|
|
Hi Richard,
Richard Herring wrote:
> In message <phineaspuddleduck-A49653.18092007122006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
> >In article <1165514748.328138.93510@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > "Paul" <softwarelabus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> Richard Herring wrote:
> >> > In message <1165512119.690438.72210@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul
> >> > <softwarelabus@xxxxxxxxx> writes
> >> > >Filth. I feel dirty conversing with you.
> >> >
> >> > The solution is in your own hands.
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm still waiting big boy. :-) I will continue to ask until you point
> >> out my error, in detail. Again -->
>
> Error of omission. Can't see the wood for the trees.
Allow me to point out what you are missing. If person #1 makes a claim
and person #2 says they are in error, then obviously person #2
perceives something about the claim that is in error. I am tired of
asking you to point out the error. You refuse. When confronted you
merely ask more questions. Now if person #2 cannot point out the
error, but needs to ask more questions, then he or she has no business
stating person #1 has made an error.
You and your cronies love to throw rocks and attack people. Perhaps you
and your cronies are pissed because on many occasion I showed all your
errors from misspelling "particle" to stating neutrinos do not affect
matter to claiming magnetic moments flip in zero seconds etc. etc., but
that does not explain why you and your cronies continually attack
people from day one. IMHO it makes you feel GOOD! It seems my friend
and neighbor, who's well-versed in psychology, nailed it when he
analyzed you and your cronies as unhappy people to say the least.
> >
> >Richard - give up. This guy makes Brad Guth seem sane. Though the
> >underlying proof that he himself knows he's mad is that he refuses to
> >take any of his so called science beyond his fevered rantings and
> >actually build anything.
>
> I gave him the equations and he couldn't use them.
That clearly demonstrates your fuzzy logic and lack of mental
development. Richard's fuzzy logic, "Gee, he did not obey my requests.
Therefore, surely he must be incapable of doing it." Sorry, but I am
*not* going to waste my energy on a request to prove something that is
well proven, especially when mathematics has *nothing* to do with *the
point I was making.*
> Yes, it's been entertaining but there are limits. I'm starting to feel a
> bit like the people who went to Bedlam to poke the lunatics with sticks.
It's a pity you are *presently* overwhelmed with weak logic, not able
to admit the need of self-improvement. Admission of self-improvement is
a positive act. I truly hope one day you see the light so then you can
grow.
> >
> >He'll pick on subjects to obsess on and refuse to admit his own errors.
>
> Did you miss the equally long thread about how he's going to disprove QM
> by propagating half a photon? That was based on measuring a voltage
> (he's the king of voltage measurements) and using macroscopic
> assumptions to calculate the energy of the "half-photon".
You still do not understand. If the antenna consumes energy then that
is indeed measurable. I went over all your fictitious limitations
regarding noise and everything else. In that thread you made claim
after claim that I cannot do this or that due to noise, bla bla bla. In
every case I proved you wrong. You went on from one thing to the next.
It seemed very apparent that in the end you admitted it was possible.
As a result you refused to commit to the experiments outcome and
abruptly ended the thread. Despite repeated requests, you refused to
even answer the main question of that thread, which was to please
predict the experiment outcome. I even outlined the three
possibilities. Again, you refused to commit.
Don't give up on yourself. Within exists potential! In the end, no
hard feelings!!
Have a wonderful life,
Paul
> >I still swear its Dennis B under a new name.
> >
> >I imagine his wife (if he has one) even has to wire the plugs for him.
> >
> It's a shame, because there's actually some quite elegant physics
> associated with 2-wire transmission lines, of the
> obvious-once-you've-seen-it variety. No matter what the cross-section of
> the conductors, E and H are mutually perpendicular everywhere between
> them and in the same ratio, and as a result the product of inductance
> and capacitance per unit length is a (fundamental!) constant. You could
> say all transmission lines are conformal transformations of each other.
> Ain't geometry wonderful!
>
> --
> Richard Herring
|
|