Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Ram1024's Irrelevant, Off-Topic Complaint

  1. Jul 12, 2004 #1
    i don't see the point to arguing with SR theorists anymore. as soon as you get a sufficiently convincing argument they'll just delete your post, says something pithy, then lock your thread.

    Good Game, Forum Nazis :zzz:
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 12, 2004 #2

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Neither do I, since you never listen!

    How would you know? You've never posted a single convincing argument. Or do you want me to recover those posts I deleted so that everyone can see just how dumb they are? The truth is that the posts I deleted did not even contain arguments, just slurs against my educational level.
  4. Jul 12, 2004 #3
    Tom, yes please do recover those posts. the ONLY reason for you deleting them in the first place being i hit too close to home with my arguments.

    And quit moving stuff to feedback and expecting me to read and respond to it there. i've already been banned from all other sections except this one so asking me questions in a thread i can't respond to is stupid.
  5. Jul 12, 2004 #4

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    OK, but you're only embarassing yourself.

    Don't tell me what to do. I'm moving your feedback to where it belongs.

    Erm, I don't ever recall saying that I expect you to read and respond to it in the Feedback Forum. I don't care if you read or respond to it at all. What I have told you is to stop posting feedback in the Theory Development Forum, because it doesn't belong there. I'll say it again: Stop it.

    That's because you've been nothing but an ignorant, arrogant imbecile since you got here. You're just reinforcing that image by doing all this.

    The question I asked was rhetorical.
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2004
  6. Jul 12, 2004 #5

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    OK, here's Ram's brilliant argument that I deleted.

    Hope you're happy now.
  7. Jul 12, 2004 #6


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    "Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter..."

  8. Jul 16, 2004 #7

    [X2 - X1]/[T2 - T1]

    Speed is a scalar quantity. Velocity is a vector quantity. :eek:

    What is the "instantaneous" velocity? i.e. the velocity of an object at one instant in time? It probably can be argued that, if, space-time is discrete, there is no actual instantaneous velocity. :eek:

    That is interesting because we tacitly assume a type of absolute Newtonian background when in all actuality, the only real time for any observer is "proper time".

    Distance is a measurable property of ...space, where the triangle inequality holds. What then is ...space?

    Everything has its own measure of time and thus observes everything else to be in varied[differing] past moments due to the finite propagation speed of light, which moves in straight lines, or "geodesics".

    The laws of physics are time/frame independent.

    Two different observers will have different measures of time but both will agree on the speed of light in vacuum.

    Either space and time are permanently fixed and rigid; unchanging, with the Galilean relativistic interpretation of reality, or the speed of light is frame invariant with space and time varying, in accordance with Einsteinian relativity.

    Society evolves via the majority shareholders of opinion, it seems. We may incorrectly assume that all people are almost exclusively motivated by their own material self-interest. Yet the experiential juxtaposition of objective and subjective realities, called the status quo "of the people, for the people, and by the people" systematically refutes the self-interest hypothesis to a large degree. It appears that many people are strongly motivated by concerns for fairness and reciprocity.

    Let there be a decision process in which one of two alternatives must be

    Group members may differ in their valuations of the alternatives, yet must prefer some alternative to disagreement[game theoretically speaking]. The process will be distinguished by three features: private information regarding valuations, varying intensities in the preference for one out-come over the other, and the option to declare neutrality in order to avoid disagreement.

    Variants on a "tyranny of the majority", will always be an equilibrium
    in which the majority is all the more aggressive in pushing its alternative, thus using the metaphorical "strong arm" to enforce their
    will, via both numbers and voice. The metaphorical "might makes right" scenario. Likewise, under very general conditions, an aggressive
    minority equilibrium inevitably makes its appearance, provided that the group is large enough. This equilibrium displays a "tyranny of the minority": Yes, it is always true that the increased aggression of the minority more than compensates for its smaller number, leading to the minority outcome being implemented with larger probability than the majority alternative.

    Scary thought, eh mods?

    Could it be that reality surfs on the universal standing wave of spacetime, emerging out of a "solid block" of nothingness? Standing wave resonance i.e. "spacetime phonons". The present moment is thus created and recreated constantly - like a continuous imageā€¦ originating deep in twistor space. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Relation provides both a boundary and the fabric for a translation between twistor[Planck scale] space and experiential reality, and it is quantum phase compactification that provides the color electric superconductive "bricks" for the boundary. Unstable or chaotic states at a given level are always "compactified" (stabilized and bounded by a finite number of eigenstates) into higher dimensions at the next level. The organic analogues of quantum attractors are translated into quantized fractal exitation modes onto the classical domain via compactification, while events on the classical domain influence the collapse or transition of these attractors on the quantum-nano level via feedback oscillations. The state vector becomes an interactive participant.

    1. With a little earnest thought, one realizes that the concept of randomness is logically absurd.

    2. The laws of physics are time independent. They hold for all frames of reference.

    3. Ergo, even if ...physical randomness is true, physical randomness would not exist without time, or "change" - from one state to the next.

    4. If the physical laws are time independent then the physical laws, by definition, did not arise "randomly".

    5. The laws of physics are a set of organizing principles.

    6. The only true example we have of an organizing principle is that of a "MIND"

    7. The universe came from a MIND.
  9. Jul 16, 2004 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Homer's philosophy is so appropriate in these situations :biggrin:
  10. Jul 16, 2004 #9

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I almost wet myself when I first read this from Russ. :rofl: I can't think of a more appropriate response.
  11. Jul 16, 2004 #10
    Me thinks that ram1024 is trying to ram his opinions down our throats and then getting out of his pram when people question his ideas.
    If i had a penny for everytime i believed i was right and was prooved wrong i would be rich.
    There is nothing wrong with stating your point and discussing it strongly, but you have to be open to other, sometimes smarter,peoples points and accept then gracefully especially when there arguements are stronger than yours otherwise we would have about 50 billion ideas on everthing in this world and only one right. then we would learn nothing
  12. Jul 17, 2004 #11

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Hear Hear!

    And in a way, I feel like I am rich despite the fact that I do not receive a penny every time I believe I am right and am proved wrong. Being proved wrong is a gift, because it means that you learn something that you didn't know before. It's so unfortunate that people such as ram1024 are unwilling to benefit from the experience of learning from those who are more knowledgable.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook