Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature?


 Science > Physics > Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature?

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 12

1
 

2
 

3
 

4
 

5
 

6
 

7
 

8
 

9
 

10
 

11
 

12
 
Topic: Science > Physics
User: "Perfectly Innocent"
Date: 22 Sep 2003 10:03:28 PM
Object: Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature?
"Most of the papers which are submitted to the Physical Review are
rejected, not because it is impossible to understand them, but because
it is possible. Those which are impossible to understand are usually
published." Freeman Dyson, Innovation in Physics.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=580
Eugene Shubert
.

User: "Gregory L. Hansen"

Title: Re: Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature? 23 Sep 2003 08:42:54 AM
In article <c45b45b3.0309221903.18f1f769@posting.google.com>,
Perfectly Innocent <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote:

"Most of the papers which are submitted to the Physical Review are
rejected, not because it is impossible to understand them, but because
it is possible. Those which are impossible to understand are usually
published." Freeman Dyson, Innovation in Physics.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=580

Eugene Shubert

I remember a quote that was something like "It doesn't get into
Fundamentals of Physics Letters unless it's wrong." Also a quote about
APS journals soon filling library shelves faster than the speed of light,
but not violating relativity since no information would be transmitted.
Maybe you're taking the quote more seriously than Dyson meant it.
--
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible
.
User: "Perfectly Innocent"

Title: Re: Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature? 24 Sep 2003 04:34:40 PM
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<bkpiku$c2a$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...

In article <c45b45b3.0309221903.18f1f769@posting.google.com>,
Perfectly Innocent wrote:

"Most of the papers which are submitted to the Physical Review are
rejected, not because it is impossible to understand them, but because
it is possible. Those which are impossible to understand are usually
published." Freeman Dyson, Innovation in Physics.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=580

Eugene Shubert


I remember a quote that was something like "It doesn't get into
Fundamentals of Physics Letters unless it's wrong." Also a quote about
APS journals soon filling library shelves faster than the speed of light,
but not violating relativity since no information would be transmitted.

Gregory, Your reference to faster-than-light, non-luminal journals is
hilarious.

Maybe you're taking the quote more seriously than Dyson meant it.

I'm certain that Dyson meant his remark to be taken in a lighthearted
way but the question remains. How much of his statement is true? "Do
physicists understand their own peer-reviewed literature?"
We've all read stuff in the "scientific literature" that we know for
a fact would have a much easier time qualifying as "highfalutin
pomposity" than "a clear exposition." How do we know that physicists
today aren't running amok, pretending that they understand everything
and successfully publishing incomprehensible gibberish on the remote
edge of decipherability and clarity?
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=580
.
User: "Gregory L. Hansen"

Title: Re: Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature? 24 Sep 2003 08:11:38 PM
In article <c45b45b3.0309241334.76f87415@posting.google.com>,
Perfectly Innocent <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote:

glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
news:<bkpiku$c2a$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...

In article <c45b45b3.0309221903.18f1f769@posting.google.com>,
Perfectly Innocent wrote:

"Most of the papers which are submitted to the Physical Review are
rejected, not because it is impossible to understand them, but because
it is possible. Those which are impossible to understand are usually
published." Freeman Dyson, Innovation in Physics.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=580

Eugene Shubert


I remember a quote that was something like "It doesn't get into
Fundamentals of Physics Letters unless it's wrong." Also a quote about
APS journals soon filling library shelves faster than the speed of light,
but not violating relativity since no information would be transmitted.


Gregory, Your reference to faster-than-light, non-luminal journals is
hilarious.

Maybe you're taking the quote more seriously than Dyson meant it.


I'm certain that Dyson meant his remark to be taken in a lighthearted
way but the question remains. How much of his statement is true? "Do
physicists understand their own peer-reviewed literature?"

We've all read stuff in the "scientific literature" that we know for
a fact would have a much easier time qualifying as "highfalutin
pomposity" than "a clear exposition." How do we know that physicists
today aren't running amok, pretending that they understand everything
and successfully publishing incomprehensible gibberish on the remote
edge of decipherability and clarity?

Every quip like that has some grain of truth to it, I'm sure. But then we
have the interesting situation of some people saying journals will publish
anything the reviewers don't understand, while at the same time other
people are saying journals won't publish anything that doesn't look like
"the party line". Luckily there are lots of journals, some more tolerant
of novelty than others.
--
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible
.
User: "Perfectly Innocent"

Title: Re: Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature? 25 Sep 2003 08:00:56 PM
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<bktfca$n7b$4@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...

In article <c45b45b3.0309241334.76f87415@posting.google.com>,
Perfectly Innocent <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote:

(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
news:<bkpiku$c2a$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...

In article <c45b45b3.0309221903.18f1f769@posting.google.com>,
Perfectly Innocent wrote:

"Most of the papers which are submitted to the Physical Review are
rejected, not because it is impossible to understand them, but because
it is possible. Those which are impossible to understand are usually
published." Freeman Dyson, Innovation in Physics.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=580

Eugene Shubert


I remember a quote that was something like "It doesn't get into
Fundamentals of Physics Letters unless it's wrong." Also a quote about
APS journals soon filling library shelves faster than the speed of light,
but not violating relativity since no information would be transmitted.


Gregory, Your reference to faster-than-light, non-luminal journals is
hilarious.

Maybe you're taking the quote more seriously than Dyson meant it.


I'm certain that Dyson meant his remark to be taken in a lighthearted
way but the question remains. How much of his statement is true? "Do
physicists understand their own peer-reviewed literature?"

We've all read stuff in the "scientific literature" that we know for
a fact would have a much easier time qualifying as "highfalutin
pomposity" than "a clear exposition." How do we know that physicists
today aren't running amok, pretending that they understand everything
and successfully publishing incomprehensible gibberish on the remote
edge of decipherability and clarity?


Every quip like that has some grain of truth to it, I'm sure. But then we
have the interesting situation of some people saying journals will publish
anything the reviewers don't understand, while at the same time other
people are saying journals won't publish anything that doesn't look like
"the party line".

I see no contradiction between the two claims and believe the first is
only exaggerated slightly.
Why can't both statements be true?

Luckily there are lots of journals, some more tolerant
of novelty than others.

Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm
.
User: "Randy Poe"

Title: Re: Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature? 26 Sep 2003 09:29:59 AM
(Perfectly Innocent) wrote in message news:<c45b45b3.0309251700.4e15272a@posting.google.com>...

glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<bktfca$n7b$4@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...

Every quip like that has some grain of truth to it, I'm sure. But then we
have the interesting situation of some people saying journals will publish
anything the reviewers don't understand, while at the same time other
people are saying journals won't publish anything that doesn't look like
"the party line".


I see no contradiction between the two claims and believe the first is
only exaggerated slightly.

Why can't both statements be true?

You write an incomprehensible anti-relativity article. The
reviewers can't make head or tail of it. Which rule
applies?
- Randy
.
User: "Bill Hobba"

Title: Re: Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature? 27 Sep 2003 07:41:05 PM
Randy Poe wrote;

You write an incomprehensible anti-relativity article. The
reviewers can't make head or tail of it. Which rule
applies?

