarding their and others' work.
--
ciao,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
05 Aug 2005 10:04:04 PM |
|
|
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
[talking to ``Schoenfeld'']
I have a PhD in physics and do research in theoretical chemistry. I.e.
I have hands-on experience with research in physics and chemistry
myself. Apparently you don't have that (since you admitted just above
that you don't have any publications).
The guy won't even tell us all who he is, let alone give us a paper.
Any paper. Even a screed on a website, which could tell us not only how
qualified he might be, but (aghast!) who he is.
I think the latter is what he is afraid of.
Translation: It's not the content that matters, it's the author.
I'm not interested in any of the attempts to hoax or rewrite GR, but I
am indeed interested in the Bogdanovs' attempts to falsify the open
record regarding their and others' work.
You aren't interested in legamit research.
--
ciao,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bruce Scott TOK" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
08 Aug 2005 12:52:41 PM |
|
|
"Schoenfeld" wrote:
|> Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
|> > Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
|> >
|> > [talking to ``Schoenfeld'']
|> >
|> > >I have a PhD in physics and do research in theoretical chemistry. I.e.
|> > >I have hands-on experience with research in physics and chemistry
|> > >myself. Apparently you don't have that (since you admitted just above
|> > >that you don't have any publications).
|> >
|> > The guy won't even tell us all who he is, let alone give us a paper.
|> > Any paper. Even a screed on a website, which could tell us not only how
|> > qualified he might be, but (aghast!) who he is.
|> >
|> > I think the latter is what he is afraid of.
|>
|> Translation: It's not the content that matters, it's the author.
Are you misinterpreting me on purpose? I said all I need to see is a
paper, write-up, or presentation of any kind. Anything. It doesn't
have to be "academy approved" in any way.
The only reason your identity came up is that to show us a paper you'd
have to tell us who you are (unless you're clever), and I am speculating
that is why you don't show us a paper.
|> > I'm not interested in any of the attempts to hoax or rewrite GR, but I
|> > am indeed interested in the Bogdanovs' attempts to falsify the open
|> > record regarding their and others' work.
|>
|> You aren't interested in legamit research.
On "alternative gravity"? Indeed not. I do plasma physics instead, and
am satisfied by basic GR as it stands.
Nevertheless, I am amused by this thread.
--
ciao,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
08 Aug 2005 09:02:14 PM |
|
|
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
"Schoenfeld" wrote:
|> Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
|> > Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
|> >
|> > [talking to ``Schoenfeld'']
|> >
|> > >I have a PhD in physics and do research in theoretical chemistry. I.e.
|> > >I have hands-on experience with research in physics and chemistry
|> > >myself. Apparently you don't have that (since you admitted just above
|> > >that you don't have any publications).
|> >
|> > The guy won't even tell us all who he is, let alone give us a paper.
|> > Any paper. Even a screed on a website, which could tell us not only how
|> > qualified he might be, but (aghast!) who he is.
|> >
|> > I think the latter is what he is afraid of.
|>
|> Translation: It's not the content that matters, it's the author.
Are you misinterpreting me on purpose?
On the contrary it seems.
I said all I need to see is a
paper, write-up, or presentation of any kind. Anything. It doesn't
have to be "academy approved" in any way.
If that is the case, then you can simply consider my posts on this
thread. It should be sufficient by your own standard noted just above.
The only reason your identity came up is that to show us a paper you'd
have to tell us who you are (unless you're clever), and I am speculating
that is why you don't show us a paper.
Well if you email me your name, address, social security number and
credit card details I will provide you any information about me which
you require to determine my qualifications.
|> > I'm not interested in any of the attempts to hoax or rewrite GR, but I
|> > am indeed interested in the Bogdanovs' attempts to falsify the open
|> > record regarding their and others' work.
|>
|> You aren't interested in legamit research.
On "alternative gravity"? Indeed not. I do plasma physics instead, and
am satisfied by basic GR as it stands.
I didn't say anything about alternative gravity so why did you put
quotation marks around it and try to pass that off as something I am
interested in?
