Bilge wrote:
pholroyd:
Bilge wrote:

The reason people are "flaming" him is because a lot of what
he writes is _not_ good physics. It's his own personal, quirky
interpretations using inaccurate terminology. Anytime someone
points that out, he
gets his panties in a snit and starts entire threads dedicated
to harassing the person who corrected him. If you think he
posts a lot of "good physics", note the people with whom he
constantly argues are those of us who are physicists.


ok but i dont know who is the physicists and who aren't on this
group. but i saw pmb give reference to physicists who write book
which is used in school so that counts something, no? i also see
you give reference. i cannot decide who is right about all these
things but i want to hear arguments in physics not flames.
otherwise i will not learn here.

My suggestion would be to skip what I have to say and instead
look at what some of the other physicists on the newsgroup tell you
and then decide. Physicists with a good background in relativity
include steve carlip, john anderson and tom roberts. John can be a
bit terse, but that's his style. There are also many non-
physicists who have a good background in relativity, so you should
be able to see some overall agreement when it comes to what the
theories say. If you find what I say to depart significantly from
those people tell you, then you'll have your answer.


that is very fair and then you sound honest. i wish i knew more to
judge good physicists from bad but i am just learning.

why cant all talk about relativity and not flame gauge all the
time?

Because he generally goes out of his way to insure he gets
"flamed".

how he does that? and why would he do that?

Who knows? To get an answer to that, you'll need to ask in a
psychology newsgroup. My guess is an inferiority complex.

i meant for example how he makes everyone flame. but no matter. better
to learn physics.

btw, do you know why marks are ok when i write but when i see your
post my marks sometimes are messy?

@@@ph@@@

Paul Stowe:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:32:40 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:

I note that dishonesty has become the normal thing for 'Bilge'.

He makes the return address something other than sci.physics.relativity,
such as alt.troll or alt.moron. Obviously such a cheap trick can be
considered amusing, but wears thin when repeated. He claims to be able
to 'derive' sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) as though it were something special that he
alone can do, using the trigonometric functions of a conic section.
Obviously this is the full extent of his mathematical capabilities, which,
when exhausted, causes him to resort to personal abuse and cheap practical
jokes as his only counter argument when his absurd claims are challenged.

We note that in 'Michelson's Interference Experiment', H.A.Lorentz (p. 7,
The Principle of Relativity' Dover publications, SBN 486-60081-5) uses this
in a supposed '...shortening in the direction of motion in the proportion
of 1 to sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)...' by which method Lorentz assumes a spherical
Earth becomes an ellipsoidal Earth pressed upon by aether.

That this ratio is such is hardly surprising, since the ratio of the minor
axis of an ellipse to the major axis is given by sqrt(1-e^2): 1, e being
the eccentricity.

Being unable to correspond with a fool that indulges in such childish
behaviour and dishonest claims, I merely ignore any further communiqués he
may post.

That is probably your best tack... There have been only two people in
all of my years (nearly 9 now) in these groups that I can say have
demonstrated a pathological behavior of overt dishonesty. Sadly, Bilge
is one of these.

You only think that because I don't put up with your double standard.
Provide an example.


Many others have demonstrated arrogance, egocentrism, contempt, and
blunt rudeness. However, at least, all of these others have demonstrated
the common decency an integrity not specifically & deliberately represent
others pressented material and/or positions in a manner that is an
intentional misrepresentation and distortion.

Give an example.


I think that those that 'survive' their first six months can deal with
derision & contempt as long as they know that what they have presented
has not been altered and distorted. Basic disagreement are bound to
occur, perspectives & views may never be compatible, but, at least, one
should have the expectation the respondents will not alter or misrepresent
their material or position.

It's not simply a disagreement over a viewpoint. You want to
taken seriously, yet you post nothing serious. I really find it
hard to believe that you consider what you call a theory to be
a competing theory to anything.

"pholroyd" wrote in message .. .
Androcles wrote:
"pholroyd" wrote in message
...
Bilge wrote:
Gauge:
He's always done that. Nothing new for bilge. It just means that
he either doesn't want to discuss it or he's unable to figure
something out so he doesn't want to be anymore embarassed than
he alread is.

Or your ranting is off-topic so follow-ups are set
appropriately. You always semm to overlook the obvious.

i've been lurking on this group for the past coupla days and I dont
understand some things. both of you seem to know physics yet most
of the posts are just screamin. i also see a lot of people flaming
gauge and pmb (they ar ethe same) but he writes a lot of good
physics stuff. why cant all talk about relativity and not flame
gauge all the time?

@@@ph@@@
Welcome to reality.
Flaming is commonplace here, the instigator is unable to defend his
position so he attempts to incite a flame war for his colleagues to
cheer him on. Androcles.

but i have read pmb and bilge defend their positons real well. i am
not sure which one is right but why not they just defend their
positions and not do all that flame?
that way we all learn more. i like relativity and i want to learn
more. not flames.

