Electromagnetic Accelerator Disproven

  • 72 Replies
  • 7988 Views
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40323
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator Disproven
« Reply #60 on: March 13, 2010, 10:45:33 AM »
But that doesn't stop Newtonian physics/mechanics from being perfectly acceptable and very useful for for applications where relativistic and/or quantum effects are negligible.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator Disproven
« Reply #61 on: March 13, 2010, 07:06:15 PM »
But that doesn't stop Newtonian physics/mechanics from being perfectly acceptable and very useful for for applications where relativistic and/or quantum effects are negligible.

That's true, they are great approximations on everyday scales and when gravitation is not used. This does not mean they are acceptable in the contexts parsifal was criticizing them in.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40323
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator Disproven
« Reply #62 on: March 13, 2010, 07:43:51 PM »
But that doesn't stop Newtonian physics/mechanics from being perfectly acceptable and very useful for for applications where relativistic and/or quantum effects are negligible.

That's true, they are great approximations on everyday scales and when gravitation is not used. This does not mean they are acceptable in the contexts parsifal was criticizing them in.

We all know that Parsifal tends to exaggerate in the contexts that he criticizes.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator Disproven
« Reply #63 on: March 14, 2010, 09:41:56 AM »
Parsifals main problem is that he is using a different definition of inertial reference frame to every mechanics book I have every come across. Im still not clear what he is defining one as, but it sure aint the usual one.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40323
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator Disproven
« Reply #64 on: March 14, 2010, 11:15:04 AM »
That's because you're looking at the wrong books.  You may want to try Chilton's.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator Disproven
« Reply #65 on: March 14, 2010, 11:20:19 AM »
But that doesn't stop Newtonian physics/mechanics from being perfectly acceptable and very useful for for applications where relativistic and/or quantum effects are negligible.

That's true, they are great approximations on everyday scales and when gravitation is not used. This does not mean they are acceptable in the contexts parsifal was criticizing them in.

We all know that Parsifal tends to exaggerate in the contexts that he criticizes.

That is irrelevant. Either show how he was simply being a pedant or shut up. Your perceptions of the way others act prove nothing and just make you look like a prick.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator Disproven
« Reply #66 on: March 14, 2010, 03:43:45 PM »
Parsifals main problem is that he is using a different definition of inertial reference frame to every mechanics book I have every come across. Im still not clear what he is defining one as, but it sure aint the usual one.

This is Paedofal's modus operandi. He will try his hardest to never define the parameters he works from because then somebody could attack them directly. Just like he will never, ever, describe what he sees as "the" model of the flat earth for him, because he needs to vary its properties depending on what argument he wants to wade into and foul up.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator Disproven
« Reply #67 on: March 15, 2010, 11:51:55 AM »
Parsifals main problem is that he is using a different definition of inertial reference frame to every mechanics book I have every come across. Im still not clear what he is defining one as, but it sure aint the usual one.

This is Paedofal's modus operandi. He will try his hardest to never define the parameters he works from because then somebody could attack them directly. Just like he will never, ever, describe what he sees as "the" model of the flat earth for him, because he needs to vary its properties depending on what argument he wants to wade into and foul up.

Where in the heck do you get "his properties." Just because you are arguing against someone doesn't mean you think either side is valid, you are just showing that their side is more invalid.

Now please make an on topic observation or leave the thread, we don't care what you think of parsifal. In fact this stalking thing in this thread is getting boring.

Tl;dr go away

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator Disproven
« Reply #68 on: March 15, 2010, 02:42:20 PM »
Parsifals main problem is that he is using a different definition of inertial reference frame to every mechanics book I have every come across. Im still not clear what he is defining one as, but it sure aint the usual one.

This is Paedofal's modus operandi. He will try his hardest to never define the parameters he works from because then somebody could attack them directly. Just like he will never, ever, describe what he sees as "the" model of the flat earth for him, because he needs to vary its properties depending on what argument he wants to wade into and foul up.

Where in the heck do you get "his properties." Just because you are arguing against someone doesn't mean you think either side is valid, you are just showing that their side is more invalid.

Now please make an on topic observation or leave the thread, we don't care what you think of parsifal. In fact this stalking thing in this thread is getting boring.

Tl;dr go away

Read some posts by Parsifal. Then you might see the truth in what I'm saying, which in summary is that he just makes up new laws of physics/celestial objects to be inserted into discussions not for the purposes of logical debate or as a new idea, but because he likes to sidetrack, derail and foul up debates in progress..

If Bowler's observation that Parsifal's inertial frame of reference is unclear and vague is on topic, then my explanation of why this is is also on topic.

And I don't give a ha'penny jizz if you don't care what I think of Parsifal, you won't mind me explaining his trolling techniques to other board users then, will you?
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator Disproven
« Reply #69 on: March 15, 2010, 06:03:55 PM »
Parsifals main problem is that he is using a different definition of inertial reference frame to every mechanics book I have every come across. Im still not clear what he is defining one as, but it sure aint the usual one.