You see the problem don't you? He does not believe that so it must be a
conspiracy or the establishment are stupid or some such rubbish. The
problem is you will never convince someone like that otherwise. Sad really.
Thanks
Bill
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/18/2003
.
User: "Tom Potter"

Title: Re: Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature? 27 Sep 2003 08:41:22 PM
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f762d08$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au...

Randy Poe wrote;

You write an incomprehensible anti-relativity article. The
reviewers can't make head or tail of it. Which rule
applies?


You see the problem don't you? He does not believe that so it must be a
conspiracy or the establishment are stupid or some such rubbish. The
problem is you will never convince someone like that otherwise. Sad

really.


Thanks
Bill

I suggest that the folks who object to General Relativity do so,
not because they believe
"that it must be a conspiracy <of> the establishment"
but because it is not a viable theory.
As can be seen by the debates on and about General Relativity,
and the amount of the taxpayers money that is spent on
education, seminars, publications, supporting G.R. experts, etc.
and the lack of useful applications for it,
General Relativity consumes more time and resources
to support, than it returns in terms of productivity.
For example, I challenge Bill
to post how G.R. would model a mass spring system,
model a simple series-parallel resistance circuit,
or compute the ionization potentials of a few simple atoms.
The few applications that General Relativity models better than
more viable theories, do not require G.R. as the practical limits
of all but extremely tightly controlled experiments can be
modeled by more viable theories, and even the few cases where
G.R. makes for an elegant curve fit, the more viable theories
can be adapted to account for variations from the simpler
expressions of the theory.
No doubt, elegant theories should be pursued,
in the search for subtle effects that can be
profitable applied for the advancement of mankind,
but as it is, G.R. is a waste of time and resources,
and is essentially, a means by which
modern day priests extract money from the general public,
and charlatans hide behind to pretend to be
privy to useful, esoteric knowledge
(As a means of stroking their egos, or impressing people.).
To sum up,
rather than read the ego tripping, and insults
and the rationalizations of the people who defend G.R.
I'd like to see objections to my position
be expressed in viable, real world calculations such as
a spring mass system, a series-parallel circuit,
ionization potentials, etc.
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
.
User: "Bill Hobba"

Title: Re: Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature? 28 Sep 2003 06:58:08 PM
Tom Potter wrote:

I suggest that the folks who object to General Relativity do so,
not because they believe
"that it must be a conspiracy <of> the establishment"
but because it is not a viable theory.

Please point me to a peer reviewed paper that refutes GR? Such refutation
agreed by acknowledged experts such a Steve Carlip and John Baez.
Tom Potter wrote:

As can be seen by the debates on and about General Relativity,
and the amount of the taxpayers money that is spent on
education, seminars, publications, supporting G.R. experts, etc.
and the lack of useful applications for it,
General Relativity consumes more time and resources
to support, than it returns in terms of productivity.

And when is trying to understand the world a waste of time and money? Now
the real world applications of GR may be limited AS YET but for SR it is the
plaything of the work a day engineer - I have been assured by one that
without SR the cathode ray tube your probably writing this on would not be
able to be designed.
Tom Potter wrote:

For example, I challenge Bill
to post how G.R. would model a mass spring system,
model a simple series-parallel resistance circuit,
or compute the ionization potentials of a few simple atoms.

There are realms that GR applies to and realms it does not. I challenge you
to model the universe at large on a Newtonian system that is fully in accord
with experiment - in particular I challenge you to explain the background
radiation by such a model.
Tom Potter wrote:

The few applications that General Relativity models better than
more viable theories, do not require G.R. as the practical limits
of all but extremely tightly controlled experiments can be
modeled by more viable theories, and even the few cases where
G.R. makes for an elegant curve fit, the more viable theories
can be adapted to account for variations from the simpler
expressions of the theory.

Can light ray bending by the sum be explained by an alternative peer
reviewed theory that is not just as weird as GR?
Tom Potter wrote:

To sum up,
rather than read the ego tripping, and insults
and the rationalizations of the people who defend G.R.
I'd like to see objections to my position
be expressed in viable, real world calculations such as
a spring mass system, a series-parallel circuit,
ionization potentials, etc.

Please explain the calculations on page 188-196 of Gravitation and
Space-time by Ohanianon and Ruffini on the bending of light by some other
means.
Thanks
Bill
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/18/2003
.
User: "Tom Potter"

Title: Re: Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature? 29 Sep 2003 12:34:39 AM
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f777476_1@news.iprimus.com.au...

Tom Potter wrote:

I suggest that the folks who object to General Relativity do so,
not because they believe
"that it must be a conspiracy <of> the establishment"
but because it is not a viable theory.


Please point me to a peer reviewed paper that refutes GR? Such refutation
agreed by acknowledged experts such a Steve Carlip and John Baez.

Tom Potter wrote:

As can be seen by the debates on and about General Relativity,
and the amount of the taxpayers money that is spent on
education, seminars, publications, supporting G.R. experts, etc.
and the lack of useful applications for it,
General Relativity consumes more time and resources
to support, than it returns in terms of productivity.


And when is trying to understand the world a waste of time and money? Now
the real world applications of GR may be limited AS YET but for SR it is

the

plaything of the work a day engineer - I have been assured by one that
without SR the cathode ray tube your probably writing this on would not be
able to be designed.

Tom Potter wrote:

For example, I challenge Bill
to post how G.R. would model a mass spring system,
model a simple series-parallel resistance circuit,
or compute the ionization potentials of a few simple atoms.


There are realms that GR applies to and realms it does not. I challenge

you

to model the universe at large on a Newtonian system that is fully in

accord

with experiment - in particular I challenge you to explain the background
radiation by such a model.

Tom Potter wrote:

The few applications that General Relativity models better than
more viable theories, do not require G.R. as the practical limits
of all but extremely tightly controlled experiments can be
modeled by more viable theories, and even the few cases where
G.R. makes for an elegant curve fit, the more viable theories
can be adapted to account for variations from the simpler
expressions of the theory.


Can light ray bending by the sum be explained by an alternative peer
reviewed theory that is not just as weird as GR?

Tom Potter wrote:

To sum up,
rather than read the ego tripping, and insults
and the rationalizations of the people who defend G.R.
I'd like to see objections to my position
be expressed in viable, real world calculations such as
a spring mass system, a series-parallel circuit,
ionization potentials, etc.


Please explain the calculations on page 188-196 of Gravitation and
Space-time by Ohanianon and Ruffini on the bending of light by some other
means.

Thanks
Bill

Apparently, Bill does not know the meaning of the word "viable".
"Capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are."
And note that he uses the charlatans who profit from the
hyping of G.R, as his justification for G.R.,
rather than the cost/benefit ratio.
And note that he, like all of the brainwashed G.R. zealots
obfuscates, rather than simply provide a few cost effective
uses of G.R.
I challenge Bill to provide a few examples of
how G.R. can be used in a more VIABLE fashion
than more VIABLE models of nature.
Money, time and energy talks,
***** walks.
It time to have G.R. talk or walk.
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
.
User: "David Evens"

Title: Re: Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature? 29 Sep 2003 05:43:57 AM
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 13:34:39 +0800, "Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com>
wrote:

"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f777476_1@news.iprimus.com.au...

Tom Potter wrote:

I suggest that the folks who object to General Relativity do so,
not because they believe
"that it must be a conspiracy <of> the establishment"
but because it is not a viable theory.


Please point me to a peer reviewed paper that refutes GR? Such refutation
agreed by acknowledged experts such a Steve Carlip and John Baez.

Tom Potter wrote:

As can be seen by the debates on and about General Relativity,
and the amount of the taxpayers money that is spent on
education, seminars, publications, supporting G.R. experts, etc.
and the lack of useful applications for it,
General Relativity consumes more time and resources
to support, than it returns in terms of productivity.


And when is trying to understand the world a waste of time and money? Now
the real world applications of GR may be limited AS YET but for SR it is

the

plaything of the work a day engineer - I have been assured by one that
without SR the cathode ray tube your probably writing this on would not be
able to be designed.

Tom Potter wrote:

For example, I challenge Bill
to post how G.R. would model a mass spring system,
model a simple series-parallel resistance circuit,
or compute the ionization potentials of a few simple atoms.


There are realms that GR applies to and realms it does not. I challenge

you

to model the universe at large on a Newtonian system that is fully in

accord

with experiment - in particular I challenge you to explain the background
radiation by such a model.

Tom Potter wrote:

The few applications that General Relativity models better than
more viable theories, do not require G.R. as the practical limits
of all but extremely tightly controlled experiments can be
modeled by more viable theories, and even the few cases where
G.R. makes for an elegant curve fit, the more viable theories
can be adapted to account for variations from the simpler
expressions of the theory.


Can light ray bending by the sum be explained by an alternative peer
reviewed theory that is not just as weird as GR?

Tom Potter wrote:

To sum up,
rather than read the ego tripping, and insults
and the rationalizations of the people who defend G.R.
I'd like to see objections to my position
be expressed in viable, real world calculations such as
a spring mass system, a series-parallel circuit,
ionization potentials, etc.


Please explain the calculations on page 188-196 of Gravitation and
Space-time by Ohanianon and Ruffini on the bending of light by some other
means.

Thanks
Bill


Apparently, Bill does not know the meaning of the word "viable".
"Capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are."

So under your unique definition of 'viable' you reject Newtonian
gravity as well, then.

And note that he uses the charlatans who profit from the
hyping of G.R, as his justification for G.R.,
rather than the cost/benefit ratio.

Please specify which of the vast number of people you want to murder
you are reffering to here.

And note that he, like all of the brainwashed G.R. zealots
obfuscates, rather than simply provide a few cost effective
uses of G.R.

You pretended that they didn't exist every time they were listed for
you.

I challenge Bill to provide a few examples of
how G.R. can be used in a more VIABLE fashion
than more VIABLE models of nature.

You already stated that there are no 'viable' models of gravity.

Money, time and energy talks,
***** walks.

I've never seen you walk yet.

It time to have G.R. talk or walk.

You simply scream at G.R. to shut up all the time.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
User: "Bill Hobba"

Title: Re: Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature? 29 Sep 2003 10:04:42 PM
David Evens wrote:

You simply scream at G.R. to shut up all the time.

Thanks for writing that - saves me the trouble.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/18/2003
.
User: "Tom Potter"

Title: Re: Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature? 30 Sep 2003 04:23:21 AM
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f78f1ae_1@news.iprimus.com.au...

David Evens wrote:

You simply scream at G.R. to shut up all the time.


Thanks for writing that - saves me the trouble.

Two peas in a pod,
"Bill Hobba" and "Davy Evens".
You'd think that some of these guys who hype G.R.
would simply show where it is a viable and cost effective
model of reality.
Every day scientists, engineers, technicians and programmers
use Ohm's Law, Maxwell's equations, Newton's equations, etc.
to solve real world problems.
Hopefully "Bill Hobba" and "Davy Evens"
will post some cost effective, real world calculations
using G.R., rather than just hyping G.R.
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
.


User: "Tom Potter"

Title: Re: Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature? 29 Sep 2003 06:42:59 AM
"David Evens" <devens@technologist.com> wrote in message
news:3f780c76.7887703@news.falls.igs.net...

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 13:34:39 +0800, "Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com>
wrote:

"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f777476_1@news.iprimus.com.au...

Tom Potter wrote:

I suggest that the folks who object to General Relativity do so,
not because they believe
"that it must be a conspiracy <of> the establishment"
but because it is not a viable theory.


Please point me to a peer reviewed paper that refutes GR? Such

refutation

agreed by acknowledged experts such a Steve Carlip and John Baez.

Tom Potter wrote:

As can be seen by the debates on and about General Relativity,
and the amount of the taxpayers money that is spent on
education, seminars, publications, supporting G.R. experts, etc.
and the lack of useful applications for it,
General Relativity consumes more time and resources
to support, than it returns in terms of productivity.


And when is trying to understand the world a waste of time and money?

Now

the real world applications of GR may be limited AS YET but for SR it

is

the

plaything of the work a day engineer - I have been assured by one that
without SR the cathode ray tube your probably writing this on would not

be

able to be designed.

Tom Potter wrote:

For example, I challenge Bill
to post how G.R. would model a mass spring system,
model a simple series-parallel resistance circuit,
or compute the ionization potentials of a few simple atoms.


There are realms that GR applies to and realms it does not. I

challenge

you

to model the universe at large on a Newtonian system that is fully in

accord

with experiment - in particular I challenge you to explain the

background

radiation by such a model.

Tom Potter wrote:

The few applications that General Relativity models better than
more viable theories, do not require G.R. as the practical limits
of all but extremely tightly controlled experiments can be
modeled by more viable theories, and even the few cases where
G.R. makes for an elegant curve fit, the more viable theories
can be adapted to account for variations from the simpler
expressions of the theory.


Can light ray bending by the sum be explained by an alternative peer
reviewed theory that is not just as weird as GR?

Tom Potter wrote:

To sum up,
rather than read the ego tripping, and insults
and the rationalizations of the people who defend G.R.
I'd like to see objections to my position
be expressed in viable, real world calculations such as
a spring mass system, a series-parallel circuit,
ionization potentials, etc.


Please explain the calculations on page 188-196 of Gravitation and
Space-time by Ohanianon and Ruffini on the bending of light by some

other

means.

Thanks
Bill


Apparently, Bill does not know the meaning of the word "viable".
"Capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are."


So under your unique definition of 'viable' you reject Newtonian
gravity as well, then.

And note that he uses the charlatans who profit from the
hyping of G.R, as his justification for G.R.,
rather than the cost/benefit ratio.


Please specify which of the vast number of people you want to murder
you are reffering to here.

And note that he, like all of the brainwashed G.R. zealots
obfuscates, rather than simply provide a few cost effective
uses of G.R.


You pretended that they didn't exist every time they were listed for
you.

I challenge Bill to provide a few examples of
how G.R. can be used in a more VIABLE fashion
than more VIABLE models of nature.


You already stated that there are no 'viable' models of gravity.

Money, time and energy talks,
***** walks.


I've never seen you walk yet.

It time to have G.R. talk or walk.


You simply scream at G.R. to shut up all the time.

