The Need for a "New Physics"

[Epsilon=One]

There is a need for a "new physics" that will sweep away the moribund outgrowths of the early half of the twentieth century when little was known of: the wonders of Light; the enigmas of astronomy; nor the subtlety and elusiveness of Gravity's action-at-a-distance (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=127); and, Cosmic inertia's (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=139) acceleration.

Many within the physics community, particularly those associated with astronomy, have been cautiously raising the issue of the requirement for a "new physics" which would bring a different approach to the currently intractable problems faced on all fundamental fronts.

The "old" physics has gone about as far as it is capable; its theories are unraveling faster than they can be patched. Rather than "getting to the bottom" of physical phenomena, enigmas are proliferating faster than solutions.

Physics turns a blind eye to its fundamental weaknesses; physics appears to hide within a hubristic cloak of arcane argot; grants and sinecures; irreconcilable, esoteric theory; and abstruse mathematics. Yet, the stated goal of physics is simplification.

A fundamental understanding of the etiology of Reality must by definition be ..... quintessential simplicity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=114).

Currently, It can be easily reasoned that: fundamental physics theory is based entirely upon metaphysics (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=87). That which requires abundant faith can never be simple. Simplicity demands an absence of faith.

That is: Physics, as currently understood by its practitioners, is little different than any major religion in that its fundamental principles depend, entirely, upon varied mythology and conjecture; all of which requires a vast abundance of faith.

Almost all world-class physicists understand why all of their most fundamental concepts and paradigms have been labeled as no more than theory; and, they also understand the implication thereof; which is: that an excessive amount of faith is required for a belief in that which cannot be proven. However, most unfortunately, almost all other persons are impressed otherwise.

In the physics community much is made of observation and scientific method; the general belief is that science, and more particularly physics, is fundamentally based upon provable fact. It is not!

Physics, as a discipline, is built entirely upon mathematics and fundamental concepts. The mathematics according to Gödel (http://www.usna.edu/Users/math/meh/godel.html) is unprovable; and, the fundamental concepts do not reconcile with one another; nor, at their limits, internally with themselves.

Many physicists, even to their own selves, refuse to consider the possibility of such heresy. And, if this denial is not so; then, why is it that: the massive amount of faith required to accept fundamental physics is so little known?

And, further, because of the turmoil throughout recorded history; mostly the result of unenlightened intolerance; it is most important that the transcendental aspect of current science be acknowledged and well understood by not only theoretical physicists but by all persons. It is not!

Until there is general acknowledgement that fundamental physics theory is metaphysical, there is little hope for improvement in the theories of physics; or, improvement in worldly turmoil . . . more than likely both situations will worsen; unless:

The need for a "new physics" is enthusiastically pursued.

Physicists should be the solution to intolerance; not, through their silence and lack of caveats . . . unwitting collaborators.

[obs]

Everything requires faith.

Philosophy, Religion, Physics, Mathematics... etc. etc.

The above are all tools which people use to bring understanding to things that we cannot observe as absolute.

Religion is probably only 'faith of faith' and as such my least favourite. The rest, I feel, strive to one day observe things absolutely. Whether this is possible or not is another debate.

Physics unravelling as quickly as it forms is exciting. It means we are able to observe more and more phenomenon and variables we couldn't even assume or predict existed. It is perhaps a paradox that the more we observe the less we know, but this is mainly down to a renewed awareness of what the universe is rather than a belief that "we've just about got the whole thing covered". As pretty much every discipline mankind practices relies, in a great way, on faith, it simply means we are less slavient to almost certainly wrong ideas. We are moving away from the absoluteness of physics' theorem.

The earliest physicist (if you like) looked west and looked east and decided the world was flat - faced with these variables you could hardly disagree. He also looked to the sky and decided the sun went around us!! The next physicist observed shadows the sun left on a well at various times of day and decided the world was round. Again, you cannot disagree. He also searched the sky and observed celestial bodies and hypothesised that the earth may in fact go around the sun!!! We've been up there and had a look and it certainly seems he was correct, although we have now decided the earth is infact slightly oblong.

The point of each of these cornerstones is not that we were correct in our assumptions, but simply these assumptions fitted our purposes. The man on the flat earth only needed to know in which direction the next town was. The man on the round earth was able to navigate seas much more accurately that the man on the flat earth. And knowing the earth is slightly oblong is certainly useful when putting objects into orbit around our planet.

