Travelling faster than light...

[Proof of One]

no he hasn't, he's just saying that on the quantum scale things behave differently.

I interpret “differently” as weirdly; and, I interpret “weird” as metaphysical.

 

I’m with Einstein, re: anything that has to do with quantum theory.

 

quantized particles is a redundant term, by being called a particle it is quantized. No its not a metaphysical term in physics.

On this point we can only agree to disagree; however, I suspect Feynman would take my side.

 

Who do you select on your side?

 

if your looking for a metaphysical nature to quantum mechanics then I would look to observation of the probability wave, thats something that everyone really has to come to terms with on their own other than feynman's dictum "shutup and calculate"

I am pleased that we may disagree concerning the fact that all Pomo, theoretical physics is firmly based on metaphysics; however, we do seem to share some admiration for RPF.

 

is there any basis for that pulsoid theory? A REAL BASIS?

Yes. Pulsoid Theory is firmly based on pure mathematics, philosophical logic, observation, and a universal Proof of One; as well as the Elliptical Constant, the Natural function, etc.

 

Certainly, Pulsoid Theory has more going for it than String, Super String, or other such theories that thousands have received sizeable grants to research.

 

None of Pulsoid Theory's logic or mathematics has been refuted by any world-class theoretical physicist for over 50 years.

 

Do you care to challenge any of its many original premises?

 

if it doesn't, your entitled to your belief but we probably won't listen.

That is certainly your prerogative; I’m not sure if you can speak for “we”; however, it is difficult to become wise without a modicum of alternative effort.

A closed mind is a

dangerous threat

to everyone;

most of all, to

. . .

its possessor.

 

 

A small mind seldom enlarges

because it is not open

to new ideas.

[CPL.Luke]

None of Pulsoid Theory's logic or mathematics has been refuted by any world-class theoretical physicist for over 50 years.

 

thta would explain why the only results are posted on an internet forums and there is not a single research paper on arxiv.org related to it

[CPL.Luke]

On this point we can only agree to disagree; however, I suspect Feynman would take my side.

 

Who do you select on your side?

 

erm...no

 

 

I am pleased that we may disagree concerning the fact that all Pomo, theoretical physics is firmly based on metaphysics; however, we do seem to share some admiration for RPF.

 

no physics is based off of observation, metaphysics is not, and neither it seems is pulsoid theory

[Proof of One]

thta would explain why the only results are posted on an internet forums and there is not a single research paper on arxiv.org related to it

You have noted what amounts to a sad commentary concerning the status of academe's intellectual community and insular peer review.

 

Particularly, when you consider that many of the world's greatest minds have been aware of the concepts and mathematics of Pulsoid Theory for as lomg as 50 years, or more . . . well before the dubious concepts of String Theory, the acceptance of the Big Bang standard model; or, even the first concept of a Black Hole. From the earliest, Pulsoid Theory predicted accelerating, galactic recession (for which Pulsoid Theory's concept were ridiculed from 1955 up until today, despite HST observation) and cleanly explained entanglement, Cosmic Inertia, the illusion of gravitational "attraction," the photon effect, etc.

 

Consider that most concepts of Pulsoid Theory have been readily available on the world wide web for well over ten years; and, they have been openly discussed in the graduate lounges of many leading Universities in the United States.

 

And, many of these intellectual leaders are acquaintances.

[Proof of One]

erm...no

 

no physics is based off of observation' date=' metaphysics is not, and neither it seems is pulsoid theory[/quote']

If at first the idea is not absurd,

then there is no hope for it.

 

Albert Einstein [1878-1955]

 

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

 

Albert Einstein [1878-1955]

 

Socrates probably had the ealiest and last word on stubborn minds, I will add Socrates comment to my signature.

[CPL.Luke]

woops my bad it should be that no, physics is based off of observation

 

 

the "erm no" bit was in response to you selecting feynmann to be on your side, for two reasons A: its absurd and childish to "select" people to be on your side B: its disrespectful to use people who are no longer capable of voicing there oppinions.

 

If at first the idea is not absurd,

then there is no hope for it.

 

Albert Einstein [1878-1955]

 

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

 

Albert Einstein [1878-1955]

 

Socrates probably had the ealiest and last word on stubborn minds, I will add Socrates comment to my signature.

 

quotes don't constitute a meaningful scientific argument.

 

While Einsteins ideas were "absurd" if viewed by a layman or from intuition, they were also logical extentions of current theories.

[Proof of One]

the "erm no" bit was in response to you selecting feynmann to be on your side, for two reasons A: its absurd and childish to "select" people to be on your side B: its disrespectful to use people who are no longer capable of voicing there oppinions.

It appears that you did not read carefully. Did you miss the word “suspect”?; as in: “I suspect Feynman would take my side.” I was stating an opinion, which I should be entitled to.

 

I have much respect for Feynman’s ideas; and, I’ve incorporated many of them in my total wisdom. It would be well if others did as much.

 

I also was asking you to state a similar opinion, when I asked who you would select, which you seem to be avoiding with your equivocation.

 

quotes don't constitute a meaningful scientific argument.