Nevertheless, I am amused by this thread.
And this is relevant, because?
--
ciao,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bruce Scott TOK" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
09 Aug 2005 07:30:26 AM |
|
|
"Schoenfeld" wrote:
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
"Schoenfeld" wrote:
|> Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
|> > Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
|> >
|> > [talking to ``Schoenfeld'']
|> >
|> > >I have a PhD in physics and do research in theoretical chemistry. I.e.
|> > >I have hands-on experience with research in physics and chemistry
|> > >myself. Apparently you don't have that (since you admitted just above
|> > >that you don't have any publications).
|> >
|> > The guy won't even tell us all who he is, let alone give us a paper.
|> > Any paper. Even a screed on a website, which could tell us not only how
|> > qualified he might be, but (aghast!) who he is.
|> >
|> > I think the latter is what he is afraid of.
|>
|> Translation: It's not the content that matters, it's the author.
Are you misinterpreting me on purpose?
On the contrary it seems.
Well then maybe you _can't_ understand that I don't actually consider
identity important, but merely speculate it is the reason you don't
grace us all with a write-up.
I said all I need to see is a
paper, write-up, or presentation of any kind. Anything. It doesn't
have to be "academy approved" in any way.
If that is the case, then you can simply consider my posts on this
thread. It should be sufficient by your own standard noted just above.
No... Usenet posts don't count, because they are mainly off the cuff
responses. A paper or write-up shows how well you can lay out your
thoughts and what their content is, written in a coherent way at
your leisure. It is quite different from a discussion.
How about simply writing us a lecture. Make it substantial, somewhat
like this:
http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/lectures/turb-lecture.html
The only reason your identity came up is that to show us a paper you'd
have to tell us who you are (unless you're clever), and I am speculating
that is why you don't show us a paper.
Well if you email me your name, address, social security number and
credit card details I will provide you any information about me which
you require to determine my qualifications.
I don't care about this at all and you misunderstand that.
Of course, if you really do want to keep your identity secret, it is
harder to do when you have written material on the WWW. Is that the
reason you don't write anything up? If not, then indeed your identity
is irrelevant.
On "alternative gravity"? Indeed not. I do plasma physics instead, and
am satisfied by basic GR as it stands.
I didn't say anything about alternative gravity so why did you put
quotation marks around it and try to pass that off as something I am
interested in?
You're in a Bogdanov thread and also elsewhere seem to want to have a
lot to say about the BB theory. So how about writing us a lecture on
that and posting it on the web? Make it seperate from Usenet threads.
Nevertheless, I am amused by this thread.
And this is relevant, because?
You and someone else seemed to want to know why people like me and
Bjoern are responding to you.
--
ciao,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
09 Aug 2005 09:05:36 AM |
|
|
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
If not, then indeed your identity is irrelevant.
You may think of me not necessarily as an Einstein, but rather as the
guy who dug the trench that housed Einsteins sewerage pipes. A relation
to Einstein indeed, but perhaps not as relevant as you were hoping for.
Ut orbis lux dilato sic dilato regio atrum intus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bruce Scott TOK" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
09 Aug 2005 10:55:39 AM |
|
|
"Schoenfeld" wrote:
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
If not, then indeed your identity is irrelevant.
You may think of me not necessarily as an Einstein, but rather as the
guy who dug the trench that housed Einsteins sewerage pipes. A relation
to Einstein indeed, but perhaps not as relevant as you were hoping for.
Well that's always fair enough but in order to gain credibility one has
to demonstrate one's command of the ideas and a write-up, lecture, or
paper is the way to do that.
--
ciao,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
09 Aug 2005 05:23:57 AM |
|
|
Schoenfeld wrote:
[snip]
The only reason your identity came up is that to show us a paper you'd
have to tell us who you are (unless you're clever), and I am speculating
that is why you don't show us a paper.
Well if you email me your name, address, social security number and
credit card details I will provide you any information about me which
you require to determine my qualifications.