When the world ‘became’ round, east and west did not stop working. When we discovered the planet was oblong, ships did not hit rocks and sink.

We observe, predict and recreate. If we consistently recreate the effect we wished to in a given application then we have observed all we needed to. This does not mean there is nothing more to observe. A classic example is the belief that electrons travelled through wires in one direction and with one force and that was it. Whole cities were introduced to the electric light bulb on the strength of this theory alone. The fact that the theory is incorrect doesn't matter. When you turn the light on it works and that is the only important thing. Of course, someone then drops their compass next to an electrical wire and notices something odd, but you know what? The light bulb still works!! Or somebody uses the theory in another application and discovers it doesn't work. Theories are excellent instruction booklets on how to recreate certain conditions within certain constraints. Outside of these conditions and constraints they may not work but they do at least giving us a starting block from which to probe. I think physicists are well aware of this, which is why you don't just fire a manned spacecraft off to Mars. You send some unmanned ones first based on your theory of how to get to the Moon. If you're a bit out you adjust it until you get it right. Now you adjust your theory to take into account the new conditions (how to get to the moon and to mars). Then maybe send a few dozen flights equipped with all sorts of ideas to detect/protect from/measure gamma storms. When you reckon you've got that nailed you could formulise your "how to get people to mars or thereabouts" theory and test it. This theory could be the basis for your "how to get people to another star system" theory, which of course needs you to do some more experiments/observations. Then you have your "how to go through a worm hole theory" (assuming the damn things exist) and "how to jump to another universe" (I'm really pushing it out here).

Anyway, someone said that space was flat. Now where have I heard that before?

[Epsilon=One]

Everything requires faith.

Philosophy, Religion, Physics, Mathematics... etc. etc.

The above are all tools which people use to bring understanding to things that we cannot observe as absolute.


Your lengthy reply is quite succinct. Thank you for time and effort. I concur with much that you express.

We are very good with the "how" of things; thanks to researchers and engineers, for the most part. We are in the dark ages with regard to the "why" of things.

I like to think that all Reality can be known with observation that has been available to us for over fifty years mixed with a little philosophic logic.
See: Pulsoid Theory (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=63).

I believe the purpose of Science, Theology, and Philosophy, which are one, is to remove all faith, secular and religious, from our understanding of the environment in which we find ourselves.

If pressed, I may concede that a minuscule of faith may be acceptable.

[painintheear]

The how and the why are complicated to explain, so lets try a simple model.

We "know" A and that leads to B and that leads to C.

A --> B --> C

We know why A works due to B I would say. We know how C works because of B.

*creepy music* ... or is it the other way around...

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

If pressed, I may concede that a minuscule of faith may be acceptable. (Ha ha, thought so....)

To have NO Faith is to deny (in advance) that tomorrow will/may occur as not a one of you has any proof that it will, you accept it, EXPECT it, upon faith (Trust) alone.

As for a need for a 'new physics' well, furthering what is already known, should be (somewhat) suffcient......some 'new concepts' pehaps, but most of the rest is faily well established as workable/working, so, why bother introducing/trying all kinds of Un-needed new stuff?

[Epsilon=One]

(Ha ha, thought so....)You seem to have no idea what the word minuscule means as I have used it throughout these posts. My minuscule of faith is secular. See: Unified Concept (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=119) (UC). It is easier to start with this premise of the UC in a forum such as this; however, a strict application of empirical reasoning can continuously move the concept toward nil; certainly, beyond anything associated with “design.”

To have NO Faith is to deny (in advance) that tomorrow will/may occur as not a one of you has any proof that it will, you accept it, EXPECT it, upon faith (Trust) alone.I interpret no faith as the mind being without myth and superstition; that is, the acceptance of only that which can be proven by IPSO (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=142). Reliance and belief in all else should be suspended until so rationalized.

As for a need for a 'new physics' well, furthering what is already known, should be (somewhat) suffcient......some 'new concepts' pehaps, but most of the rest is faily well established as workable/working, so, why bother introducing/trying all kinds of Un-needed new stuff?A “new physics” is required because not a single standard model reconciles with another; and, none are consistent when extended beyond their contrived limits. To put it another way, all modern theoretical physics, which is a situation that is well understood by all world-class professionals, is based entirely upon metaphysical premises.

