Thread: Ioio ii r r

1. "Consider the engineering challenge of maintaining perfect sphericity of torque upon the contraction or expansion of a perfectly spherical mass. What is the compressional torque value and what is the expansional torque value?"

Two equations I have been seeking for a substantial time are the torque covariant and the torque co-efficient between terminal velocity and the rate of expansion of space. The equations I have are E = mc^2 and c = i/E(when -1 = m) respectively.

I understand how I have arrived at these figures, but am only 'certain' I have them the right way about due to a vague feeling that the variant should contain the square and the efficient the root.

I am now re-analysing my procedure to identify alternate formulations. I have provided the included thought experiment as reference for how I arrived at the equations here. If anyone would be interested in solving this equation it would be a boon to refer to anothers alternate thinking.

(contributions considerable as phD submission by the Deportment of Universal Degrees)

2. Related Discussions:

3. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
"Consider the engineering challenge of maintaining perfect sphericity of torque upon the contraction or expansion of a perfectly spherical mass. What is the compressional torque value and what is the expansional torque value?"
I am not sure any torque is necessary theoretically assuming a perfectly homogenous and isotropic state but Markus et al may have more to say about this. For example in the context of GR replacing the perfectly spherical mass with a homogenous and isotropic universe where mass density and pressure are 'perfectly' distributed we have the Friedman equations that model this result. Of course the reality may be different to that proposed by Friedman if the assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy are invalid. :-))

PS Of course you and I know as we peer out our windows (on a great sunny day here in Queensland) that nature is not actually perfectly homogenous and isotropic. It very much appears to have properties of a system, our locality, our region, our planet, our solar system, our galaxy etc....... Those that model systems may be able to appreciate other important theoretical directions that lead to big answers such as De-Broglie-Bohm viewpoints. With these viewpoints, everything actually matters and cannot be 'assumed away' as these models assume everything is connected and subtle processes can actually have big results.

4. Originally Posted by Implicate Order

I am not sure any torque is necessary theoretically
Please properly study the analogy provided between the thought experiment and the factors of terminal velocity/spatial expansion. The variable factor is torque. I am quite certain of this. Thank you.

5. I would make the clear distinction here that both gravitation and spatial expansion are polaric expressions of terminal velocity, with c being the mediary expression.

6. Originally Posted by Implicate Order
I am not sure any torque is necessary theoretically assuming a perfectly homogenous and isotropic state
GR is a geometric model, so there is no concept of "torque" there; all we can incorporate into the energy-momentum tensor is angular momentum, which is related but not the same.
And no, angular momentum is not necessary to produce a homogeneous and isotropic solution to the field equations - see the interior of a spherical shell for example.

7. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Implicate Order
I am not sure any torque is necessary theoretically assuming a perfectly homogenous and isotropic state
GR is a geometric model, so there is no concept of "torque" there; all we can incorporate into the energy-momentum tensor is angular momentum, which is related but not the same.
And no, angular momentum is not necessary to produce a homogeneous and isotropic solution to the field equations - see the interior of a spherical shell for example.
Can you clearly refute the assertion that gravity and spatial expansion are polaric expressions of terminal velocity. It is this premise that provides the torque factor.

8. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
Can you clearly refute the assertion that gravity and spatial expansion are polaric expressions of terminal velocity.
It doesn't need to be refuted, 3SwordBunny, because there is no evidence for it.

9. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
Can you clearly refute the assertion that gravity and spatial expansion are polaric expressions of terminal velocity.
I'm afraid that doesn't even make any sense, so how does it need to be refuted ? I can only speak for mainstream science, and in that context gravity is a manifestation of the geometry of space-time, as described by the Einstein equations; there are no forces ( such as torque ) involved.

10. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
Can you clearly refute the assertion that gravity and spatial expansion are polaric expressions of terminal velocity.
It doesn't need to be refuted, 3SwordBunny, because there is no evidence for it.

err, excuse me? how so? or do I need to provide all my working now?

11. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
Can you clearly refute the assertion that gravity and spatial expansion are polaric expressions of terminal velocity.
I'm afraid that doesn't even make any sense, so how does it need to be refuted ? I can only speak for mainstream science, and in that context gravity is a manifestation of the geometry of space-time, as described by the Einstein equations; there are no forces ( such as torque ) involved.
Any 'force' represents the indivisibles of the covariant factor that coincide with the indivisibles of the co-efficient factor. My assertion stands.

12. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
Any 'force' represents the indivisibles of the covariant factor that coincide with the indivisibles of the co-efficient factor. My assertion stands.
The assertion makes as much sense as Chomsky's famous, "colourless green sheep sleep furiously".

What happens to the different types of angular momentum?

13. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
My assertion stands.
So does mine - gravity does not need the presence of angular momentum or torque. The only difference between our two assertions is that I can support mine both mathematically and empirically, whereas you obviously can't. See Schwarzschild space-time.

14. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
My assertion stands.
So does mine - gravity does not need the presence of angular momentum or torque. The only difference between our two assertions is that I can support mine both mathematically and empirically, whereas you obviously can't. See Schwarzschild space-time.
I asked you to directly refute the assertion, not provide an explanation to a question of angular momentum. There is no reference to angular momentum in the assertion that gravitation and spatial expansion are polaric expressions of terminal velocity. Your application of these terms in assessing this question does not refute the material.

15. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
I asked you to directly refute the assertion, not provide an explanation to a question of angular momentum. There is no reference to angular momentum in the assertion that gravitation and spatial expansion are polaric expressions of terminal velocity. Your application of these terms in assessing this question does not refute the material.
I guess Markus got confused by the fact you have come up with a new meaningless assertion.

What he should have said was:
So does mine - gravity and spatial expansion does not need the polaric expressions of terminal velocity. The only difference between our two assertions is that I can support mine both mathematically and empirically, whereas you obviously can't. See Schwarzschild space-time.

16. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
I asked you to directly refute the assertion, not provide an explanation to a question of angular momentum. There is no reference to angular momentum in the assertion that gravitation and spatial expansion are polaric expressions of terminal velocity. Your application of these terms in assessing this question does not refute the material.
I guess Markus got confused by the fact you have come up with a new meaningless assertion.

What he should have said was:
So does mine - gravity and spatial expansion does not need the polaric expressions of terminal velocity. The only difference between our two assertions is that I can support mine both mathematically and empirically, whereas you obviously can't. See Schwarzschild space-time.

Once again, assumptions about what I can and can't do. If you seek support for this assertion I will spend some time compiling an analysis, though I might have thought purely assessing the binary equations for their efficiency in providing a covariant/coefficient differential may have been possible for those with profound mathematical talents. (not mentioning any names KJW)

17. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
I asked you to directly refute the assertion, not provide an explanation to a question of angular momentum. There is no reference to angular momentum in the assertion that gravitation and spatial expansion are polaric expressions of terminal velocity. Your application of these terms in assessing this question does not refute the material.
I guess Markus got confused by the fact you have come up with a new meaningless assertion.

What he should have said was:
So does mine - gravity and spatial expansion does not need the polaric expressions of terminal velocity. The only difference between our two assertions is that I can support mine both mathematically and empirically, whereas you obviously can't. See Schwarzschild space-time.

Once again, assumptions about what I can and can't do. If you seek support for this assertion I will spend some time compiling an analysis, though I might have thought purely assessing the binary equations for their efficiency in providing a covariant/coefficient differential may have been possible for those with profound mathematical talents. (not mentioning any names KJW)
For instance, is there an equation that E = mc^2 is applied to that might be approached as a coefficient through applying the latter equation?

18. Moved to pseudo.

19. If those two equations don't provide matching results have you not got the simple refutation you seek?

20. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
For instance, is there an equation that E = mc^2 is applied to that might be approached as a coefficient through applying the latter equation?
e = mc2 is an equation.

How do you apply an "equation to an equation"? And how do you "approach an equation as a coefficient"?

These questions are meaningless. You might as well ask if the metric system is blue, or if you can find prime numbers using rice pudding.

21. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
If those two equations ...
Which two equations? You have only mentioned one (e=mc2).

22. Originally Posted by Harold14370
Moved to pseudo.
I object to this until such time as the equations have been compared. I have provided an easily scrutinised formula. This took me 20 years of investigation of one single subject. Is it so difficult to ask you to provide a simple equatic analysis?

23. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
Can you clearly refute the assertion that gravity and spatial expansion are polaric expressions of terminal velocity.
How would you refute this? What experiment or observation would invalidate your theory? These are questions you need to consider. That is what science is about.

24. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
For instance, is there an equation that E = mc^2 is applied to that might be approached as a coefficient through applying the latter equation?
e = mc2 is an equation.

How do you apply an "equation to an equation"? And how do you "approach an equation as a coefficient"?

These questions are meaningless. You might as well ask if the metric system is blue, or if you can find prime numbers using rice pudding.
I provided the equation you showed me how to arrange. This is the co efficient binary for E =mc^2. You should remember c = i/E(when -1 = m)

25. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
Can you clearly refute the assertion that gravity and spatial expansion are polaric expressions of terminal velocity.
How would you refute this? What experiment or observation would invalidate your theory? These are questions you need to consider. That is what science is about.
Can we come back to this when we have compared c = i/E(when -1 = m) please. If what I have asked cannot be applied then I will return to this subject.

26. OK. Just saw this from your first post:
The equations I have are E = mc^2 and c = i/E(when -1 = m) respectively.
1. These are contradictory and incoherent.

The dimensions of E and mc2 are the same and therefore the equations is valid.

The dimensions of c and i/E are not the same, and therefore the equation is not valid.

Math Skills - Dimensional Analysis

2. m = -1 is physically impossible. There is no such thing as negative mass.

27. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
I provided the equation you showed me how to arrange.
Which was just some meaningless symbols based on your meaningless blather about angular momentum. It has nothing to do with e=mc2. In fact it has nothing to do with physics, science or reality.

This is the co efficient binary for E =mc^2.
"Coefficient binary" is another meaningless phrase like "banana carburettor".

28. At this point I am so tired that I really think I should just get some rest so I am fresh to see my boy tomorrow. It is this equation that I wish analysed. As I have tried to clearly state, E =mc^2 is a covariant equation and c = i/E(when -1 = m) is the coefficient equation. If they do not work hand in hand as they are meant to be applied I can hardly have it the right way around can I. Do you mind if we start there please?

29. I might add that a possible area that these two equations can be evaluated side by side is in analysing terminal velocity against the expansion of space. I could just be getting fuzzy headed though

30. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
Do you mind if we start there please?
It might help if you explain what you think "covariant equation" and "coefficient equation" mean.

Note that the first equation is derived from sound physical theory and mathematics, and therefore represents a real fact about the world.

The second equation is a meaningless collection of symbols.

31. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
Do you mind if we start there please?
It might help if you explain what you think "covariant equation" and "coefficient equation" mean.

Note that the first equation is derived from sound physical theory and mathematics, and therefore represents a real fact about the world.

The second equation is a meaningless collection of symbols.

hmmm, yes, I see what you are saying. It may be that this is a coefficient factor to apply to E = mc^2. At this point I have reached a degree of fatigue that is leaving me mentally disconnected from my memories and I will have to return to this at some point tomorrow. I appreciate your contribution to my analysis of this equation. I sincerely believe I am not wasting your time and will investigate a clear dynamic to apply here.

32. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
At this point I have reached a degree of fatigue that is leaving me mentally disconnected from my memories and I will have to return to this at some point tomorrow.
See your doctor. Seriously.

33. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
Do you mind if we start there please?
It might help if you explain what you think "covariant equation" and "coefficient equation" mean.

Note that the first equation is derived from sound physical theory and mathematics, and therefore represents a real fact about the world.

The second equation is a meaningless collection of symbols.

hmmm, yes, I see what you are saying. It may be that this is a coefficient factor to apply to E = mc^2.
You obviously don't see what I am saying. What I am saying is that your "coefficient factor" is a meaningless collection of symbols. It cannot be "applied" (whatever that means) to E=mc2.

34. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
Do you mind if we start there please?
It might help if you explain what you think "covariant equation" and "coefficient equation" mean.

Note that the first equation is derived from sound physical theory and mathematics, and therefore represents a real fact about the world.

The second equation is a meaningless collection of symbols.

hmmm, yes, I see what you are saying. It may be that this is a coefficient factor to apply to E = mc^2.
You obviously don't see what I am saying. What I am saying is that your "coefficient factor" is a meaningless collection of symbols. It cannot be "applied" (whatever that means) to E=mc2.
E m and c are meaningless?

35. The equations I have are E = mc^2 and c = i/E(when -1 = m) respectively.
Just to show that this is gibberish, we can substitute c from you second equation into the first and set m=-1:

- substituting for m and c

Which is obviously contradictory, meaningless, wrong, incorrect, gibberish, etc.

Consider yourself refuted. OK?

36. my issue is you are unspecific. if that equation is meaningless I don't know how the other one in it with the same factors works.....

37. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
E m and c are meaningless?
Not in the context of E=mc2.

Yes, meaningless in the context of gibberish like: "c = i/E(when -1 = m)"

38. Originally Posted by Strange
The equations I have are E = mc^2 and c = i/E(when -1 = m) respectively.
Just to show that this is gibberish, we can substitute c from you second equation into the first and set m=-1:

- substituting for m and c

Which is obviously contradictory, meaningless, wrong, incorrect, gibberish, etc.

Consider yourself refuted. OK?
I did not say substitute. It is a complimentary equation, not a substitutary one

39. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
my issue is you are unspecific. if that equation is meaningless I don't know how the other one in it with the same factors works.....
Because they are different equations. You can't just write a random collection of symbols and expect it to make sense.

40. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
E m and c are meaningless?
Not in the context of E=mc2.

Yes, meaningless in the context of gibberish like: "c = i/E(when -1 = m)"
With this level of fatigue I will only say this. E = mc^2 is a reductive equation. The other is productive

41. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
I did not say substitute.
Doesn't matter. If c is equal to something, then it is equal to it.

It is a complimentary equation, not a substitutary one
Again, "complimentary equation" is meaningless term you have made up. If you want to show that your equation (a) make sense and (b) means something then you need to do something to demonstrate that.

Anyone with a primary school education in mathematics can see that it is nonsense.

42. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
With this level of fatigue
Get help. Medical (psychiatric) help.

I will only say this. E = mc^2 is a reductive equation. The other is productive
More gibberish.

43. hang on. I'm getting it back but I need some air. The first equation measures rest mass. The other one is related to this in context. I will return to the issue.

44. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
With this level of fatigue
Get help. Medical (psychiatric) help.

I will only say this. E = mc^2 is a reductive equation. The other is productive
More gibberish.
Please limit your advice to your genuine level of expertise. It shows respect to the professionals you believe treat me. Thank you

45. OK. E = mc^2 measures rest mass. c = i/E(when -1 = m) measures the isolation of that rest. I believe this is an accurate description but will need sleep before I can further quantify the reference.

46. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
OK. E = mc^2 measures rest mass.
In this equation, m is the rest mass. The equation relates rest mass to energy, E. The conversion factor is c2 (where, c is the speed of light).

So, no, it doesn't "measure rest mass".

c = i/E(when -1 = m) measures the isolation of that rest.
Both "c = i/E(when -1 = m)" and "isolation of rest" are meaningless. Without sense. Devoid of meaning.

47. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
OK. E = mc^2 measures rest mass.
In this equation, m is the rest mass. The equation relates rest mass to energy, E. The conversion factor is c2 (where, c is the speed of light).

So, no, it doesn't "measure rest mass".

c = i/E(when -1 = m) measures the isolation of that rest.
Both "c = i/E(when -1 = m)" and "isolation of rest" are meaningless. Without sense. Devoid of meaning.
So there are no separate FoR's. Is it that you would prefer to spoil my one day a week that I get with my child simply to prove myself correct? I will state it provides the factors of isolation that separate thresholds of vector. That is the best I can do while I am concerned with giving my son due attention tomorrow. I hope I have not made your weekend uncomfortable.

48. ok. in E = mc^2, E does not identify the 'nature' of rest but the mass state that approximates the local state of rest. In c = i/E(when -1 = m), c identifies the location of rest(equilibrium) within the identified system. I have supplied this as a basic illustration and will provide more clarity to the explanation tomorrow while my son plays.

49. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
Originally Posted by Harold14370
Moved to pseudo.
I object to this until such time as the equations have been compared. I have provided an easily scrutinised formula. This took me 20 years of investigation of one single subject. Is it so difficult to ask you to provide a simple equatic analysis?
If you have been at this for 20 years, and still have not convinced anyone, perhaps it is time to find another hobby.

50. Originally Posted by Harold14370
Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
Originally Posted by Harold14370
Moved to pseudo.
I object to this until such time as the equations have been compared. I have provided an easily scrutinised formula. This took me 20 years of investigation of one single subject. Is it so difficult to ask you to provide a simple equatic analysis?
If you have been at this for 20 years, and still have not convinced anyone, perhaps it is time to find another hobby.
subject matter only please. If you wish to discuss personals please provide your own thread to do so. I did not come here seeking personal advice

51. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
ok. in E = mc^2, E does not identify the 'nature' of rest but the mass state that approximates the local state of rest. In c = i/E(when -1 = m), c identifies the location of rest(equilibrium) within the identified system. I have supplied this as a basic illustration and will provide more clarity to the explanation tomorrow while my son plays.
repost

52. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
So there are no separate FoR's.
Frames of reference do not come into this at all.

I will state it provides the factors of isolation that separate thresholds of vector.
That makes as much sense as "colourless green ideas sleep furiously."

53. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
ok. in E = mc^2, E does not identify the 'nature' of rest but the mass state that approximates the local state of rest.
No. It is energy. ENERGY. What is wrong with you?

54. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
c = i/E(when -1 = m) measures the isolation of that rest.
What makes you think you can completely ignore the hyperglockal frangipan constant?

55. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
c = i/E(when -1 = m) measures the isolation of that rest.
What makes you think you can completely ignore the hyperglockal frangipan constant?
He must be applying a Bogulibov transform to the frobnitz.

56. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
ok. in E = mc^2, E does not identify the 'nature' of rest but the mass state that approximates the local state of rest.
No. It is energy. ENERGY. What is wrong with you?
Yes. the energy state that approximates local rest

57. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
ok. in E = mc^2, E does not identify the 'nature' of rest but the mass state that approximates the local state of rest.
No. It is energy. ENERGY. What is wrong with you?
Does it not measure the rest mass of a particle?

58. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
[Yes. the energy state that approximates local rest
No. That sentence is meaningless. It is quite simply the equivalent energy of that mass. Nothing to do with "local rest" (whatever that means). And nothing to do with states or approximations.

It is just energy.

59. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
Does it not measure the rest mass of a particle?
NO. IT IS ENERGY.

m is the rest mass, which you can measure using scales or whatever you want.

What part of "it is energy" is hard to understand?

60. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
Does it not measure the rest mass of a particle?
No.

61. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
ok. in E = mc^2, E does not identify the 'nature' of rest but the mass state that approximates the local state of rest.
No. It is energy. ENERGY. What is wrong with you?
Does it not measure the rest mass of a particle?
I am astounded that you managed to study this for 20 years and still not understand it.

Perhaps you should go back to square one: Mass

62. Originally Posted by RedPanda
Perhaps you should go back to square one: Mass
Also available in Sicilian: https://scn.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc%C2%B2
(Which makes about as much sense as 3SwordBear Potcalypso.)

63. Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
ok. in E = mc^2, E does not identify the 'nature' of rest but the mass state that approximates the local state of rest.
No. It is energy. ENERGY. What is wrong with you?
Does it not measure the rest mass of a particle?
I am astounded that you managed to study this for 20 years and still not understand it.

Perhaps you should go back to square one: Mass
It won't help. He's a die-hard crank. It took him 20 years to make up new terms, and redefine old ones. Pointing him to an article on mass will only stimulate him to post a new glossary:

mass = wobbulation
time = ellipticoid framistatz
framistatz = transverse wavulon
wavulon = hamburger (hey, gotta eat; this shit be hard!)

64. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
Does it not measure the rest mass of a particle?
NO. IT IS ENERGY.

m is the rest mass, which you can measure using scales or whatever you want.

What part of "it is energy" is hard to understand?
Strange. Please don't take me for a moron. I thank you for prompting me to identify the function of c in this equation as my inexperience with algebra is what brought me here to assess this equation. I will provide a clear explanation over the course of the day. Thank you for inviting the comments of the pretentious by treating me like a dribbling gronk.....

65. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
Does it not measure the rest mass of a particle?
NO. IT IS ENERGY.

m is the rest mass, which you can measure using scales or whatever you want.