Thanks for confirming that you are a troll.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
08 Aug 2005 04:59:47 AM |
|
|
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
[talking to ``Schoenfeld'']
I have a PhD in physics and do research in theoretical chemistry. I.e.
I have hands-on experience with research in physics and chemistry
myself. Apparently you don't have that (since you admitted just above
that you don't have any publications).
The guy won't even tell us all who he is, let alone give us a paper.
Any paper. Even a screed on a website, which could tell us not only how
qualified he might be, but (aghast!) who he is.
I think the latter is what he is afraid of.
Translation: It's not the content that matters, it's the author.
I'm not interested in any of the attempts to hoax or rewrite GR, but I
am indeed interested in the Bogdanovs' attempts to falsify the open
record regarding their and others' work.
You aren't interested in legamit research.
I notice that you have still not provided any evidence that you have
the necessary qualifications to judge the quality of research, and
that you conveniently ignore that I, someone who *has* these
qualifications, disagrees with your opinions.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
08 Aug 2005 05:15:03 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
[talking to ``Schoenfeld'']
I have a PhD in physics and do research in theoretical chemistry. I.e.
I have hands-on experience with research in physics and chemistry
myself. Apparently you don't have that (since you admitted just above
that you don't have any publications).
The guy won't even tell us all who he is, let alone give us a paper.
Any paper. Even a screed on a website, which could tell us not only how
qualified he might be, but (aghast!) who he is.
I think the latter is what he is afraid of.
Translation: It's not the content that matters, it's the author.
I'm not interested in any of the attempts to hoax or rewrite GR, but I
am indeed interested in the Bogdanovs' attempts to falsify the open
record regarding their and others' work.
You aren't interested in legamit research.
I notice that you have still not provided any evidence that you have
the necessary qualifications to judge the quality of research
Neither have you.
, and
that you conveniently ignore that I, someone who *has* these
qualifications, disagrees with your opinions.
You confuse bureucratic certification as qualifiactions.
I also note that you haven't torn up your number theory, calculus and
relativity texts. You do realize that the inventors of those concepts
aren't qualified, don't you?
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bruce Scott TOK" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
08 Aug 2005 01:02:12 PM |
|
|
"Schoenfeld" wrote:
|> Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
|> > I notice that you have still not provided any evidence that you have
|> > the necessary qualifications to judge the quality of research
|>
|> Neither have you.
|>
|> >, and
|> > that you conveniently ignore that I, someone who *has* these
|> > qualifications, disagrees with your opinions.
|>
|> You confuse bureucratic certification as qualifiactions.
|>
|> I also note that you haven't torn up your number theory, calculus and
|> relativity texts. You do realize that the inventors of those concepts
|> aren't qualified, don't you?
Neither of us are interested in "bureucratic certification"...
You really misunderstand how we judge these things. Once we learn
things like calculus and relativity, we learn how to _derive_ them, not
just how to repeat their results. So once Einstein and Hilbert taught
us two separate ways to derive the GR equation, we can all do it. Or at
least we did it once. Same with SR, same even with the fundamentals of
such things as derivatives and integrals. Concerning number theory,
what's your beef? Pythagoras taught us how to prove sqrt(2) is
irrational and most of us learned (at least once) how to prove it on our
own. (The subtle details and issues are another matter of course. In
physics most of us wait until the math methds are well known. This is
why physics traditionally lags math. So yeah, most people in physics
use 19th Century math. A few use 20th.)
So no, we don't depend on authority on these things.
But it is up to you to decide whether to show someone enough to motivate
them to learn from your ideas. You can't force it.
--
ciao,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
08 Aug 2005 06:41:49 AM |
|
|
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
[talking to ``Schoenfeld'']
I have a PhD in physics and do research in theoretical chemistry. I.e.
I have hands-on experience with research in physics and chemistry
myself. Apparently you don't have that (since you admitted just above
that you don't have any publications).
The guy won't even tell us all who he is, let alone give us a paper.
Any paper. Even a screed on a website, which could tell us not only how
qualified he might be, but (aghast!) who he is.
I think the latter is what he is afraid of.