Until such phenomena as: “dark” matter (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=155); accelerating galactic recession; gravity’s mechanism of action (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=127); and, light’s ability to acquire the properties of mass; et cetera are thoroughly rationalized, physics is little more than fitting data to guesses.

No physicist has ever proved the mathematics that are used to express their concepts of Nature.

Until the theoretical physicist can rationalize the fundamental environment of the Universe, the Earth is open territory for every leader that wishes to manipulate the masses with proselytizing superstitions and myths.

I can assure you that no academic, world-class, theoretical physicist would dare debate, in an open forum, the opposite of my stated positions.

I can easily be refuted by your providing such an opponent.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

You seem to have no idea what the word minuscule means as I have used it throughout these posts. My minuscule of faith is secular. See: Unified Concept (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=119) (UC). It is easier to start with this premise of the UC in a forum such as this; however, a strict application of empirical reasoning can continuously move the concept toward nil; certainly, beyond anything associated with “design.”

Maybe that is because the rest of the world DOES NOT define it as you do, and I tend to ascribe to the Common definitions, you know, like most normal people do.

A “new physics” is required because not a single standard model reconciles with another; and, none are consistent when extended beyond their contrived limits. To put it another way, all modern theoretical physics, which is a situation that is well understood by all world-class professionals, is based entirely upon metaphysical premises.

So because no one has yet to be able to reconcile them means, what? you have decided it is impossible?? HUH?? Not so.....

No physicist has ever proved the mathematics that are used to express their concepts of Nature.

Spoken like a true Mathematician, NOT like a true Physicist.

Until the theoretical physicist can rationalize the fundamental environment of the Universe, the Earth is open territory for every leader that wishes to manipulate the masses with proselytizing superstitions and myths. Wow, physics now equates to religious Cultism.....Your Ill-advised.

I can assure you that no academic, world-class, theoretical physicist would dare debate, in an open forum, the opposite of my stated positions. If they could find a Whole and Complete one (your stated positions) rather then links to unfinished pages....and Drivel....?

I can easily be refuted by your providing such an opponent.

Well then since you can be 'so easily refuted' why would (I) Bother someone else simply to prove what you seem to so readily admit, you can be EASILY refuted.....

Case Closed.

BTW (I) posted eight (8) lines of text, NO links

You, twenty Five (25) lines of text in responce, and you lead off and FOUR (4) links.

(see what you said Yet?)

[Epsilon=One]

So because no one has yet to be able to reconcile them means, what? you have decided it is impossible?? HUH?? Not so.....No, I have concluded, that because the paradigms are unreconcilable, that most likely all are wrong; and, a “new physics” is required. This is a possible conclusion that is not only mine, it has been offered by many world-class theoretical physicists including Nobel laureates.

Spoken like a true Mathematician, NOT like a true Physicist.Thank you.

Wow, physics now equates to religious Cultism.....Your Ill-advised.I do not rely upon the advice of others for such an obvious insight.

If they could find a Whole and Complete one (your stated positions) rather then links to unfinished pages....I was referring to my “stated positions” within the post, which are quite complete.

since you can be 'so easily refuted' why would (I) Bother someone else simply to prove what you seem to so readily admit, you can be EASILY refuted.....I can only be easily refuted if you can provide an “academic, world-class, theoretical physicist” that “would dare debate, in an open forum, the opposite of my stated positions (within said post.)” I don’t believe you can!!!
BTW (I) posted eight (8) lines of text, NO linksThis may be one reason that your logic is so difficult to follow.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kinston Ontario Canada MMVI