This is Paedofal's modus operandi. He will try his hardest to never define the parameters he works from because then somebody could attack them directly. Just like he will never, ever, describe what he sees as "the" model of the flat earth for him, because he needs to vary its properties depending on what argument he wants to wade into and foul up.

Where in the heck do you get "his properties." Just because you are arguing against someone doesn't mean you think either side is valid, you are just showing that their side is more invalid.

Now please make an on topic observation or leave the thread, we don't care what you think of parsifal. In fact this stalking thing in this thread is getting boring.

Tl;dr go away

Read some posts by Parsifal. Then you might see the truth in what I'm saying, which in summary is that he just makes up new laws of physics/celestial objects to be inserted into discussions not for the purposes of logical debate or as a new idea, but because he likes to sidetrack, derail and foul up debates in progress..

If Bowler's observation that Parsifal's inertial frame of reference is unclear and vague is on topic, then my explanation of why this is is also on topic.

And I don't give a ha'penny jizz if you don't care what I think of Parsifal, you won't mind me explaining his trolling techniques to other board users then, will you?

They are usually rather on topic.

As for "explaining his troll tactics" Please don't make posts for the sole intention of discrediting other members simply because you don't believe they are serious in serious topics. That sort of trolling should be left for a less serious forum.

Also, not understanding another member doesn't mean they are being vague, it usually means you are stupid.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator Disproven
« Reply #70 on: March 15, 2010, 06:37:31 PM »
Parsifals main problem is that he is using a different definition of inertial reference frame to every mechanics book I have every come across. Im still not clear what he is defining one as, but it sure aint the usual one.

This is Paedofal's modus operandi. He will try his hardest to never define the parameters he works from because then somebody could attack them directly. Just like he will never, ever, describe what he sees as "the" model of the flat earth for him, because he needs to vary its properties depending on what argument he wants to wade into and foul up.

Where in the heck do you get "his properties." Just because you are arguing against someone doesn't mean you think either side is valid, you are just showing that their side is more invalid.

Now please make an on topic observation or leave the thread, we don't care what you think of parsifal. In fact this stalking thing in this thread is getting boring.

Tl;dr go away

Read some posts by Parsifal. Then you might see the truth in what I'm saying, which in summary is that he just makes up new laws of physics/celestial objects to be inserted into discussions not for the purposes of logical debate or as a new idea, but because he likes to sidetrack, derail and foul up debates in progress..

If Bowler's observation that Parsifal's inertial frame of reference is unclear and vague is on topic, then my explanation of why this is is also on topic.

And I don't give a ha'penny jizz if you don't care what I think of Parsifal, you won't mind me explaining his trolling techniques to other board users then, will you?

They are usually rather on topic.

As for "explaining his troll tactics" Please don't make posts for the sole intention of discrediting other members simply because you don't believe they are serious in serious topics. That sort of trolling should be left for a less serious forum.

Also, not understanding another member doesn't mean they are being vague, it usually means you are stupid.


 :P There's no point talking to you, your attitude is fixed.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator Disproven
« Reply #71 on: March 15, 2010, 06:38:47 PM »
Parsifals main problem is that he is using a different definition of inertial reference frame to every mechanics book I have every come across. Im still not clear what he is defining one as, but it sure aint the usual one.

This is Paedofal's modus operandi. He will try his hardest to never define the parameters he works from because then somebody could attack them directly. Just like he will never, ever, describe what he sees as "the" model of the flat earth for him, because he needs to vary its properties depending on what argument he wants to wade into and foul up.

Where in the heck do you get "his properties." Just because you are arguing against someone doesn't mean you think either side is valid, you are just showing that their side is more invalid.

Now please make an on topic observation or leave the thread, we don't care what you think of parsifal. In fact this stalking thing in this thread is getting boring.

Tl;dr go away

Read some posts by Parsifal. Then you might see the truth in what I'm saying, which in summary is that he just makes up new laws of physics/celestial objects to be inserted into discussions not for the purposes of logical debate or as a new idea, but because he likes to sidetrack, derail and foul up debates in progress..

If Bowler's observation that Parsifal's inertial frame of reference is unclear and vague is on topic, then my explanation of why this is is also on topic.

And I don't give a ha'penny jizz if you don't care what I think of Parsifal, you won't mind me explaining his trolling techniques to other board users then, will you?

They are usually rather on topic.

As for "explaining his troll tactics" Please don't make posts for the sole intention of discrediting other members simply because you don't believe they are serious in serious topics. That sort of trolling should be left for a less serious forum.

Also, not understanding another member doesn't mean they are being vague, it usually means you are stupid.


 :P There's no point talking to you, your attitude is fixed.

Yes, being reasonable is a rather fixed attitude. I'm sorry that I won't take your side and criticize someone repeatedly for the same things over and over again.

Good day.

Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator Disproven
« Reply #72 on: March 16, 2010, 03:06:54 AM »
No matter how good you may think your theory is, it doesn't disprove anything. You need evidence to do that.

My new signature. Thank you, Wilmore.
No matter how good you may think your theory is, it doesn't disprove anything. You need evidence to do that.