Translation: It's not the content that matters, it's the author.
I'm not interested in any of the attempts to hoax or rewrite GR, but I
am indeed interested in the Bogdanovs' attempts to falsify the open
record regarding their and others' work.
You aren't interested in legamit research.
I notice that you have still not provided any evidence that you have
the necessary qualifications to judge the quality of research
Neither have you.
Wrong. See the paragraph at the beginning of this post.
and
that you conveniently ignore that I, someone who *has* these
qualifications, disagrees with your opinions.
You confuse bureucratic certification as qualifiactions.
Wow. Do you *really* want to say that I, someone who *works* in
research and has himself published papers, is *not* better qualified
than you, who has done neither, to judge the quality of research?
Is this supposed to be a bad joke, or are you *really* that dumb?
I also note that you haven't torn up your number theory, calculus and
relativity texts. You do realize that the inventors of those concepts
aren't qualified, don't you?
Stop misrepresenting what I said.
Considering that I already clarified what I said, and already asked
you to stop misrepresenting me, I'll rephrase this: stop lying and
trolling.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
08 Aug 2005 08:06:50 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
[talking to ``Schoenfeld'']
I have a PhD in physics and do research in theoretical chemistry. I.e.
I have hands-on experience with research in physics and chemistry
myself. Apparently you don't have that (since you admitted just above
that you don't have any publications).
The guy won't even tell us all who he is, let alone give us a paper.
Any paper. Even a screed on a website, which could tell us not only how
qualified he might be, but (aghast!) who he is.
I think the latter is what he is afraid of.
Translation: It's not the content that matters, it's the author.
I'm not interested in any of the attempts to hoax or rewrite GR, but I
am indeed interested in the Bogdanovs' attempts to falsify the open
record regarding their and others' work.
You aren't interested in legamit research.
I notice that you have still not provided any evidence that you have
the necessary qualifications to judge the quality of research
Neither have you.
Wrong. See the paragraph at the beginning of this post.
and
that you conveniently ignore that I, someone who *has* these
qualifications, disagrees with your opinions.
You confuse bureucratic certification as qualifiactions.
Wow. Do you *really* want to say that I, someone who *works* in
research and has himself published papers, is *not* better qualified
than you, who has done neither, to judge the quality of research?
No, I didn't say that. You need to understand that just because A
implies B this does not mean that not A implies not B (if you believe
in reason, that is).
Is this supposed to be a bad joke, or are you *really* that dumb?
No, just your inability to understand reasoning.
I also note that you haven't torn up your number theory, calculus and
relativity texts. You do realize that the inventors of those concepts
aren't qualified, don't you?
Stop misrepresenting what I said.
I'm not, it is exactly what you are saying.
Considering that I already clarified what I said, and already asked
you to stop misrepresenting me, I'll rephrase this: stop lying and
trolling.
Providing a sequence of insults may constitute an answer where you hang
out, but for others - you do realize that many original contributors of
number theory, calculus and relativity are unqualified, don't you?
When are you going to tear up your science books as inventors were
clearly unqualified to pontificate of such matters?
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
08 Aug 2005 08:24:47 AM |
|
|
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
[talking to ``Schoenfeld'']
I have a PhD in physics and do research in theoretical chemistry. I.e.
I have hands-on experience with research in physics and chemistry
myself. Apparently you don't have that (since you admitted just above
that you don't have any publications).
The guy won't even tell us all who he is, let alone give us a paper.
Any paper. Even a screed on a website, which could tell us not only how
qualified he might be, but (aghast!) who he is.
I think the latter is what he is afraid of.
Translation: It's not the content that matters, it's the author.
I'm not interested in any of the attempts to hoax or rewrite GR, but I
am indeed interested in the Bogdanovs' attempts to falsify the open
record regarding their and others' work.
You aren't interested in legamit research.
I notice that you have still not provided any evidence that you have
the necessary qualifications to judge the quality of research
Neither have you.
Wrong. See the paragraph at the beginning of this post.
and
that you conveniently ignore that I, someone who *has* these
qualifications, disagrees with your opinions.