Probably cause it (yours) isn't there
You quote me;
So because no one has yet to be able to reconcile them means, what? you have decided it is impossible?? HUH?? Not so..... and respond with;
No, I have concluded, that because the paradigms are unreconcilable, that most likely all are wrong; and, a “new physics” is required. This is a possible conclusion that is not only mine, it has been offered by many world-class theoretical physicists including Nobel laureates. Drivel disguised as argument inasmuch as I stated you decided it was impossible, you simply tried to re-explain why you had decided it was impossible, using the wording "I have concluded" (Means> you have 'decided' right?!) "Most likely all wrong" (ergo> 'impossible' >hence> 'new required') followed with you attempting to back yourself up with the inclusion of, No ones' Name(s) Some People's titles, and Nothing else.
Thank you. For what? recognition that you are a Mathematician? and NOT a Physicist....
I do not rely upon the advice of others for such an obvious insight. Obvious insight? that 'Physics' is A "Religious Cult" you mean to become a Physicist you must first surrender all of your worldly possessions to "The Leader"? Know what a Cult is, V something analogous to 'Cult like' behaviour, as it/they can be Somewhat 'Clannish' prior to Publication time, at which point in time it is clearly demonstrated that, as a 'Cult' (following of Scientists) it is OPEN to the Public, publicly available as presented information, subject to anyone’s judgment, (but not all are capable in those realms of Knowledge) cause if it is that, CULT is the WRONG word to use, a "Group of Theorists" (awaiting Publication) is More apropos
I was referring to my “stated positions” within the post, which are quite complete. In your 'opinion' (I) would suspect no less.
then I stated; since you can be 'so easily refuted' why would (I) Bother someone else simply to prove what you seem to so readily admit, you can be EASILY refuted.....
to which you replied; I can only be easily refuted if you can provide an “academic, world-class, theoretical physicist” that “would dare debate, in an open forum, the opposite of my stated positions (within said post.)” I don’t believe you can!!! Whether or not you believe (I) can Is MOOT, Your Opening statement is that "you can easily be refuted" Why would (I) bother Proving, or trying to prove that which you have so readily admitted to, think (I)'M stupid or something, Like to waste either my time or the time of a "academic, world-class, theoretical physicist" just to prove that you know what you are talking about when you tell us, ALL, just how easily you can be refuted by one......

We'll give you the last word, it Comes from you, so it must apply TO you!
This may be one reason that your logic is so difficult to follow.

[Epsilon=One]

We'll give you the last word...I will let stand all my quotes, that you have included, in your last above post.

There is nothing else new that I can add to this thread. You seem to have not only made many of my points with incessant quibbling rather than logic; but, also, you have emphasized my position.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI


What was that you had said about mis-quoting people?

(I) posted this: We'll give you the last word, it Comes from you, so it must apply TO you!

But you 'quote' it as We'll give you the last word... Slightly embellished and certainly truncated....clearly a Mis-quotation! (BY YOU!)

[phyti]

To form knowledge the mind;
--perceives reality,
--forms concepts to model reality,
--predicts reality from these concepts,
--keeps the concepts as knowledge when prediction matches reality.
--modifies the concepts after more perception

knowledge: a set of concepts used as a reference for understanding
By definition knowledge is always incomplete because all reality is never perceived.
For simplicity, a concept is defined within a context that excludes some concepts.
--Other concepts may not be relevant to the purpose.
--There may be relevant concepts that have not been discovered.
--An approximate definition may be sufficient for the purpose.
Definition is a relative referencing process.
--A definition is expressed in terms of other definitions.
--This process can be circular or incomplete.
Forming knowledge is a continuous process of refinement.
Knowledge is only as good as its definition.
----------------------------------------
We can only know reality indirectly through perception, thus our values are
relative because we have no fundamental starting point. If we did, it would have to be defined (in terms of what?). Our minds are finite
and thus limited, we can't know everything. It may make some people feel
insecure but that's 'reality'. I agree, new concepts are required for more
understanding of the world we live in but that's always been the case.
One of my favorite phrases from the scientific community that keeps recurring is "it's more complex than we thought"... maybe it keeps them
humble.

[Epsilon=One]

Excellent post. (I have enjoyed your prior posts; just been too busy to reply.)

I agree with all said; though I may quibble a bit with the statement:

...our values are relative because we have no fundamental starting point. If we did, it would have to be defined (in terms of what?). Our minds are finite and thus limited, we can't know everything.There is a fine point between "knowing" and "rationalizing."

I strongly believe that rationalizing a "starting point" is a possibility. And, your insight concerning: "in terms of what?" is right on point.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI
What was that you had said about mis-quoting people? (I) posted this:
But you 'quote' it as Slightly embellished and certainly truncated....clearly a Mis-quotation! (BY YOU!)
And you want evidence, right? so then you cannot read or ......what?

No Person in Decoreous Scientific Discourse is allowed to So Adulterate the Statements of Another....

Seemingly except you as you EXCUSE YOURSELF with your (I) can put three dots crap and there are other examples of you doing it in other places so ....

GO!
AWAY!!
POOPERS

Remember it is by your Faith (in God) that you are healed....