Please note the difference between people like bilge and myself -
bilge flames when he disagrees with someone, especially when it's
backed up from the physics literture. If I flame its becuase someone
has be insulting me for a long time and I get tired of it. There are
times when people refuse to pay attention and they repeat their same
old comments a million times. I find that irritating. But I *try* not
to flame people for that. But it seems that they do that intentionally

"pholroyd" wrote

ok but i dont know who is the physicists and who aren't on this group.

pholroyd - Please note that bilge is only giving you his opinion on
what good physics is. He simply doesn't understand most of the physics
I've been explaining to him and every single thing I've ever posted is
straight modern physics which can be found right in the physics
literature.

By the way - I'm a physicist.

but i saw pmb give reference to physicists who write book which is
used in school so that counts something, no?

When it gets to the point where people start flaming, I point out that
what I've been telling them is basic physics that can be found in
almost any decent physics text. When they continue to flame then I
provide a reference.

i also see you give reference.

That is something I've never seen from him. In fact he get's angry
when I post references.

i cannot decide who is right about all these things ...

There are several possibilities regarding right/wrong in a post (1)
there is an error in calculation (2) there is an error in a statement
of a law of physics or (3) there is an error in a definition and (4)
there is a difference of opinion.

Focus on those points.

how he does that? and why would he do that?

There are times when I get tired of bilge's flaming and his direct
refusal to respond to a direct question. Some threads get mired in all
of his flaming and the main point gets lost by his constant changing
of the topic. So to get a clear start I start a new thread dedicated
entirely to addressing one and only one point in hopes that he will
stay on topic and answer a direct question - he then starts more
flaming - oh well.

For example: Time and time again I kept asking bilge to prove that the
Lorentz force F = q[E + vxB] is not relativistically correct as he
claims it is. That is something which he flamed me for plenty of
times. That equation is, of course, relativistically correct. See Eq.
(1.4) in
http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture07.pdf

Bilge then implied that if it was right then the cyclotron formula
would be wrong. I then proved that this claime of his was bogus. Here
is the proof, done in two ways in fact
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/cyclotron.htm

Yet with all this proof all he can do is flame.

However if you want the truth go to sci.physics.research - there is no
flaming allowed there. In fact bilge once flamed me for explaining to
him that potential energy is meaningful in relativity. Another person
asked this question in sci.physics.research recently and a post doc in
physics at Harvard University, Lubos Motl , gave the same answer as I
gave bigle on all those occasions.

I.e. the question was asked

Is the concept of potential energy still useful in relativity?

bigle and anderson (each of whom nobody knows where they come from or
what their background is) claims that it is not useful and is
inconsistent with relativity. That was a bogus response. On the other
hand Lubos correctly answered

Yes, it is useful. The energy still exists in relativity, it continues
to be conserved, and it has various contributions just like in classical
mechanics.

Pay attention to Lubos. He really knows his stuff. One has to in order
to be a physicists at Harvard. :-)

Gauge wrote:
"pholroyd" wrote in message
.. .
Androcles wrote:
"pholroyd" wrote in message
...
Bilge wrote:
Gauge:
He's always done that. Nothing new for bilge. It just means
that he either doesn't want to discuss it or he's unable to
figure something out so he doesn't want to be anymore
embarassed than he alread is.

Or your ranting is off-topic so follow-ups are set
appropriately. You always semm to overlook the obvious.

i've been lurking on this group for the past coupla days and I
dont understand some things. both of you seem to know physics
yet most of the posts are just screamin. i also see a lot of
people flaming gauge and pmb (they ar ethe same) but he writes a
lot of good physics stuff. why cant all talk about relativity
and not flame gauge all the time?

@@@ph@@@
Welcome to reality.
Flaming is commonplace here, the instigator is unable to defend
his position so he attempts to incite a flame war for his
colleagues to cheer him on. Androcles.

but i have read pmb and bilge defend their positons real well. i am
not sure which one is right but why not they just defend their
positions and not do all that flame?
that way we all learn more. i like relativity and i want to learn
more. not flames.

Please note the difference between people like bilge and myself -
bilge flames when he disagrees with someone, especially when it's
backed up from the physics literture. If I flame its becuase someone
has be insulting me for a long time and I get tired of it. There are
times when people refuse to pay attention and they repeat their same
old comments a million times. I find that irritating. But I *try*
not
to flame people for that. But it seems that they do that
intentionally

but if someone insult you why you not ignore them instead of flames?
bilge say you do the same which yiu say he do to you. there are 2 many
posts here to read all of them so some get read and others don't so
why not just read the posts from the people who do not insult? also i
see there are other those who say about you just as bileg does say. i
do not know truth about who is the faulty one but i see in post from
you that you say you will tell truth in email. write me to the truth
in email at my address but just remove where i say REMOVE.