Davy,
did your mother drop you on your head
when you were a baby?
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
.
User: "David Evens"

Title: Re: Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature? 30 Sep 2003 03:13:16 AM
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 19:42:59 +0800, "Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com>
wrote:

"David Evens" <devens@technologist.com> wrote in message
news:3f780c76.7887703@news.falls.igs.net...

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 13:34:39 +0800, "Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com>
wrote:

"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f777476_1@news.iprimus.com.au...

Tom Potter wrote:

I suggest that the folks who object to General Relativity do so,
not because they believe
"that it must be a conspiracy <of> the establishment"
but because it is not a viable theory.


Please point me to a peer reviewed paper that refutes GR? Such

refutation

agreed by acknowledged experts such a Steve Carlip and John Baez.

Tom Potter wrote:

As can be seen by the debates on and about General Relativity,
and the amount of the taxpayers money that is spent on
education, seminars, publications, supporting G.R. experts, etc.
and the lack of useful applications for it,
General Relativity consumes more time and resources
to support, than it returns in terms of productivity.


And when is trying to understand the world a waste of time and money?

Now

the real world applications of GR may be limited AS YET but for SR it

is

the

plaything of the work a day engineer - I have been assured by one that
without SR the cathode ray tube your probably writing this on would not

be

able to be designed.

Tom Potter wrote:

For example, I challenge Bill
to post how G.R. would model a mass spring system,
model a simple series-parallel resistance circuit,
or compute the ionization potentials of a few simple atoms.


There are realms that GR applies to and realms it does not. I

challenge

you

to model the universe at large on a Newtonian system that is fully in

accord

with experiment - in particular I challenge you to explain the

background

radiation by such a model.

Tom Potter wrote:

The few applications that General Relativity models better than
more viable theories, do not require G.R. as the practical limits
of all but extremely tightly controlled experiments can be
modeled by more viable theories, and even the few cases where
G.R. makes for an elegant curve fit, the more viable theories
can be adapted to account for variations from the simpler
expressions of the theory.


Can light ray bending by the sum be explained by an alternative peer
reviewed theory that is not just as weird as GR?

Tom Potter wrote:

To sum up,
rather than read the ego tripping, and insults
and the rationalizations of the people who defend G.R.
I'd like to see objections to my position
be expressed in viable, real world calculations such as
a spring mass system, a series-parallel circuit,
ionization potentials, etc.


Please explain the calculations on page 188-196 of Gravitation and
Space-time by Ohanianon and Ruffini on the bending of light by some

other

means.

Thanks
Bill


Apparently, Bill does not know the meaning of the word "viable".
"Capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they are."


So under your unique definition of 'viable' you reject Newtonian
gravity as well, then.

And note that he uses the charlatans who profit from the
hyping of G.R, as his justification for G.R.,
rather than the cost/benefit ratio.


Please specify which of the vast number of people you want to murder
you are reffering to here.

And note that he, like all of the brainwashed G.R. zealots
obfuscates, rather than simply provide a few cost effective
uses of G.R.


You pretended that they didn't exist every time they were listed for
you.

I challenge Bill to provide a few examples of
how G.R. can be used in a more VIABLE fashion
than more VIABLE models of nature.


You already stated that there are no 'viable' models of gravity.

Money, time and energy talks,
***** walks.


I've never seen you walk yet.

It time to have G.R. talk or walk.


You simply scream at G.R. to shut up all the time.


Davy,
did your mother drop you on your head
when you were a baby?

So you are aware that you have already rejected all known gravity
models as non-viable undfer your unique redefinition of the word
'viable'.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
User: "Tom Potter"

Title: Re: Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature? 30 Sep 2003 03:39:31 AM
"David Evens" <devens@technologist.com> wrote in message
news:3f7938db.1795322@news.falls.igs.net...

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 19:42:59 +0800, "Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com>
wrote:

"David Evens" <devens@technologist.com> wrote in message
news:3f780c76.7887703@news.falls.igs.net...

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 13:34:39 +0800, "Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com>
wrote:

"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f777476_1@news.iprimus.com.au...

Tom Potter wrote:

I suggest that the folks who object to General Relativity do so,
not because they believe
"that it must be a conspiracy <of> the establishment"
but because it is not a viable theory.


Please point me to a peer reviewed paper that refutes GR? Such

refutation

agreed by acknowledged experts such a Steve Carlip and John Baez.

Tom Potter wrote:

As can be seen by the debates on and about General Relativity,
and the amount of the taxpayers money that is spent on
education, seminars, publications, supporting G.R. experts, etc.
and the lack of useful applications for it,
General Relativity consumes more time and resources
to support, than it returns in terms of productivity.


And when is trying to understand the world a waste of time and

money?

Now

the real world applications of GR may be limited AS YET but for SR

it

is

the

plaything of the work a day engineer - I have been assured by one

that

without SR the cathode ray tube your probably writing this on would

not

be

able to be designed.

Tom Potter wrote:

For example, I challenge Bill
to post how G.R. would model a mass spring system,
model a simple series-parallel resistance circuit,
or compute the ionization potentials of a few simple atoms.


There are realms that GR applies to and realms it does not. I

challenge

you

to model the universe at large on a Newtonian system that is fully

in

accord

with experiment - in particular I challenge you to explain the

background

radiation by such a model.

Tom Potter wrote:

The few applications that General Relativity models better than
more viable theories, do not require G.R. as the practical limits
of all but extremely tightly controlled experiments can be
modeled by more viable theories, and even the few cases where
G.R. makes for an elegant curve fit, the more viable theories
can be adapted to account for variations from the simpler
expressions of the theory.


Can light ray bending by the sum be explained by an alternative peer
reviewed theory that is not just as weird as GR?

Tom Potter wrote:

To sum up,
rather than read the ego tripping, and insults
and the rationalizations of the people who defend G.R.
I'd like to see objections to my position
be expressed in viable, real world calculations such as
a spring mass system, a series-parallel circuit,
ionization potentials, etc.


Please explain the calculations on page 188-196 of Gravitation and
Space-time by Ohanianon and Ruffini on the bending of light by some

other

means.

Thanks
Bill


Apparently, Bill does not know the meaning of the word "viable".
"Capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they

are."


So under your unique definition of 'viable' you reject Newtonian
gravity as well, then.

And note that he uses the charlatans who profit from the
hyping of G.R, as his justification for G.R.,
rather than the cost/benefit ratio.


Please specify which of the vast number of people you want to murder
you are reffering to here.

And note that he, like all of the brainwashed G.R. zealots
obfuscates, rather than simply provide a few cost effective
uses of G.R.


You pretended that they didn't exist every time they were listed for
you.

I challenge Bill to provide a few examples of
how G.R. can be used in a more VIABLE fashion
than more VIABLE models of nature.


You already stated that there are no 'viable' models of gravity.

Money, time and energy talks,
***** walks.


I've never seen you walk yet.

It time to have G.R. talk or walk.


You simply scream at G.R. to shut up all the time.


Davy,
did your mother drop you on your head
when you were a baby?


So you are aware that you have already rejected all known gravity
models as non-viable undfer your unique redefinition of the word
'viable'.

Viable: "Capable of being done with means at hand and circumstances as they
are."
Folks have been using Newton's "viable" model of gravitation
for over 200 years to solve problems that involve gravity,
and it didn't take PhD's in maths, months using
powerful computers to solve the problems.
G.R. is not a cost-effective approach to solving ANY real world problem.
It is an esoteric model that only works for a few special cases,
that is used by charlatans to con the taxpayers money from naive
congressmen.
In fact, there is no motion in Einstein's G.R. and it doesn't account for an
expanding universe,
and there is no mass is Sitter's G.R. Although the 1922 Alexander Friedmann
and George Lemaitre model
incorporates an expanding universe that contains moving matter, and suggests
the "big bang",
it is still not a "viable", cost-effective model of reality, and does not
allow you
to solve real world problems like series/parallel circuits, spring-mass
problems,
antenna problems, etc.
Face the facts Davy, G.R. is more hype and government grant bait,
than a viable model of reality.
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
.
User: "Big Bird"

Title: Re: Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature? 30 Sep 2003 03:03:14 PM
"Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com> wrote in message news:<blbfgr$ag3as$1@ID-188019.news.uni-berlin.de>...

In fact, there is no motion in Einstein's G.R.

This is a lie.

and it doesn't account for an
expanding universe,

This is a lie.

and there is no mass is Sitter's G.R.

This is not an English sentence.

Although the 1922 Alexander Friedmann
and George Lemaitre model
incorporates an expanding universe that contains
moving matter, and suggests
the "big bang",
it is still not a "viable", cost-effective model of reality,

You get a whole universe for nothing: if the Big Bang isn't cost
effective, nothing is.
.
User: "Tom Potter"

Title: Re: Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature? 30 Sep 2003 11:35:48 PM
"Big Bird" <condor@biosys.net> wrote in message
news:df160b8f.0309301203.5b060042@posting.google.com...

"Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com> wrote in message

news:<blbfgr$ag3as$1@ID-188019.news.uni-berlin.de>...


In fact, there is no motion in Einstein's G.R.


This is a lie.

and it doesn't account for an
expanding universe,


This is a lie.

and there is no mass is Sitter's G.R.


This is not an English sentence.

Although the 1922 Alexander Friedmann
and George Lemaitre model
incorporates an expanding universe that contains
moving matter, and suggests
the "big bang",
it is still not a "viable", cost-effective model of reality,


You get a whole universe for nothing: if the Big Bang isn't cost
effective, nothing is.

As can be seen,
"Big Bird" does not understand the differences between
the various versions of General relativity.
I challenge him to prove his assertion
that Einstein's G.R. has motion,
and
I challenge him to prove his assertion
that Sitter's G.R. has matter,
and
that either account for an expanding universe.
Note that "Big Bird" perceives mental fantasizes
as being "cost-effective".
In other words, "Big Bird" imagines
that if one imagines that money grows on trees,
that it really does, and is a cost-effective way to get rich.
I'd like to see "Big Bird" post ONE, read ONE,
example of a cost-effect use of G.R.
in computing a spring-mass system,
a pendulum system, a series-parallel circuit,
an antenna or transmission line problem, etc.
If he posts a G.R. solution,
I'll post a more cost effect solution,
in terms of people and computer time.
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
.
User: "Big Bird"

Title: Re: Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature? 01 Oct 2003 09:54:48 PM
"Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com> wrote in message news:<bldljn$b50vv$1@ID-188019.news.uni-berlin.de>...

As can be seen,
"Big Bird" does not understand the differences between
the various versions of General relativity.

He does.

I challenge him to prove his assertion
that Einstein's G.R. has motion,

Nobody has do "disprove" your retarded fantasies: YOU claim something,
the burden of proof is squarely with YOU.
But of course that is something that you religious wackos won't ever
understand.

and
I challenge him to prove his assertion
that Sitter's G.R. has matter,

I never asserted any such thing.
You are disgusting lying pig.

and
that either account for an expanding universe.

E. introduced the cosmological constant AFTER it was shown to him that
his theory didn't allow for a steady-state solution but required for
the universe either to expand or contract.

Note that "Big Bird" perceives mental fantasizes
as being "cost-effective".

I never stated any such thing.
You are a disgusting lying pig.

I'd like to see "Big Bird" post ONE, read ONE,
example of a cost-effect use of G.R.

Fortunately reality doesn't give a hoot what certain narrow minds
might consider "cost effective": things are the way they are
independent of the "costs" that any one monkey might perceive too high
for figuring them out.
\
.
User: "Tom Potter"

Title: Re: Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature? 02 Oct 2003 09:04:59 AM
"Big Bird" <condor@biosys.net> wrote in message
news:df160b8f.0310011854.5e6c8f9c@posting.google.com...

"Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com> wrote in message

news:<bldljn$b50vv$1@ID-188019.news.uni-berlin.de>...


As can be seen,
"Big Bird" does not understand the differences between
the various versions of General relativity.


He does.

I challenge him to prove his assertion
that Einstein's G.R. has motion,


Nobody has do "disprove" your retarded fantasies: YOU claim something,
the burden of proof is squarely with YOU.

But of course that is something that you religious wackos won't ever
understand.

and
I challenge him to prove his assertion
that Sitter's G.R. has matter,


I never asserted any such thing.

You are disgusting lying pig.


and
that either account for an expanding universe.


E. introduced the cosmological constant AFTER it was shown to him that
his theory didn't allow for a steady-state solution but required for
the universe either to expand or contract.

Note that "Big Bird" perceives mental fantasizes
as being "cost-effective".


I never stated any such thing.

You are a disgusting lying pig.

I'd like to see "Big Bird" post ONE, read ONE,
example of a cost-effect use of G.R.


Fortunately reality doesn't give a hoot what certain narrow minds
might consider "cost effective": things are the way they are
independent of the "costs" that any one monkey might perceive too high
for figuring them out.

As can be seen, "Big Bird"
is incapable of providing one cost-effective example
of a General Relativity solution to a real world problem.
Note that "Big Bird" asserted that I was wrong
when I posted that Einstein's G.R. had no motion,
and DeSitter's G.R. had no mass, and that neither
accounted for the expanding universe.
A google search on "Einstein desitter"
yields 2600 hits. I suggest that "Big Bird"
read a few of them, and learn about G.R.
before he worships and hypes it,
and call other folks liars.
As "Big Bird" is incapable of doing a Google search
to verify if a poster's assertions is correct,
I'll list a few specific references for him:
www.geometry.net/scientists/sitter_willem_de.php
www.pride-net.com/physics/StarFlight/star1.htm
www.fofweb.com/Subscription/Science/ Helicon.asp?SID=2&iPin=ffdastron0743
www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/topolophys.html
www.ws5.com/spacetime
www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw33.html
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=einstein+desitter+%22general+relativity%22
+author:john+author:baez&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3rsrtf%24b0r%40lyr
a.csx.cam.ac.uk&rnum=1
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
.
User: "Big Bird"

Title: Re: Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature? 02 Oct 2003 01:46:15 PM
"Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com> wrote in message news:<blhbcq$c0j03$1@ID-188019.news.uni-berlin.de>...

"Big Bird" <condor@biosys.net> wrote in message
news:df160b8f.0310011854.5e6c8f9c@posting.google.com...

"Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com> wrote in message

news:<bldljn$b50vv$1@ID-188019.news.uni-berlin.de>...


As can be seen,
"Big Bird" does not understand the differences between
the various versions of General relativity.


He does.

I challenge him to prove his assertion
that Einstein's G.R. has motion,


Nobody has do "disprove" your retarded fantasies: YOU claim something,
the burden of proof is squarely with YOU.

But of course that is something that you religious wackos won't ever
understand.

and
I challenge him to prove his assertion
that Sitter's G.R. has matter,


I never asserted any such thing.

You are disgusting lying pig.


and
that either account for an expanding universe.


E. introduced the cosmological constant AFTER it was shown to him that
his theory didn't allow for a steady-state solution but required for
the universe either to expand or contract.

Note that "Big Bird" perceives mental fantasizes
as being "cost-effective".


I never stated any such thing.

You are a disgusting lying pig.

I'd like to see "Big Bird" post ONE, read ONE,
example of a cost-effect use of G.R.


Fortunately reality doesn't give a hoot what certain narrow minds
might consider "cost effective": things are the way they are
independent of the "costs" that any one monkey might perceive too high
for figuring them out.


As can be seen, "Big Bird"
is incapable of providing one cost-effective example
of a General Relativity solution to a real world problem.

Fortunately reality doesn't give a hoot what certain narrow minds
might consider "cost effective": things are the way they are
independent of the "costs" that any one monkey might perceive too high
for figuring them out.

Note that "Big Bird" asserted that I was wrong
when I posted that Einstein's G.R. had no motion,

You *are* wrong.
E. introduced the cosmological constant AFTER it was shown to him that
his theory didn't allow for a steady-state solution but required for
the universe either to expand or contract.

and DeSitter's G.R. had no mass,

You never wrote a word about Mr. deSitter. You wrote about some
unknown fictional character "Sitter" and I never disputed any of your
claims about this poor bloke.
You are a disgusting lying pig.

and that neither
accounted for the expanding universe.

E. introduced the cosmological constant AFTER it was shown to him that
his theory didn't allow for a steady-state solution but required for
the universe either to expand or contract.

A google search on "Einstein desitter"
yields 2600 hits. I suggest that "Big Bird"
read a few of them, and learn about G.R.
before he worships and hypes it,
and call other folks liars.

MTW has 1217 pages (without the index). I suggest
that "Tom Potter" read them and learn about GTR before
he spews lies about it and ad-hominems about the people
who already did their homework.

As "Big Bird" is incapable of doing a Google search

He is perfectly capable of such a thing.
You are a disgusting lying pig.
.
User: "Tom Potter"

Title: Re: Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature? 02 Oct 2003 10:06:22 PM
(Big Bird) wrote in message news:<df160b8f.0310021046.11823b15@posting.google.com>...

"Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com> wrote in message news:<blhbcq$c0j03$1@ID-188019.news.uni-berlin.de>...

"Big Bird" <

> wrote in message
news:df160b8f.0310011854.5e6c8f9c@posting.google.com...

"Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com> wrote in message

news:<bldljn$b50vv$1@ID-188019.news.uni-berlin.de>...


As can be seen,
"Big Bird" does not understand the differences between
the various versions of General relativity.


He does.

I challenge him to prove his assertion
that Einstein's G.R. has motion,


Nobody has do "disprove" your retarded fantasies: YOU claim something,
the burden of proof is squarely with YOU.

But of course that is something that you religious wackos won't ever
understand.

and
I challenge him to prove his assertion
that Sitter's G.R. has matter,


I never asserted any such thing.

You are disgusting lying pig.


and
that either account for an expanding universe.


E. introduced the cosmological constant AFTER it was shown to him that
his theory didn't allow for a steady-state solution but required for
the universe either to expand or contract.

Note that "Big Bird" perceives mental fantasizes
as being "cost-effective".


I never stated any such thing.

You are a disgusting lying pig.

I'd like to see "Big Bird" post ONE, read ONE,
example of a cost-effect use of G.R.


Fortunately reality doesn't give a hoot what certain narrow minds
might consider "cost effective": things are the way they are
independent of the "costs" that any one monkey might perceive too high
for figuring them out.



As can be seen, "Big Bird"
is incapable of providing one cost-effective example
of a General Relativity solution to a real world problem.



Fortunately reality doesn't give a hoot what certain narrow minds
might consider "cost effective": things are the way they are
independent of the "costs" that any one monkey might perceive too high
for figuring them out.


Note that "Big Bird" asserted that I was wrong
when I posted that Einstein's G.R. had no motion,


You *are* wrong.

E. introduced the cosmological constant AFTER it was shown to him that
his theory didn't allow for a steady-state solution but required for
the universe either to expand or contract.

and DeSitter's G.R. had no mass,


You never wrote a word about Mr. deSitter. You wrote about some
unknown fictional character "Sitter" and I never disputed any of your
claims about this poor bloke.

You are a disgusting lying pig.

and that neither
accounted for the expanding universe.


E. introduced the cosmological constant AFTER it was shown to him that
his theory didn't allow for a steady-state solution but required for
the universe either to expand or contract.


A google search on "Einstein desitter"
yields 2600 hits. I suggest that "Big Bird"
read a few of them, and learn about G.R.
before he worships and hypes it,
and call other folks liars.


MTW has 1217 pages (without the index). I suggest
that "Tom Potter" read them and learn about GTR before
he spews lies about it and ad-hominems about the people
who already did their homework.

It seems to me, that if Big Bird "did his homework"
and understood G.R., that he could and would
show where G.R. is a viable, cost-effective model
of reality, and post some examples,
rather than hype and call the folks who ask for proof
of the value of G.R. nasty names.
I assert that Big Bird is ignorant of
the history of G.R.,
the various schools of G.R.
the cost-effective applications of G.R., etc.
and is just parroting G.R. nonsense in order
to try to appear a member of some group who
has access to powerful, esoteric knowledge.
***** must be a great fertilizer,
as the G.R, worshippers spread it all over G.R.
and make it grow like the weed it is.
Cut down the weed.
It consumes vital time, money and resources,
and yield little usefulness, and nothing
that can not be done cheaper, faster, and with
less people and computer resources than G.R.
NOte for example, that Big Bird implies that he
has mastered 1217 pages of MTW,
and yet, he is unable to provide a few cost-effective
examples of the viabilty of G.R.
Did Big Bird waste his time,
or is he bullshitting,
or has he been brainwashed and deluded,
or is he pretending to have access to
valuable, esoteric knowledge,
or what?
--
Tom Potter
.
User: "Big Bird"

Title: Re: Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature? 03 Oct 2003 05:57:19 PM
(Tom Potter) wrote in message news:<f76e0bb3.0310021906.4ccc1ee4@posting.google.com>...

condor@biosys.net (Big Bird) wrote in message news:<df160b8f.0310021046.11823b15@posting.google.com>...

"Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com> wrote in message news:<blhbcq$c0j03$1@ID-188019.news.uni-berlin.de>...

"Big Bird" <condor@biosys.net> wrote in message
news:df160b8f.0310011854.5e6c8f9c@posting.google.com...

"Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com> wrote in message

news:<bldljn$b50vv$1@ID-188019.news.uni-berlin.de>...


As can be seen,
"Big Bird" does not understand the differences between
the various versions of General relativity.


He does.

I challenge him to prove his assertion
that Einstein's G.R. has motion,


Nobody has do "disprove" your retarded fantasies: YOU claim something,
the burden of proof is squarely with YOU.

But of course that is something that you religious wackos won't ever
understand.

and
I challenge him to prove his assertion
that Sitter's G.R. has matter,


I never asserted any such thing.

You are disgusting lying pig.


and
that either account for an expanding universe.


E. introduced the cosmological constant AFTER it was shown to him that
his theory didn't allow for a steady-state solution but required for
the universe either to expand or contract.

Note that "Big Bird" perceives mental fantasizes
as being "cost-effective".


I never stated any such thing.

You are a disgusting lying pig.

I'd like to see "Big Bird" post ONE, read ONE,
example of a cost-effect use of G.R.


Fortunately reality doesn't give a hoot what certain narrow minds
might consider "cost effective": things are the way they are
independent of the "costs" that any one monkey might perceive too high
for figuring them out.



As can be seen, "Big Bird"
is incapable of providing one cost-effective example
of a General Relativity solution to a real world problem.



Fortunately reality doesn't give a hoot what certain narrow minds
might consider "cost effective": things are the way they are
independent of the "costs" that any one monkey might perceive too high
for figuring them out.


Note that "Big Bird" asserted that I was wrong
when I posted that Einstein's G.R. had no motion,


You *are* wrong.

E. introduced the cosmological constant AFTER it was shown to him that
his theory didn't allow for a steady-state solution but required for
the universe either to expand or contract.

and DeSitter's G.R. had no mass,


You never wrote a word about Mr. deSitter. You wrote about some
unknown fictional character "Sitter" and I never disputed any of your
claims about this poor bloke.

You are a disgusting lying pig.

and that neither
accounted for the expanding universe.


E. introduced the cosmological constant AFTER it was shown to him that
his theory didn't allow for a steady-state solution but required for
the universe either to expand or contract.


A google search on "Einstein desitter"
yields 2600 hits. I suggest that "Big Bird"
read a few of them, and learn about G.R.
before he worships and hypes it,
and call other folks liars.


MTW has 1217 pages (without the index). I suggest
that "Tom Potter" read them and learn about GTR before
he spews lies about it and ad-hominems about the people
who already did their homework.


It seems to me, that if Big Bird "did his homework"
and understood G.R., that he could and would
show where G.R. is a viable, cost-effective model
of reality, and post some examples,
rather than hype and call the folks who ask for proof
of the value of G.R. nasty names.

It seems to me, that if Tom Potter "did his homework"
and understood G.R., that *he* could and would
show where G.R. is or isn't a viable, cost-effective model
of reality, and post some examples,
rather than lie to and insult the folks who
HAVE done their homework.

I assert that Big Bird is ignorant of
the history of G.R.,
the various schools of G.R.
the cost-effective applications of G.R., etc.
and is just parroting G.R. nonsense in order
to try to appear a member of some group who
has access to powerful, esoteric knowledge.

Fortunately reality doesn't give a hoot what certain narrow minds
might assert.
Things are the way they are, quite independently of your assertions.

***** must be a great fertilizer,
as the G.R, worshippers spread it all over G.R.
and make it grow like the weed it is.

There are no "G. R. worshippers" anywhere.
Not a single one.
You are a disgusting lying pig.

Cut down the weed.

Dude, I was about to suggest this to yourself: lay off the drugs long
enough to read your own posts and the replies you get to them. Do you
really imagine that you are accomplishing something here? Do you
really imagine that people who've spent years of their life trying to
figure something out will immediately throw away everything they have
done just because some random ignoramus on the net calls them names?
If all my posts are for naught, then things will stay as they are and
that is fine with me. YOU on the other hand want a change of the
status quo and if all YOUR posts are for naught then you have FAILED.
All you have posted to this thread so far was long lists of insults
and lies.

It consumes vital time, money and resources,
and yield little usefulness,

Like your posts? What "usefulness" have your posts generated so far?

NOte for example, that Big Bird implies that he
has mastered 1217 pages of MTW,

No, he doesn't.
You are a disgusting lying pig.
Hint: as long as you find it acceptable to lie TO me or ABOUT me, I
find it acceptable to call you a disgusting lying pig.

and yet, he is unable to provide a few cost-effective
examples of the viabilty of G.R.

Fortunately reality doesn't give a hoot what certain narrow minds
might consider "cost effective": things are the way they are
independent of the "costs" that any one monkey might perceive too high
for figuring them out.
Epicycles are more "cost effective" than ellipses since circles are
much much easier to handle mathematically than ellipses. Took poor
Kepler something like five years of math to get ellipses straight.
From a "cost efficiency" POV we should consider all the heavenly
bodies to move on cycles upon cycles around the Earth.
Except that this would be false.
Physics is about truth -- about the things that are actually, really,
truly out there. If you only care about "cost effective ways to
compute something" then you're talking engineering.

Did Big Bird waste his time,

Trying to rub your nose in truth? Probably.

or is he bullshitting,
or has he been brainwashed and deluded,

Another thing you religious wackos will never understand: it does not
matter what motivates me, it does not matter who I am, it does not
matter who Einsein is. To you, everything you say is merely
regurgitated stuff someone elese has fed you and if that source can be
discredited it discredits the words you got from that source. In
physics what matters is the accuracy of the statement and it doesn't
matter who said it or why they said it: if it's true then it's true,
if it agrees with experiment then we keep it and if it disagrees we
try to replace it with something better.
All your attempts to smear my person (or Einstein's or anybodies)
doesn't get you anywhere because nobody in physics gives a hoot about
my person (or Einstein's or anybodies). All you're doing is insulting
a lot of people, but you cannot touch GTR by insulting people.

or is he pretending to have access to
valuable, esoteric knowledge,
or what?

I have access to the same knowledge that you have access to. Contrary
to you I actually expose myself to the knowledge and try to understand
it.
While YOU are merely trying to insult those who are doing their
homework.
.
User: "Tom Potter"

Title: Re: Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature? 04 Oct 2003 09:51:33 AM
"Big Bird" <condor@biosys.net> wrote in message
news:df160b8f.0310031457.41736499@posting.google.com...

tdp@earthlink.net (Tom Potter) wrote in message

news:<f76e0bb3.0310021906.4ccc1ee4@posting.google.com>...

condor@biosys.net (Big Bird) wrote in message

news:<df160b8f.0310021046.11823b15@posting.google.com>...

"Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com> wrote in message

news:<blhbcq$c0j03$1@ID-188019.news.uni-berlin.de>...

"Big Bird" <condor@biosys.net> wrote in message
news:df160b8f.0310011854.5e6c8f9c@posting.google.com...

"Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com> wrote in message

news:<bldljn$b50vv$1@ID-188019.news.uni-berlin.de>...


As can be seen,
"Big Bird" does not understand the differences between
the various versions of General relativity.


He does.