[Epsilon=One]

Originally Posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
What was that you had said about mis-quoting people? (I) posted this:

But you 'quote' it as Slightly embellished and certainly
truncated....clearly a Mis-quotation! (BY YOU!)
And you want evidence, right? so then you cannot read or ......what?

No Person in Decoreous Scientific Discourse is allowed to So Adulterate the Statements of Another....

Seemingly except you as you EXCUSE YOURSELF with your (I) can put three dots crap and there are other examples of you doing it in other places so ....

GO!
AWAY!!
POOPERS

Remember it is by your Faith (in God) that you are healed....Have you lost your sanity? Your implication is entirely false . . . as, usually, usual.

I clearly indicated that my quote of your comment was truncated; and, in no way did such alter it's meaning. Anyone can see for themselves. Why would you so state when the falseness is so obvious?

I wish you would show the same courtesy toward other's quotes as I do your quotes by not continuing to deceptively quote out of context; and not so indicating when you truncate.

Your histrionics, and proselytizing for healing by a god, are completely out of place and off-topic; and do little to bolster your integrity.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Have you lost your sanity? Your implication is entirely false . . . as, usually, usual.

I clearly indicated that my quote of your comment was truncated; and, in no way did such alter it's meaning. Anyone can see for themselves. Why would you so state when the falseness is so obvious?

(SNIP) I wish you would show the same courtesy toward other's quotes as I do your quotes by not continuing to deceptively quote out of context; and not so indicating when you truncate. (SNoP)

Your histrionics, and proselytizing for healing by a god, are completely out of place and off-topic; and do little to bolster your integrity.O.K. you told me in another thread that you use the three dot method, but (I) use the three dot method in almost everything (I) write, you are therefore opening for yourself a 'doorway' (Which (I) have made clear demonstration of Full knowledge of it's "Potentials") to which (I) cannot either 'close' nor therefore Tolerate it in this Form/Forum of Venue of Exchange COUPLED with, the Inside of me that you ....well, you know what words, God willing, that (I) will use ....if needed so, if you can read (and (I) suspect that that is really clear that you can!) then you will also notice that (I) had started Waaaaaaaaay back here! asking you to Go AWAY!......

Removing a Question mark from a Question .....changes it Completely!

Intolerable in a Decoreous Discussion.


(SNIP) (I) would tell you to follow your own advise but, just as clearly ....it would be lost on you (SNoP)...

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Here Post #28 (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=832&page=3) is where you typed out your own 'self excuse' and added in the Ad Hominens that you so wantonly insert as a Self Justification that Blames me....

Note that I placed 3 dots before and after your words to indicate that it was a snippet of your words and the reader might want to check the original. Such is the approved procedure when there is any possibility of quoting out of context.
I snipped the end because I was embarrassed for you concerning the obnoxious, imperious "...well?" at the end of your words.
Please tell ALL of the Readers Why/How placing a "...Well?" amounts to being Imperial AND Obnoxious? Because.....Clearly.... to anyone who has taken the Time to get to Know you would Know wherefrom those characteristic Identifications arise as From and BY as per 'Character Actions'

And You?? were embarrassed?? for me?? or do you mean you were just 'Em Bare Assed caught at your own game with your whatever 'hanging out' publically and you needed to Cover your Now 'Im-bare-ass ....named Jack?

The self justification of it means that the Door is opened and Not about to be shut by the one who opened it such that, at that Point .....Bye!

Now will you Please just Go Away.

To Anyone else who would like to understand try Yup he is a Diabetic, yes eyesight problems, yes! easy to feel sorry for but just as easy to fool yourself into thinking that because he can be 'sympathized/empathized with' that that the means he is somehow 'right' (or has a right to continue with ME or that it should be "weighted in his favor" because of that) especially when it comes to the Inside of me as that "conversation" (thought sharing) tends to be private and therein the Possibility of him Knowing something of importance from 'within me' rises IF (I) permit him to Continue which, By the Grace of God ....he will not be allowed to.

He is slanderous in Nature as his postings towards me tell of Greatly and (I) have had enough of His going to far....

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Oh yes before you go off the deep end somewheres else...

this post #28 (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=832&page=3&pp=10) says...