You confuse bureucratic certification as qualifiactions.
Wow. Do you *really* want to say that I, someone who *works* in
research and has himself published papers, is *not* better qualified
than you, who has done neither, to judge the quality of research?
No, I didn't say that. You need to understand that just because A
implies B this does not mean that not A implies not B (if you believe
in reason, that is).
Is this supposed to be a bad joke, or are you *really* that dumb?
No, just your inability to understand reasoning.
I pointed out that I work myself as a researcher and have published
papers myself, and that makes me more qualified than you to judge the
quality of research. You responded to that with
"You confuse bureucratic certification as qualifiactions."
It's quite clear *who* has problems with reasoning here.
I also note that you haven't torn up your number theory, calculus and
relativity texts. You do realize that the inventors of those concepts
aren't qualified, don't you?
Stop misrepresenting what I said.
I'm not, it is exactly what you are saying.
Provide a quote, or stop lying.
Considering that I already clarified what I said, and already asked
you to stop misrepresenting me, I'll rephrase this: stop lying and
trolling.
Providing a sequence of insults may constitute an answer where you hang
out, but for others
Well, it doesn't for me. So, when will you finally start providing
some evidence for your assertion that you have the necessary
qualifications, instead of merely answering my posts with illogic
statements, misrepresentations and insults?
- you do realize that many original contributors of
number theory, calculus and relativity are unqualified, don't you?
No, since I never said anything which could lead to that conclusion.
When are you going to tear up your science books as inventors were
clearly unqualified to pontificate of such matters?
Nothing I ever said in this thread leads logically to "the authors of
my science books are unqualified".
If you think something I said leads to that conclusion, provide the
relevant quote.
Stop trolling.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
08 Aug 2005 08:59:15 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
[talking to ``Schoenfeld'']
I have a PhD in physics and do research in theoretical chemistry. I.e.
I have hands-on experience with research in physics and chemistry
myself. Apparently you don't have that (since you admitted just above
that you don't have any publications).
The guy won't even tell us all who he is, let alone give us a paper.
Any paper. Even a screed on a website, which could tell us not only how
qualified he might be, but (aghast!) who he is.
I think the latter is what he is afraid of.
Translation: It's not the content that matters, it's the author.
I'm not interested in any of the attempts to hoax or rewrite GR, but I
am indeed interested in the Bogdanovs' attempts to falsify the open
record regarding their and others' work.
You aren't interested in legamit research.
I notice that you have still not provided any evidence that you have
the necessary qualifications to judge the quality of research
Neither have you.
Wrong. See the paragraph at the beginning of this post.
and
that you conveniently ignore that I, someone who *has* these
qualifications, disagrees with your opinions.
You confuse bureucratic certification as qualifiactions.
Wow. Do you *really* want to say that I, someone who *works* in
research and has himself published papers, is *not* better qualified
than you, who has done neither, to judge the quality of research?
No, I didn't say that. You need to understand that just because A
implies B this does not mean that not A implies not B (if you believe
in reason, that is).
Is this supposed to be a bad joke, or are you *really* that dumb?
No, just your inability to understand reasoning.
I pointed out that I work myself as a researcher and have published
papers myself, and that makes me more qualified than you to judge the
quality of research. You responded to that with
"You confuse bureucratic certification as qualifiactions."
It's quite clear *who* has problems with reasoning here.
Let me make it clearer for you:
YOUR STATEMENT:
"physics qualifications" implies "valid viewpoint on physics
research".
This does mean that,
"no physics qualitications" implies "invalid viewpoint on physics
research".
I'm afraid I will require the use of a baseball bat to make this any
clearer for you.
You should also thank your lucky stars that the unqualified can have
correct viewpoints as otherwise there would be no fields of research to
"qualify" the ignorant in.
I also note that you haven't torn up your number theory, calculus and
relativity texts. You do realize that the inventors of those concepts
aren't qualified, don't you?
Stop misrepresenting what I said.