"pholroyd" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"pholroyd" wrote in message
...
Bilge wrote:
Gauge:
He's always done that. Nothing new for bilge. It just means that
he either doesn't want to discuss it or he's unable to figure
something out so he doesn't want to be anymore embarassed than
he alread is.

Or your ranting is off-topic so follow-ups are set
appropriately. You always semm to overlook the obvious.

i've been lurking on this group for the past coupla days and I dont
understand some things. both of you seem to know physics yet most
of the posts are just screamin. i also see a lot of people flaming
gauge and pmb (they ar ethe same) but he writes a lot of good
physics stuff. why cant all talk about relativity and not flame
gauge all the time?

@@@ph@@@
Welcome to reality.
Flaming is commonplace here, the instigator is unable to defend his
position so he attempts to incite a flame war for his colleagues to
cheer him on. Androcles.

but i have read pmb and bilge defend their positons real well. i am
not sure which one is right but why not they just defend their
positions and not do all that flame?
that way we all learn more. i like relativity and i want to learn
more. not flames.

@@@ph@@@
I'm afraid you'll have to ask them that. Some of us can communicate
without flaming, but I can assure you that if one of them decides to
instigate a flame war, I'll fire right back until I get bored. It's kinda
fun.
You know when you've won your argument when one of them snips
and ignores what you've written, or calls you an idiot.
Its like a chess game in many ways.
Decent people will, upon acknowledging checkmate is inevitable, lay down
their king and shake hands.
Spoilt little brats will knock all the pieces over, stamp and scream that
you cheated, call you names and generally throw a tantrum.
They know they've lost, so they employ a pathetic attempt to save face.
It really is quite funny.
So what do you do? I call them names to bug them as well.
Liking "relativity" is really no different from liking Santa Claus or
"Lord of the Rings" or "Harry Potter". They are all works of fiction,
fun to play with.
So is a game of chess, except the game is over once your opponent
knocks all the pieces over and pouts.
Also like chess, you need to learn the game of relativity to play well.
The object of the game is to get the opponent to flame you, call you names.
The subtlety of the game is goading them into doing so.
Bilge isn't much of an opponent so I've given up toying with him, but
I've started this thread by way of invitation to another game with
someone else.
It may not pan out. Wanna play?
I can promise you that the best way to learn chess is to take on a good
player,
and the best way to learn relativity is to learn mathematics first.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....al_rev_2.1.htm
Androcles

"pholroyd" wrote in message
...
Bilge wrote:
pholroyd:
Bilge wrote:
Gauge:
He's always done that. Nothing new for bilge. It just means
that he either doesn't want to discuss it or he's unable to
figure something out so he doesn't want to be anymore
embarassed than he alread is.

Or your ranting is off-topic so follow-ups are set
appropriately. You always semm to overlook the obvious.

i've been lurking on this group for the past coupla days and I
dont understand some things. both of you seem to know physics yet
most of the posts are just screamin. i also see a lot of people
flaming gauge and pmb (they ar ethe same) but he writes a lot of
good physics stuff.

The reason people are "flaming" him is because a lot of what he
writes is _not_ good physics. It's his own personal, quirky
interpretations using inaccurate terminology. Anytime someone
points that out, he
gets his panties in a snit and starts entire threads dedicated to
harassing the person who corrected him. If you think he posts a lot
of "good physics", note the people with whom he constantly argues
are those of us who are physicists.


ok but i dont know who is the physicists and who aren't on this group.
but i saw pmb give reference to physicists who write book which is
used in school so that counts something, no? i also see you give
reference. i cannot decide who is right about all these things but i
want to hear arguments in physics not flames. otherwise i will not
learn here.

Ok, here is a definition. I took it from a very old text book.
Frank L Robeson wrote in "Physics", 1943, Macmillan & Co, New York,
"The method of science consists in observation, investigation and
explanation of the phenomena, or occurrences, in nature.When the materials
and circumstances essential to the occurrence have been found and set in
order so that the phenomenon can be reproduced at will, and the whole
transaction has been described accurately, we then say we have the law of
that phenomenon.
A physical law, or principle, is a statement by which we can predict the
effect of a given cause.
The first postulate of science affirms that the same cause always produces
the same effect. Science is based so completely on this belief that when
causes which seem to be the same produce different results, the causes are
re-examined. And invariably it has been found they were not the same."

Now, to decide who is a 'good' physicist and who is a 'bad' one, look at the
work they produce. If one of them has a lot of mathematics and no real
observation, and another actually looks at Nature and tries to explain it..
..well, you make up your own mind.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....ctual_data.htm



why cant all talk about relativity and not flame gauge all the
time?

Because he generally goes out of his way to insure he gets
"flamed".

how he does that? and why would he do that?

@@@ph@@@

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:32:40 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:

I note that dishonesty has become the normal thing for 'Bilge'.

He makes the return address something other than sci.physics.relativity,
such as alt.troll or alt.moron. Obviously such a cheap trick can be
considered amusing, but wears thin when repeated. He claims to be able
to 'derive' sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) as though it were something special that he
alone can do, using the trigonometric functions of a conic section.
Obviously this is the full extent of his mathematical capabilities,
which,
when exhausted, causes him to resort to personal abuse and cheap
practical
jokes as his only counter argument when his absurd claims are
challenged.

We note that in 'Michelson's Interference Experiment', H.A.Lorentz (p.
7,
The Principle of Relativity' Dover publications, SBN 486-60081-5) uses
this
in a supposed '...shortening in the direction of motion in the
proportion
of 1 to sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)...' by which method Lorentz assumes a spherical
Earth becomes an ellipsoidal Earth pressed upon by aether.

That this ratio is such is hardly surprising, since the ratio of the
minor
axis of an ellipse to the major axis is given by sqrt(1-e^2): 1, e being
the eccentricity.

Being unable to correspond with a fool that indulges in such childish
behaviour and dishonest claims, I merely ignore any further communiqués
he
may post.

That is probably your best tack... There have been only two people in
all of my years (nearly 9 now) in these groups that I can say have
demonstrated a pathological behavior of overt dishonesty. Sadly, Bilge
is one of these.

David Evens must be the other, unless you overlooked him, and Paul Andersen
is borderline when pressed.
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
"And Androcles concludes that they will not meet each other periodically!"



Many others have demonstrated arrogance, egocentrism, contempt, and
blunt rudeness. However, at least, all of these others have demonstrated
the common decency an integrity not specifically & deliberately represent
others pressented material and/or positions in a manner that is an
intentional misrepresentation and distortion.

I think that those that 'survive' their first six months can deal with
derision & contempt as long as they know that what they have presented
has not been altered and distorted. Basic disagreement are bound to
occur, perspectives & views may never be compatible, but, at least, one
should have the expectation the respondents will not alter or
misrepresent
their material or position.

You can however, as recent events have demonstrated, expect him to
persist this behavior, EVEN AFTER you make your intention clear that
you intend to NOT to respond to his posting.

Oh well, these newsgroups are unmoderated, so you have to 'live with' the
uncouth along with the crude, rude, socially maladjusted, as well as the
civilized, well mannered, and polite. But you most certainly do not have
to respond or talk to them.

Paul Stowe
That is quite correct, Paul. However, I do have a perverse satisfaction in
trading
and upgrading insults with those that insult me. Until it gets boring, that
is.

Androcles

"Gauge" wrote in message
om...
"pholroyd" wrote in message
.. .
Androcles wrote:
"pholroyd" wrote in message
...
Bilge wrote:
Gauge:
He's always done that. Nothing new for bilge. It just means that
he either doesn't want to discuss it or he's unable to figure
something out so he doesn't want to be anymore embarassed than
he alread is.

Or your ranting is off-topic so follow-ups are set
appropriately. You always semm to overlook the obvious.

i've been lurking on this group for the past coupla days and I dont
understand some things. both of you seem to know physics yet most
of the posts are just screamin. i also see a lot of people flaming
gauge and pmb (they ar ethe same) but he writes a lot of good
physics stuff. why cant all talk about relativity and not flame
gauge all the time?

@@@ph@@@
Welcome to reality.
Flaming is commonplace here, the instigator is unable to defend his
position so he attempts to incite a flame war for his colleagues to
cheer him on. Androcles.

but i have read pmb and bilge defend their positons real well. i am
not sure which one is right but why not they just defend their
positions and not do all that flame?
that way we all learn more. i like relativity and i want to learn
more. not flames.

Please note the difference between people like bilge and myself

Yes... Bilge is not an idiot.

"Gauge" wrote in message
om...
"pholroyd" wrote

ok but i dont know who is the physicists and who aren't on this group.

pholroyd - Please note that bilge is only giving you his opinion on
what good physics is. He simply doesn't understand most of the physics
I've been explaining to him and every single thing I've ever posted is
straight modern physics which can be found right in the physics
literature.

By the way - I'm a physicist.

Actually, Brown is not a physicist. He never completed his physics masters,
much less a PhD. He is not currently employed as a physicist (much less
employed at all), nor has he written any papers in a reputable physics
journal.
He has done no original research, has given no talks, and is not referenced
in any paper or journal. Brown is an unknown in the physics community save
for the few of us who post to Usenet.
By all standards, Brown is not a physicist.