(SNIP) Yes, and unlike your practices, I clearly indicated it as truncated; and, did so to save you some embarrassment. (SNoP)So, No you didn't! and ....Look!! you admit that it was Truncated but thereafter aaaaaaaaall over these forums you have gone around posting accusation after accusation of ME being decieptful and deceptive and liar, but YOU are the one CLEARLY foisting the/that Deception!

Without Question!! Especially NO QUESTION MARK!

So when (I) say GO AWAY!! it is because you have demonstrated an UN-trustworthyness that is IN-tolerable in these kinds of Forums.

Because Unlike you that IS MY REAL NAME!

[Epsilon=One]

O.K. you told me in another thread that you use the three dot method, but (I) use the three dot method in almost everything (I) write, you are therefore opening for yourself a 'doorway' (Which (I) have made clear demonstration of Full knowledge of it's "Potentials") to which (I) cannot either 'close' nor therefore Tolerate it in this Form/Forum of Venue of Exchange...I can not be responsible for your unusual writing and posting style. I use an accepted practice. If I were to truncate your comment after your "three (unspaced) dot method," there would be six dots. The conventional method of writing with "dots" is to place spaces between them. My conventional method warns the reader to check if there is any question as to meaning or content.

If there should be confusion about a truncation; or, if I take something that might be construed as out of context; or, change the format, all as you so often do, I would note the fact in brackets.

I never quote and then make misleading comments concerning those quotes, particularly, if the quote itself is misleading, which I'm sure is not done accidently on your part.

If I do criticize someone's quote or comments; I post that quote so the reader can judge without researching, which is something you seldom ever do. (Your above reply is an example.)

If I should ever make an error, and it is pointed out to me, as I do with you, I would immediately admit my error because it would be obvious to everyone, while you continually ignore such when I point out your deceptive editing.

Removing a Question mark from a Question .....changes it Completely!This is an example of you making a statement that is deceptive. No meaning was changed an iota; and, certainly the word "Completely!" is entirely inappropriate and deceptive. First, I noted that the quote was truncated. Second, it was truncated to save you embarrassment concerning an inappropriate attitude. Third, the question was of a rhetorical nature that did not effect the truncated quote. Fourth, nothing was out of context that would add confusion. Fifth, I didn't deny that I truncated and I answered your charge, which is more than you do concerning my questions. When you fail to reply, or do so in a deceptive manner, I can only assume that you have little argument.

Intolerable in a Decoreous Discussion.There is no such thing as a "Decoreous (sic.) Discussion" when you resort to histrionics and deception (as with this comment).

(SNIP) (I) would tell you to follow your own advise but, just as clearly ....it would be lost on you (SNoP)...If nothing else, it would seem by now, that you would be well aware that not much is "lost on" my understanding of what you post.

[Epsilon=One]

I snipped the end because I was embarrassed for you concerning the obnoxious, imperious "...well?" at the end of your words.Please tell ALL of the Readers Why/How placing a "...Well?" amounts to being Imperial AND Obnoxious? Because.....Clearly.... to anyone who has taken the Time to get to Know you would Know wherefrom those characteristic Identifications arise as From and BY as per 'Character Actions'I will let my statement stand. You obviously disagree, That's fine. The Viewer will have to judge for themselves as to whether I changed any meaning or was deceptive in any way while trying to not quote what seemed unnecessary and unfair to you.

No matter what, you are drawing a very fine line compared to your continuous, outrageously deceptive misuse of quotes.

And You?? were embarrassed?? for me?? or do you mean you were just 'Em Bare Assed caught at your own game with your whatever 'hanging out' publically and you needed to Cover your Now 'Im-bare-ass ....named Jack?As there was no unfair deception or change of meaning, your above comments are entirely out of line.

To directly and succinctly answer your question: Yes. At that time I was embarrassed for you; now, I would not be as concerned. Also, to show up another with such a "cheap shot" would have weakened my argument. You, I would not expect to understand why "cheap shots" will weaken one's argument and integrity.

Now will you Please just Go Away.I do not enjoy wasting my time. If you will stop asking questions and using quotations in deceptive manners, as herein, I will not bother replying to your off-topic, histrionic, drivel. I intensely dislike participating in your form of debate and histrionic discourse. However, it is not my style to back down when bullied.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

I will let my statement stand. You obviously disagree, That's fine. The Viewer will have to judge for themselves as to whether I changed any meaning or was deceptive in any way while trying to not quote what seemed unnecessary and unfair to you.Again the self excusing by implication of 'turn around' (reversal) of actions' responsibility...


No matter what, you are drawing a very fine line compared to your continuous, outrageously deceptive misuse of quotes.Again attempted Deceptive reversal

As there was no unfair deception or change of meaning, your above comments are entirely out of line....Now Denial, as it isn't 'unfair' ONLY in your head, and YUP it is DECEPTIVE & DECEIPTFUL of YOU! as clearly what is highlighted in Magenta from two quotations of you is Completely self CONTRADICTORY! as you state you will let the reader decide then you foist upon them your descision as some sort of Fact....cleary a Liars technique!

To directly and succinctly answer your question: Yes. At that time I was embarrassed for you; now, I would not be as concerned. Also, to show up another with such a "cheap shot" would have weakened my argument. You, I would not expect to understand why "cheap shots" will weaken one's argument and integrity. No.... You had been trying To embarrass me as per officeshedders obvious notation of having found it funny coupled with the simplistic reality that you may have simply misunderstood the impart of what (I) was asking inasmuch as The thread is about General Relativity being wrong, ergo the Only other Theory available is 'Special Relativity' which is thereafter known to be "Slightly Off" .....but not recieved/read in your head that way, but viewed by you as simply an opportunity for you to try to Embarrass me.....A Cheap Shot if (I) ever saw one....By You, From you, nothing new....

I do not enjoy wasting my time. If you will stop asking questions and using quotations in deceptive manners, as herein, I will not bother replying to your off-topic, histrionic, drivel. I intensely dislike participating in your form of debate and histrionic discourse. However, it is not my style to back down when bullied.Then simply GO AWAY!

Oh yes, you seem to claim that your aduulteration of My post by misquotation has little effect - Means Little, yet you had been going on for many a post implieing that my use of Color and Bold (For Highlighting) in quoting you was somehow Egregioulsy misleading when (I) NEVER changed The Context of you posts/posting as you have changed mine...

So your change, contextual adulteration is not relevant whereas mine having no contextual change but some highlighting as to focus the attention for the rebutal to your whatever is according to you outrageously deceptive

(I) think you have proven my case, and that it is by your hand that the proofs stand....

As for being bullied, GET OUT OF ME! Cause if you don't, Gods Grace and in accordance with Gods Will, you will most assuredly find out just what Bullieing can mean as (I) clearly know from your having tried to bully yourself into the indside of me that you really don't Care (Have any compassion for anyone other then yourself!) nor have a Clue just what you are trying to do, doing, and what can be done (to You ...??!!).....and NO respect for yourself.

Your continuation at that 'attempting to get into the inside of me' is DIRECTLY relevant to your continueing to Post in these forums ....at me....

So, Consider yourself CLEARLY FOREWARNED....!!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

I can not be responsible for your unusual writing and posting style. I use an accepted practice. If I were to truncate your comment after your "three (unspaced) dot method," there would be six dots. The conventional method of writing with "dots" is to place spaces between them. My conventional method warns the reader to check if there is any question as to meaning or content.
If there should be confusion about a truncation; or, if I take something that might be construed as out of context; or, change the format, all as you so often do, I would note the fact in brackets.
I never quote and then make misleading comments concerning those quotes, particularly, if the quote itself is misleading, which I'm sure is not done accidently on your part.
If I do criticize someone's quote or comments; I post that quote so the reader can judge without researching, which is something you seldom ever do. (Your above reply is an example.)
If I should ever make an error, and it is pointed out to me, as I do with you, I would immediately admit my error because it would be obvious to everyone, while you continually ignore such when I point out your deceptive editing.
This is an example of you making a statement that is deceptive. No meaning was changed an iota; and, certainly the word "Completely!" is entirely inappropriate and deceptive. First, I noted that the quote was truncated. Second, it was truncated to save you embarrassment concerning an inappropriate attitude. Third, the question was of a rhetorical nature that did not effect the truncated quote. Fourth, nothing was out of context that would add confusion. Fifth, I didn't deny that I truncated and I answered your charge, which is more than you do concerning my questions. When you fail to reply, or do so in a deceptive manner, I can only assume that you have little argument.
There is no such thing as a "Decoreous (sic.) Discussion" when you resort to histrionics and deception (as with this comment).
If nothing else, it would seem by now, that you would be well aware that not much is "lost on" my understanding of what you post.More of your what? Histrionic self justification and BLATHER/DRIVEL/SLOBBER/CRAP/GARBAGE/JUNK/STUPIDITY/INGORANCE/INSULT/BILE/EGREGIOUSIDIOCY/ETC...

so why bother....

GO
A-W-A-Y!-!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

BTW 'Sheet' for Brains, your post #17 here (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?p=967#post967
) Quotes me as Having said:



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
"All of the Fundamental Postulates are wrong" *AYes. That is exactly what I believe. It is difficult for me to understand how anyone can possibly think otherwise when considering that not one paradigm reconciles internally . . . or with any other paradigm. As with religion: If only one can be true, most likely they are all false.

[QUOTE=Mr. Robin Parsons} So what is Wrong with the Primary, or Secondary, Or in Some cases, even the tertiary 'Theories' in all of that? as The VAST Majority of ALL of that WORKS REALLY WELL!


But my post #16 says

"All of the Fundamental Postulates are wrong" *A so you Think that things like the Periodic Table of Elements, thereafter > atoms > Protons, Electrons and Neutrons > Breaking down further into Quarks > Up & Down, Top & Bottom, Strange and Charm, Virtual Particle Cloud Surrounding the Nucleus > electromagnetic Properties of Atomic Structures,

Can you see the differences?? ....Liar....

http://physicsmathforums.com/images/icons/icon2.gif P.s.ssssst http://physicsmathforums.com/images/icons/icon4.gif Danger! http://physicsmathforums.com/images/icons/icon4.gif 'Big Writer' at work....http://physicsmathforums.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

[Epsilon=One]

No.... You had been trying To embarrass me as per officeshedders obvious notation of having found it funny coupled with the simplistic reality that you may have simply misunderstood the impart of what (I) was asking inasmuch as The thread is about General Relativity being wrong, ergo the Only other Theory available is 'Special Relativity' which is thereafter known to be "Slightly Off" .....but not recieved/read in your head that way, but viewed by you as simply an opportunity for you to try to Embarrass me.....A Cheap Shot if (I) ever saw one....By You, From you, nothing new....Apparently, we do not agree on the definition of a "Cheap Shot"; as, I was replying to an egregious error in physics that you made while you were dismissing a comment that I had made.

Oh yes, you seem to claim that your aduulteration of My post by misquotation has little effect - Means Little...That's correct.

...yet you had been going on for many a post implieing that my use of Color and Bold (For Highlighting) in quoting you was somehow Egregioulsy misleadingI'm sure that I never used the term Egregioulsy misleading when referring to format change. You can make all the changes you want to the format as long as you advise the Viewer that you have done so. When you imply the formating is mine; you generally change the tone I intended; and often your added erratic, emphasis makes the original writer seem as some kind of an idiot.

...... when (I) NEVER changed The Context of you posts/posting as you have changed mine...This statement is deceptive. You have changed many of my posts in a manner that changed the context (If you wish, I will post some of them); you have yet to mention any posts where I have changed your meaning; unless you consider dropping a rhetorical question mark, and noting same, as being unfair.

So your change, contextual adulteration is not relevant whereas mine having no contextual change but some highlighting as to focus the attention for the rebutal to your whatever is according to you outrageously deceptiveThis statement is highly misleading as you have given no examples of my "contextual adulteration"; and, as noted above, I do not consider the continual, unnoted changes in formating of my words by you to be as outrageously deceptive as your comments concerning truncated and out of context snippets that you provide as "strawmen" for your histrionics.

As for being bullied...you will most assuredly find out just what Bullieing can mean as (I) clearly know...what can be done (to You ...??!!)...

So, Consider yourself CLEARLY FOREWARNED....!!Threats do little to advance one's intellectual arguments.

[Epsilon=One]

Can you see the differences?? ....Liar....What is your point? I cannot understand your argument. Apparently it is lost to me among the tangled quotes and misappropriate histrionics.

Where is the lie?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Q:
What is your point? (SNoP)


A:
(SNIP) it is lost to me among the tangled quotes and misappropriate histrionics. (SNoP)

[Epsilon=One]

Q:

A:Apparently, your above "Q:" and "A:" indicate that you concur???

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Q:
Apparently, your above "Q:" and "A:" indicate that you concur???

A:
Where is the lie?