I'm not, it is exactly what you are saying.
Provide a quote, or stop lying.
You said that because I had no physics publications that my viewpoint
is incorrect. I do not disagree, but find rather strange that you
haven't torn up your relativity, calculus and number theory texts since
obviously many of those inventors were unqualified by your silly
standard.
Considering that I already clarified what I said, and already asked
you to stop misrepresenting me, I'll rephrase this: stop lying and
trolling.
Providing a sequence of insults may constitute an answer where you hang
out, but for others
Well, it doesn't for me. So, when will you finally start providing
some evidence for your assertion that you have the necessary
qualifications, instead of merely answering my posts with illogic
statements, misrepresentations and insults?
I already told you various posts ago that I am not qualified by your
standards. I am simply asking you why you haven't torn up your science
books yet? They are all wrong because the inventors were all
unqualified.
When are you going to write letters to your fellow academics and let
them in on your recent discovery that science is all wrong because the
people who discovered it were unqualified?
[snip more of the same]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
09 Aug 2005 05:28:29 AM |
|
|
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
[snip]
You confuse bureucratic certification as qualifiactions.
Wow. Do you *really* want to say that I, someone who *works* in
research and has himself published papers, is *not* better qualified
than you, who has done neither, to judge the quality of research?
No, I didn't say that. You need to understand that just because A
implies B this does not mean that not A implies not B (if you believe
in reason, that is).
Is this supposed to be a bad joke, or are you *really* that dumb?
No, just your inability to understand reasoning.
I pointed out that I work myself as a researcher and have published
papers myself, and that makes me more qualified than you to judge the
quality of research. You responded to that with
"You confuse bureucratic certification as qualifiactions."
It's quite clear *who* has problems with reasoning here.
Let me make it clearer for you:
YOUR STATEMENT:
"physics qualifications" implies "valid viewpoint on physics
research".
Change "valid" to "qualified", then I agree. That's essentially
what I actually said.
This does mean that,
"no physics qualitications" implies "invalid viewpoint on physics
research".
But "no physics qualifications" obviously implies "unqualified
viewpoint on physics research". And exactly that was my point.
Say, are you *really* too dumb to understand what I say, or are you
merely willfully misrepresenting me?
I'm afraid I will require the use of a baseball bat to make this any
clearer for you.
You should also thank your lucky stars that the unqualified can have
correct viewpoints as otherwise there would be no fields of research to
"qualify" the ignorant in.
I never disputed that someone who is unqualified *can* have a correct
viewpoint. I only pointed out that one *should* have qualifications in
the field one is commenting one. Stop misrepresenting me, troll.
I also note that you haven't torn up your number theory, calculus and
relativity texts. You do realize that the inventors of those concepts
aren't qualified, don't you?
Stop misrepresenting what I said.
I'm not, it is exactly what you are saying.
Provide a quote, or stop lying.
You said that because I had no physics publications that my viewpoint
is incorrect.
Liar, I did not say nor imply that.
[snip more of that]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
09 Aug 2005 07:50:38 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
[snip]
You confuse bureucratic certification as qualifiactions.
Wow. Do you *really* want to say that I, someone who *works* in
research and has himself published papers, is *not* better qualified
than you, who has done neither, to judge the quality of research?
No, I didn't say that. You need to understand that just because A
implies B this does not mean that not A implies not B (if you believe
in reason, that is).
Is this supposed to be a bad joke, or are you *really* that dumb?
No, just your inability to understand reasoning.
I pointed out that I work myself as a researcher and have published
papers myself, and that makes me more qualified than you to judge the
quality of research. You responded to that with
"You confuse bureucratic certification as qualifiactions."
It's quite clear *who* has problems with reasoning here.
Let me make it clearer for you:
YOUR STATEMENT:
"physics qualifications" implies "valid viewpoint on physics
research".
Change "valid" to "qualified", then I agree. That's essentially
what I actually said.
So judging by your own statement, someones "unqualified" opinion on
physics can be correct. Why did you vehemetely and violently oppose
what I had to say then on the basis of my "qualifications" only? Rather
contradictory, don't you think. (hint: that was not a question).
This does mean that,
"no physics qualitications" implies "invalid viewpoint on physics
research".
But "no physics qualifications" obviously implies "unqualified
viewpoint on physics research". And exactly that was my point.
That is a basic logic error.
That
"qualifications implies qualified viewpoint"
does NOT mean that
"no qualifications implies unqualified viewpoint".
Trivially true by definition:
A IMPLIES B = (A AND B) AND NOT(A AND NOT B) AND (NOT A AND B) AND
(NOT A AND NOT B)
A priori (yet unqualified) I can deduce that you still don't understand
your basic reasoning error so let me illustrate it better:
"If today is Tuesday implies Bjoern has to go to work" does NOT mean
that
"If today is not tuesday implies bjoern does not have to go to work".
Now that you understand your basic error, why won't you retract it?
Say, are you *really* too dumb to understand what I say, or are you
merely willfully misrepresenting me?
The only person "dumb" here is the person who fails to understand basic
reasoning (hint: it is not me and there are only 2 people on this
thread branch).
I'm afraid I will require the use of a baseball bat to make this any
clearer for you.
You should also thank your lucky stars that the unqualified can have
correct viewpoints as otherwise there would be no fields of research to
"qualify" the ignorant in.
I never disputed that someone who is unqualified *can* have a correct
viewpoint. I only pointed out that one *should* have qualifications in
the field one is commenting one. Stop misrepresenting me, troll.
Your logic astounds me. Someone unqualified can have correct viewpoint,
yet one should be qualified to present that viewpoint? I don't need to
misrepresent you as you are doing quite a good job of painting yourself
a fool.
I also note that you haven't torn up your number theory, calculus and
relativity texts. You do realize that the inventors of those concepts
aren't qualified, don't you?
Stop misrepresenting what I said.
I'm not, it is exactly what you are saying.
Provide a quote, or stop lying.
You said that because I had no physics publications that my viewpoint
is incorrect.
Liar, I did not say nor imply that.
Yes it seems that what you have to say makes no logical sense.
[snip more of that]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
09 Aug 2005 10:23:20 AM |
|
|
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
[snip]
You confuse bureucratic certification as qualifiactions.
Wow. Do you *really* want to say that I, someone who *works* in
research and has himself published papers, is *not* better qualified
than you, who has done neither, to judge the quality of research?
No, I didn't say that. You need to understand that just because A
implies B this does not mean that not A implies not B (if you believe
in reason, that is).
Is this supposed to be a bad joke, or are you *really* that dumb?
No, just your inability to understand reasoning.
I pointed out that I work myself as a researcher and have published
papers myself, and that makes me more qualified than you to judge the
quality of research. You responded to that with
"You confuse bureucratic certification as qualifiactions."
It's quite clear *who* has problems with reasoning here.
Let me make it clearer for you:
YOUR STATEMENT:
"physics qualifications" implies "valid viewpoint on physics
research".
Change "valid" to "qualified", then I agree. That's essentially
what I actually said.
So judging by your own statement, someones "unqualified" opinion on
physics can be correct.
Right. But obviously a qualified opinion is more likely to be correct.
My opinion is qualified (I explained why). My opinion contradicts
yours. So yours is likely to be wrong. So it's quite natural that
I get interested in your qualifications.
Why don't you bother to show somehow that you *are* qualified?
Remember, you claimed you are; why don't you bother to support that
assertion, and instead use only obfuscations and insults?
Why did you vehemetely and violently oppose
what I had to say then on the basis of my "qualifications" only?
I didn't. Stop misrepresenting me, troll.
[snip]
This does mean that,
"no physics qualitications" implies "invalid viewpoint on physics
research".
But "no physics qualifications" obviously implies "unqualified
viewpoint on physics research". And exactly that was my point.
That is a basic logic error.
Which I did not commit.
That
"qualifications implies qualified viewpoint"
does NOT mean that
"no qualifications implies unqualified viewpoint".
I did not say it does. "no qualifications implies unqualified
viewpoint" is true on its own. I did not say that the truth of
this statement depends on the truth of the statement
"qualifications implies qualified viewpoint".
Stop obfuscating, troll.
Trivially true by definition:
A IMPLIES B = (A AND B) AND NOT(A AND NOT B) AND (NOT A AND B) AND
(NOT A AND NOT B)
A priori (yet unqualified) I can deduce that you still don't understand
your basic reasoning error so let me illustrate it better:
"If today is Tuesday implies Bjoern has to go to work" does NOT mean
that
"If today is not tuesday implies bjoern does not have to go to work".
Now that you understand your basic error, why won't you retract it?
Because it didn't commit it.
Thanks for yet again demonstrating your reading comprehension
problems. Oh, and for demonstrating that you are not man enough to
back up your assertions, but instead resort to obfuscations, insults
and quibbles.
Really pathetic.
[snip]
I'm afraid I will require the use of a baseball bat to make this any
clearer for you.
You should also thank your lucky stars that the unqualified can have
correct viewpoints as otherwise there would be no fields of research to
"qualify" the ignorant in.
I never disputed that someone who is unqualified *can* have a correct
viewpoint. I only pointed out that one *should* have qualifications in
the field one is commenting one. Stop misrepresenting me, troll.
Your logic astounds me. Someone unqualified can have correct viewpoint,
yet one should be qualified to present that viewpoint?
Yes. If you fail to understand this very basic concept, then I really
can't help you.
I don't need to
misrepresent you as you are doing quite a good job of painting yourself
a fool.
Hint: you are the only one in this thread who thinks so.
[snip]
You said that because I had no physics publications that my viewpoint
is incorrect.
Liar, I did not say nor imply that.
Yes it seems that what you have to say makes no logical sense.
I see you don't bother to admit that you either lied or totally
misunderstood what I actually said. No surprise.
Pathetic troll.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Bogdanov attack on Wikipedia |
10 Aug 2005 07:41:51 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
[snip]
You confuse bureucratic certification as qualifiactions.
Wow. Do you *really* want to say that I, someone who *works* in
research and has himself published papers, is *not* better qualified
than you, who has done neither, to judge the quality of research?
No, I didn't say that. You need to understand that just because A
implies B this does not mean that not A implies not B (if you believe
in reason, that is).
Is this supposed to be a bad joke, or are you *really* that dumb?
No, just your inability to understand reasoning.
I pointed out that I work myself as a researcher and have published
papers myself, and that makes me more qualified than you to judge the
quality of research. You responded to that with
"You confuse bureucratic certification as qualifiactions."
It's quite clear *who* has problems with reasoning here.
Let me make it clearer for you:
YOUR STATEMENT:
"physics qualifications" implies "valid viewpoint on physics
research".
Change "valid" to "qualified", then I agree. That's essentially
what I actually said.
So judging by your own statement, someones "unqualified" opinion on
physics can be correct.
Right. But obviously a qualified opinion is more likely to be correct.
You haven't presented anything that makes you qualified. On the
contrary, your failure to understand basic concepts in relativity (as
highlighted in other threads) implies that you are not qualified.
[snip]
Why don't you bother to show somehow that you *are* qualified?
You should consider following your own advice. You can start by ceasing
all elementary errors made in relevant field of dicussion (re various
other threads).
Remember, you claimed you are; why don't you bother to support that
assertion, and instead use only obfuscations and insults?
Why did you vehemetely and violently oppose
what I had to say then on the basis of my "qualifications" only?
I didn't. Stop misrepresenting me, troll.
Qualified for issuing insults is the only you have demonstrated. Stop
trying to run away from your own words.
*YOU* said that someone who has not published papers in physics (which
makes them unqualified according to you) should not "comment" on
physics. Those are *YOUR* words. That is fine with me. I just find
rather strange that you haven't torn up your number theory, calculus
and relativity texts since the inventors of those fields were largely
unqualified by your silly standard.
[snip inuendo and insults]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