I challenge him to prove his assertion
that Einstein's G.R. has motion,


Nobody has do "disprove" your retarded fantasies: YOU claim

something,

the burden of proof is squarely with YOU.

But of course that is something that you religious wackos won't

ever

understand.

and
I challenge him to prove his assertion
that Sitter's G.R. has matter,


I never asserted any such thing.

You are disgusting lying pig.


and
that either account for an expanding universe.


E. introduced the cosmological constant AFTER it was shown to him

that

his theory didn't allow for a steady-state solution but required

for

the universe either to expand or contract.

Note that "Big Bird" perceives mental fantasizes
as being "cost-effective".


I never stated any such thing.

You are a disgusting lying pig.

I'd like to see "Big Bird" post ONE, read ONE,
example of a cost-effect use of G.R.


Fortunately reality doesn't give a hoot what certain narrow minds
might consider "cost effective": things are the way they are
independent of the "costs" that any one monkey might perceive too

high

for figuring them out.


As can be seen, "Big Bird"
is incapable of providing one cost-effective example
of a General Relativity solution to a real world problem.


Fortunately reality doesn't give a hoot what certain narrow minds
might consider "cost effective": things are the way they are
independent of the "costs" that any one monkey might perceive too high
for figuring them out.


Note that "Big Bird" asserted that I was wrong
when I posted that Einstein's G.R. had no motion,


You *are* wrong.

E. introduced the cosmological constant AFTER it was shown to him that
his theory didn't allow for a steady-state solution but required for
the universe either to expand or contract.

and DeSitter's G.R. had no mass,


You never wrote a word about Mr. deSitter. You wrote about some
unknown fictional character "Sitter" and I never disputed any of your
claims about this poor bloke.

You are a disgusting lying pig.

and that neither
accounted for the expanding universe.


E. introduced the cosmological constant AFTER it was shown to him that
his theory didn't allow for a steady-state solution but required for
the universe either to expand or contract.


A google search on "Einstein desitter"
yields 2600 hits. I suggest that "Big Bird"
read a few of them, and learn about G.R.
before he worships and hypes it,
and call other folks liars.


MTW has 1217 pages (without the index). I suggest
that "Tom Potter" read them and learn about GTR before
he spews lies about it and ad-hominems about the people
who already did their homework.


It seems to me, that if Big Bird "did his homework"
and understood G.R., that he could and would
show where G.R. is a viable, cost-effective model
of reality, and post some examples,
rather than hype and call the folks who ask for proof
of the value of G.R. nasty names.


It seems to me, that if Tom Potter "did his homework"
and understood G.R., that *he* could and would
show where G.R. is or isn't a viable, cost-effective model
of reality, and post some examples,
rather than lie to and insult the folks who
HAVE done their homework.

I assert that Big Bird is ignorant of
the history of G.R.,
the various schools of G.R.
the cost-effective applications of G.R., etc.
and is just parroting G.R. nonsense in order
to try to appear a member of some group who
has access to powerful, esoteric knowledge.


Fortunately reality doesn't give a hoot what certain narrow minds
might assert.

Things are the way they are, quite independently of your assertions.


***** must be a great fertilizer,
as the G.R, worshippers spread it all over G.R.
and make it grow like the weed it is.


There are no "G. R. worshippers" anywhere.

Not a single one.

You are a disgusting lying pig.

Cut down the weed.


Dude, I was about to suggest this to yourself: lay off the drugs long
enough to read your own posts and the replies you get to them. Do you
really imagine that you are accomplishing something here? Do you
really imagine that people who've spent years of their life trying to
figure something out will immediately throw away everything they have
done just because some random ignoramus on the net calls them names?

If all my posts are for naught, then things will stay as they are and
that is fine with me. YOU on the other hand want a change of the
status quo and if all YOUR posts are for naught then you have FAILED.

All you have posted to this thread so far was long lists of insults
and lies.

It consumes vital time, money and resources,
and yield little usefulness,


Like your posts? What "usefulness" have your posts generated so far?


Note for example, that Big Bird implies that he
has mastered 1217 pages of MTW,


No, he doesn't.

You are a disgusting lying pig.

Hint: as long as you find it acceptable to lie TO me or ABOUT me, I
find it acceptable to call you a disgusting lying pig.

and yet, he is unable to provide a few cost-effective
examples of the viabilty of G.R.


Fortunately reality doesn't give a hoot what certain narrow minds
might consider "cost effective": things are the way they are
independent of the "costs" that any one monkey might perceive too high
for figuring them out.

Epicycles are more "cost effective" than ellipses since circles are
much much easier to handle mathematically than ellipses. Took poor
Kepler something like five years of math to get ellipses straight.
From a "cost efficiency" POV we should consider all the heavenly
bodies to move on cycles upon cycles around the Earth.

Except that this would be false.

Physics is about truth -- about the things that are actually, really,
truly out there. If you only care about "cost effective ways to
compute something" then you're talking engineering.

Did Big Bird waste his time,


Trying to rub your nose in truth? Probably.

or is he bullshitting,
or has he been brainwashed and deluded,


Another thing you religious wackos will never understand: it does not
matter what motivates me, it does not matter who I am, it does not
matter who Einsein is. To you, everything you say is merely
regurgitated stuff someone elese has fed you and if that source can be
discredited it discredits the words you got from that source. In
physics what matters is the accuracy of the statement and it doesn't
matter who said it or why they said it: if it's true then it's true,
if it agrees with experiment then we keep it and if it disagrees we
try to replace it with something better.

All your attempts to smear my person (or Einstein's or anybodies)
doesn't get you anywhere because nobody in physics gives a hoot about
my person (or Einstein's or anybodies). All you're doing is insulting
a lot of people, but you cannot touch GTR by insulting people.


or is he pretending to have access to
valuable, esoteric knowledge,
or what?


I have access to the same knowledge that you have access to. Contrary
to you I actually expose myself to the knowledge and try to understand
it.

While YOU are merely trying to insult those who are doing their
homework.

Well, we can see that "Big Bird" is pretty good with the ad hominem,
and with the worshiping of GTR, but the proof of a model
of the world is in the application of the model.
As "Big Bird" pretends to have read and mastered
1217 pages of GTR theory, I challenge him to
post a few cost-effective examples of how GTR can be used
to model spring/mass/damper systems, pendulum systems,
antenna systems, impedance networks, or even a
Moon shot, better than non-GTR models.
Face the facts "Big Bird".
GTR is a Tower of Babel"
which has wasted the time and money of
millions of dupes, including you, and the American taxpayers.
It is interesting to see that "Big Bird"
asserts that I am a "religious wacko",
and that what I say
"is merely regurgitated stuff someone elese has fed you."
Considering that I am not religious,
and am an independent thinker,
and that "Big Bird" is a GTR worshipper,
who "merely regurgitates stuff someone elese has fed" him
and he cannot use to help himself or society,
it looks like he is looking at his own reflection.
Talk is cheap.
Post some viable, cost-effective models
where GTR outperforms non-GTR models.
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
.
User: "Big Bird"

Title: Re: Do Physicists Understand Their Own Peer-Reviewed Literature? 04 Oct 2003 03:31:40 PM
"Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.co