What part of "it is energy" is hard to understand?
Strange. Please don't take me for a moron. I thank you for prompting me to identify the function of c in this equation as my inexperience with algebra is what brought me here to assess this equation. I will provide a clear explanation over the course of the day. Thank you for inviting the comments of the pretentious by treating me like a dribbling gronk.....
He's reacting to the way you act, postpocalypse/3swordbunny. If you don't like being treated as a dribbling gronk, then all you have to do is stop acting like one.

Easy peasy.

Now get back to studying your wavulonic framistators. They are awaiting your proof of their covariant coefficiency. Torsion! Torsion!

66. It would be a sign of respect towards the efforts of this forum if people would not involve themselves in threads they are nt genuinelly contributing to. You dribbling investigation of your own rear end makes going over the meaningful information on a thread an arduous chore. Really you guys need to get your act together and try to treat this place with the respect of a university. Would a lecturer allow resounding ridicule of a question in class? I think not. I will start a new thread now to clear this assessment of ignorance.

67. You have said nothing that is worthy of respect.

68. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
Does it not measure the rest mass of a particle?
NO. IT IS ENERGY.

m is the rest mass, which you can measure using scales or whatever you want.

What part of "it is energy" is hard to understand?
Strange. Please don't take me for a moron. I thank you for prompting me to identify the function of c in this equation as my inexperience with algebra is what brought me here to assess this equation. I will provide a clear explanation over the course of the day. Thank you for inviting the comments of the pretentious by treating me like a dribbling gronk.....
He's reacting to the way you act, postpocalypse/3swordbunny. If you don't like being treated as a dribbling gronk, then all you have to do is top acting like one.

Easy peasy.

Now get back to studying your wavulonic framistators. They are awaiting your proof of their covariant coefficiency. Torsion! Torsion!
As I said tk421. Now that i have been asked to clarify a particular, I will provide that solution next. Please stand by, if you are so genuinelly interested. But I will be editing my ignore button against all irrelevant contributors to my threads from now on. The only ones invited are Strange for his ability to identify the next part that needs explanation and KJW and Implicate Order. All others have provide only negative contribution to the discussion and it is now closed to them.

69. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
[The only ones invited are Strange for his ability to identify the next part that needs explanation
Kind of you to say so, but all I do is point out the many ways in which everything you write is incoherent nonsense.

70. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
It would be a sign of respect towards the efforts of this forum if people would not involve themselves in threads they are nt genuinelly contributing to. You dribbling investigation of your own rear end makes going over the meaningful information on a thread an arduous chore. Really you guys need to get your act together and try to treat this place with the respect of a university. Would a lecturer allow resounding ridicule of a question in class? I think not. I will start a new thread now to clear this assessment of ignorance.
I have had disruptive students removed from class. I have had disruptive audience members threatened with removal from conferences.

I don't know if you simply suffer from a tragic lack of self-awareness, or are a troll engaging in some postmodern theatre, or suffer from a named psychological condition. But I do know that you spout complete bollocks. Your belligerent nonsensical postings will soon get you permanently banned, as I had earlier predicted. The fact that you have not heeded anyone's warnings to this effect (despite having been suspended from this and the Physics Forum) guarantees it.

If you can't post something intelligent, just leave. You don't have the right to insist that we suffer your gibberish in silence.

71. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
I thank you for prompting me to identify the function of c in this equation as my inexperience with algebra is what brought me here to assess this equation.
What were you studying for 20 years?!
20 years of learning and you did not think to learn algebra?!
What were you actually studying for 20 years? Your navel?

72. Originally Posted by Postpocalypse
The only ones invited are Strange for his ability to identify the next part that needs explanation and KJW and Implicate Order. All others have provide only negative contribution to the discussion and it is now closed to them.
This is an internet discussion forum. You do not have the right to choose who can or cannot contribute to the discussion, although you are free to ignore any contribution. Also, you do not have the right to expect particular people, or indeed anyone, to contribute to the discussion. Furthermore, you do not have the right to assert that your contribution to the forum be considered a valued contribution. The value of your contribution is at the discretion of the forum moderators.

73. Originally Posted by KJW
The value of your contribution is at the discretion of the forum moderators.
And even more so at the discretion of the wider forum community, i.e. all other members.

 Bookmarks
Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement