Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

Banning people is rather pointless though, if a person wants to go back to a forum it is not difficult.  I would never be found out unless I wanted to be found out.  But I am not a lier, I am neither a troll, I keep getting banned for no reason so go back as a sock , my intentions are good, but I am to honest to keep pretending being a sock. 

 

So I have to give it away always.   

 

P.s Time is a measurement directly proportional to change,

 

The rate of time is a googleplex of a second .  Your next chronological position is a gooleplex of a second away.   I have destroyed time dilation , the semantics of that are incorrect.  It is a timing dilation. 

No, banning does serve a purpose. It keeps forums free from known disruptive or otherwise negative influences. Are you theorist-constant as well?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What will get you into trouble is the combination of these three things:     and then:     in conjunction with:   You don't get to claim ignorance to justify demanding others accept your novel theori

If anyone wants a laugh, take a read of the first few pages of this thread from another forum, in which I encountered this guy under the name "theorist-constant", before he was banned: http://www.scif

Good! You can read a dictionary! :cheer:   Unfortunately you've proven quite well that you do not know how to apply definitions to the real world and use-cases thereof. So:   :umno: Properties are n

Posted Images

No, banning does serve a purpose. It keeps forums free from known disruptive or otherwise negative influences. Are you theorist-constant as well?  

I am the Theorist, the theorist -constant, Thebox and a several other titles, all I want to do is chat and discuss.  I would gladly accept a ban and stick to the ban if there was a genuine reason for banning me.  People seem to forget I am self taught so may get a bit confused with things now and again.  However I can not help loving science and love discussing science.  My close friends think I am a bit nuts to want to learn science but they just do not get how cool some of it is. 

I might learn a strange way, I might even spout some gibberish, but that does not make mean I am not a genuine person with genuine interest.  I am quite surprised this thread is not closed yet and myself banned. I expect the inevitable. 

 

I am a good thinker and it is a big shame many forums do not want to discuss science but rather dictate it.   

 

I respect science forums but the science forums don't seem to respect that the members like myself put in a lot of time and effort trying.   

 

Anyway thank you for being nice exchemist I do respect you and think we are in discussion elsewhere? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am the Theorist, the theorist -constant, Thebox and a several other titles, all I want to do is chat and discuss.  I would gladly accept a ban and stick to the ban if there was a genuine reason for banning me.  People seem to forget I am self taught so may get a bit confused with things now and again.  However I can not help loving science and love discussing science.  My close friends think I am a bit nuts to want to learn science but they just do not get how cool some of it is. 

I might learn a strange way, I might even spout some gibberish, but that does not make mean I am not a genuine person with genuine interest.  I am quite surprised this thread is not closed yet and myself banned. I expect the inevitable. 

 

I am a good thinker and it is a big shame many forums do not want to discuss science but rather dictate it.   

 

I respect science forums but the science forums don't seem to respect that the members like myself put in a lot of time and effort trying.   

 

Anyway thank you for being nice exchemist I do respect you and think we are in discussion elsewhere?

You lied right out of the gate; not a good start. This all belongs in Alternative Theories, on the way to Silly Claims. This will keep it from popping up on the Recent Topics list and annoying the well-intentioned folks. Just because pseudo-science has the word 'science' in it does not mean it's meaningful or worthwhile. I imagine our other self-taught resident crackpots will be happy to join in on your blabbling, if for nothing else than to soapbox their own gobbeltygook. :blahblahblah: Color me bored to tears with the lot of it. :yawn:

 

Whether you can hear it or not, the Universe is laughing behind your back. :phones:

Link to post
Share on other sites

What will get you into trouble is the combination of these three things:
 

... People seem to forget I am self taught so may get a bit confused with things now and again.  ... I might learn a strange way, I might even spout some gibberish, but that does not make mean I am not a genuine person with genuine interest.

 
and then:
 

I am a good thinker and it is a big shame many forums do not want to discuss science but rather dictate it.   I respect science forums but the science forums don't seem to respect that the members like myself put in a lot of time and effort trying.

 
in conjunction with:
 

I have destroyed time dilation , the semantics of that are incorrect.


You don't get to claim ignorance to justify demanding others accept your novel theories and then come back and say "everything the experts say is wrong."

 

What will get you banned is violating our rule about "annoying our members," something best summarized by the acronym "DBAA."

 

As you've discovered we're tolerant of alternative ideas, but what will get you moved to the Silly Claims forum faster than anything is whining that we "do not want to discuss science but rather dictate it."

 

Remember: you've told us you haven't bothered to actually learn about the topics you're asking about, so if some one simply repeats that back to you, you don't get to say they're being unfair.

 

We're quite happy to let people make fools of themselves in public and make examples of them.

 

Welcome to Hypography, antoine!

 

 

I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request. Means "no," :phones:

Buffy

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am the Theorist, the theorist -constant, Thebox and a several other titles, all I want to do is chat and discuss.  I would gladly accept a ban and stick to the ban if there was a genuine reason for banning me.  People seem to forget I am self taught so may get a bit confused with things now and again.  However I can not help loving science and love discussing science.  My close friends think I am a bit nuts to want to learn science but they just do not get how cool some of it is. 

I might learn a strange way, I might even spout some gibberish, but that does not make mean I am not a genuine person with genuine interest.  I am quite surprised this thread is not closed yet and myself banned. I expect the inevitable. 

 

I am a good thinker and it is a big shame many forums do not want to discuss science but rather dictate it.   

 

I respect science forums but the science forums don't seem to respect that the members like myself put in a lot of time and effort trying.   

 

Anyway thank you for being nice exchemist I do respect you and think we are in discussion elsewhere? 

We were. Until I realised who you are. 

 

Sorry, theorist-constant was banned from sciforums for good reasons, after everybody's patience was finally exhausted. And that is a place that is very reluctant to ban peopIe. You demonstrated there a total inability to grasp any scientific concept or to reason logically. And your grasp of maths is non-existent. I am not going to waste time with you here, or there, under other names. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We were. Until I realised who you are. 

 

Sorry, theorist-constant was banned from sciforums for good reasons, after everybody's patience was finally exhausted. And that is a place that is very reluctant to ban peopIe. You demonstrated there a total inability to grasp any scientific concept or to reason logically. And your grasp of maths is non-existent. I am not going to waste time with you here, or there, under other names. 

I have no problem if you do not wish to discuss with me.   Admitting when I first started learning science I knew very little about science and have had no teacher to tell me if I was interpreting things correctly.  People improve in time, time is something that is not accounted for on science forums in regards to learning.  A new member is expected to know everything within a short time, forums members expect the new member to make no mistakes.  And my biggest point, if somebody is learning me something and that something seems wrong, I will certainly say why I think it is wrong, but then the forums members start name calling, say it is this way, and don't even want to hear why it may be wrong.  So even if things were wrong, they just don't seem to care, which is the most annoying thing.  I will post a new theory in new theories in a short while. I would love for somebody to do with my theories like I do to ''your'' theories, and check them out thoughtfully and thoughtfully.

 

Thank you for your discussion, it was welcoming. 

Edited by antoine
Link to post
Share on other sites

Admitting when I first started learning science I knew very little about science and have had no teacher to tell me if I was interpreting things correctly.  People improve in time, time is something that is not accounted for on science forums in regards to learning.  ......  I will post a new theory in new theories in a short while. I would love for somebody to do with my theories like I do to ''your'' theories, and check them out thoughtfully and thoughtfully.

 

 

The problem is that you obviously do not appreciate the presence of an established body of science which involves thousands of professional scientists educated to a PhD level. The idea that you have a new theory without a similar background is frankly absurd. Why should people on this forum waste their time responding to "new theories" from somebody who does not even understand the old ones?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that you obviously do not appreciate the presence of an established body of science which involves thousands of professional scientists educated to a PhD level. The idea that you have a new theory without a similar background is frankly absurd. Why should people on this forum waste their time responding to "new theories" from somebody who does not even understand the old ones?

People are making the wrong assumptions by assuming I do not understand the old ones.  I mostly ask about things we do not know, like this topic title , what is mass? 

 

I know we don't have a definite answer because I have been told by yourselves , members , for several year.  I try to discuss something we do not know then get banned, it seems ironic to me. 

 

As regards to old theories, old can be improved, that is how scientific principle works, to use existing science and improve our knowledge.  Discussion is never wasting our time, it is informative because the discussion views are two way and not one way.  I do not dictate, I ask questions that may seem a statement if the reader reads ambiguously to my meanings.  

 

Over the years I have improved loads with my present knowledge of knowledge. 

 

A new theory is a new theory, the discussion should be around the new theory and not denied on old theory alone. 

 

I understand science quite well now, it as took several years as if I was at school learning and I am about to graduate. 

 

If I am respected in conversation I respect back,  but if people are going to deny simple things then I will certainly argue back to prove a point. 

 

 

In regards to the topic subject, do you have an explanation of what mass is?  My ears are always open to answers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone wants a laugh, take a read of the first few pages of this thread from another forum, in which I encountered this guy under the name "theorist-constant", before he was banned: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/e-mc2-questions.143963/  It reads like a parody sketch of someone incompetent at science. (There is another thread on algebra which is even more embarrassing, but I'll spare everyone that.)

 

This was 2 years ago admittedly, but I shall be surprised if the comprehension and reasoning faculties are much improved.  I suppose we are about to find out...........

Edited by exchemist
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh god, he can't even tell the difference between mass and weight.

Well, he couldn't two years ago (and according to his profile he is not a child). What was worse, he spent several pages arguing with people that mass arose as a result of gravitation, rather than the other way round.

 

Anyway now, apparently, he has, at a stroke, by pure force of logic, demolished Einstein's concept of time dilation.

 

White coats job, if you ask me.   

Edited by exchemist
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, he couldn't two years ago (and according to his profile he is not a child). What was worse, he spent several pages arguing with people that mass arose as a result of gravitation, rather than the other way round.

 

Anyway now, apparently, he has, at a stroke, by pure force of logic, demolished Einstein's concept of time dilation.

 

White coats job, if you ask me.   

See the thread in alternative theories, silly claims section. I started it there at the bottom of the ladder, I am sure though already, that nobody will be willing to discuss the relative correctness I propose in the ''silly claim.   We will see....

Edited by antoine
Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone wants a laugh, take a read of the first few pages of this thread from another forum, in which I encountered this guy under the name "theorist-constant", before he was banned: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/e-mc2-questions.143963/  It reads like a parody sketch of someone incompetent at science. (There is another thread on algebra which is even more embarrassing, but I'll spare everyone that.)

 

This was 2 years ago admittedly, but I shall be surprised if the comprehension and reasoning faculties are much improved.  I suppose we are about to find out...........

Wow I was really terrible back then.   I have just looked over that particular thread.   

 

Parts deleted...

Edited by antoine
Link to post
Share on other sites

It always seems to come down to this same claim.  Do you guys have a club, or something?  

I am not a part of any club or guys.   I am an individual with individual thoughts.  I would not claim something as such if I did not believe I had  presented overwhelming evidence.    Anyway this thread is about what is mass?   Do you have any personal ideas of what mass is ?  

 

I would argue mass as kg is the measurement on a set of scales that is equal to the attractive force it is undergoing while at rest in an inertia reference frame ?     

 

I believe that the mass of an object at rest in one inertia rest frame is a variant to the same volume and same density object in a different inertia rest frame.  Your personal mass being a function of the attractive force of gravity.  A variant under different gravitational magnitudes.  

 

Your weight, is the force two things collide at, F=ma²   .  Acceleration being involved in Newtons equation of force where as rest mass the object  is still under acceleration from the force of g, but at rest due to the ground pushes back.   The inertia of the object , the resistance to motion/acceleration, is the same thing as the objects mass when at rest. 

 

I think mass=charge(S)=Newtons of force=gravitational magnitude

 

Mass being a variant causing a problem with E=mc²   

 

A body can be a variant in mass but it can not be a variant in energy of the entropy of the body?  

 

If I am misunderstanding something here, please correct me.

Edited by antoine
Link to post
Share on other sites

Readers, I have just made the following report on the preceding post: 

 

"Here we go. This is exactly what he does. There are so many errors and misconceptions packed into this post that it cries out for a reply. But if anyone replies, they will just get enmeshed in a never-ending dialogue, boosted by further (deliberate?) misunderstandings introduced by Theorist (Antoine).

 
This is why this guy was banned from sciforums. "
 
Anyone replying to this sh1t has hereby been duly warned.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...