I can certainly agree with you on this point. However, opinions of respected third parties often offer some useful insight when discussing important issues.

 

While Einsteins ideas were "absurd" if viewed by a layman or from intuition, they were also logical extentions of current theories.

That opinion, I would not think, is shared by many other learned persons.

[CPL.Luke]

yes it is, go read the thread in relativity on how Einstein came up with relativity. (I personally own a copy of the paper as well, and it does come off of existing theories)

 

if you say that pulsoid theory has been around for 50 years, and feynmann would have backed it, how come he never wrote a single paper on it, nor did he ever comment on it. I personally would say most mainstream scientists would consider the theory rubbish if you must know.

 

its also quite annoying to have a person claim that all scientists are in a large conspiracy with eachother in order to maintain the status quo of physics. The fact of the matter is that every scientist is out to make something new and leave there mark, and I can tell you that a scientist would much rather pursue something completely new that looked like it could bare fruit rather than work on string theory for a couple of years and not have anything to show for it.

 

bottomline if anybody considered the theory anything worth while...it would have at least 1 paper that mentioned it.

[Proof of One]

yes it is, go read the thread in relativity on how Einstein came up with relativity. (I personally own a copy of the paper as well, and it does come off of existing theories)

Owning a copy of a paper does not necessarily translate to understanding it. I have a shelf of Einstein books; however, I learn something new every time I read them. I was alive in Einstein's and Feynman’s day. Were you?

 

Most persons, unlike you, concede that Einstein contributed many original concepts to the human fount of knowledge. I for one believe this to the point where Einstein, as well as Feynman, are among my few true heroes.

 

if you say that pulsoid theory has been around for 50 years, and feynmann would have backed it,

I did not say that Feynman would have backed Pulsoid Theory. I stated that I “suspected” Feynman would be on my side (implying: regardless of Pulsoid Theory).

 

 

…on how come he never wrote a single paper on it, nor did he ever comment on it.

I doubt if Feynman ever knew of a formal Pulsoid Theory (Unified Concept in those days); though, he did spend most of his adult life pondering the concepts.

 

I personally would say most mainstream scientists would consider the theory rubbish if you must know.

You may well be correct. Do you consider Pulsoid Theory as “rubbish”? And, if so, exactly what specific premise of Pulsoid Theory’s mathematics or logic do you consider as said “rubbish”?

 

its also quite annoying to have a person claim that all scientists are in a large conspiracy with each other in order to maintain the status quo of physics.

This is your speculation, not mine. However at times, I do wonder about the motivations of those indiviual “scientists,” which I refer to as the Pomo, academic, theoretical physicist.

 

The fact of the matter is that every scientist is out to make something new and leave there mark, and I can tell you that a scientist would much rather pursue something completely new that looked like it could bare fruit rather than work on string theory for a couple of years and not have anything to show for it.

I respect your expressed opinion.

 

bottomline if anybody considered the theory anything worth while...it would have at least 1 paper that mentioned it.

You would think, wouldn’t you? As your wisdom increases, you will learn to depend less on the opinions of others. Such should prevent much disappointment.

[Tom Mattson]

Owning a copy of a paper does not necessarily translate to understanding it. I have a shelf of Einstein books; however' date=' I learn something new every time I read them. I was alive in Einstein's and Feynman’s day. Were you?

[/quote']

 

I wasn't. So what? I can still read, and yes Einstein's relativity was indeed a logical extension of the current theory of the day. In fact it would not be off base to say that Einstein was the one who pointed out that SR had been buried in Maxwell's electrodynamics and no one noticed it.

 

Proof of One, I've read a number of your posts here at SFN (and I believe, a good number more at Physics Forums as burnardot, am I right?) and I am compelled to tell you that your opinions are not bolsetered in the least by your advanced years. You have the scientific understanding of a middle school student, and you are going to have to assume the role of the learner if you expect to make any progress. I respect your life experience, but I do not for one second think that it qualifies you as any sort of a pundit on scientific issues. I am pretty sure that that opinon is shared by the Administration at Science Forums Network as well.

[CPL.Luke]

most theories are introduced in a paper, the ones that are introduced in other ways tend to be wrong

[Proof of One]

Proof of One, I've read a number of your posts here at SFN (and I believe, a good number more at Physics Forums as burnardot, am I right?) and I am compelled to tell you that your opinions are not bolsetered in the least by your advanced years. You have the scientific understanding of a middle school student, and you are going to have to assume the role of the learner if you expect to make any progress. I respect your life experience, but I do not for one second think that it qualifies you as any sort of a pundit on scientific issues. I am pretty sure that that opinon is shared by the Administration at Science Forums Network as well.

Your pejorative, ad hominem attacks in this Thread (see above), which is under the topic, "Pseudoscience and Metaphysics," are interesting.

 

Particularly, as you used an ad hominem attack to ridicule the Elliptical Constant and ignored what is no more than simple geometry and algebra, as a Super Mentor, elsewhere.

 

Your ad hominem attacks, and those of other Super Mentors, such as Gokul43201, which led to editing posts and banning Brunardot at Physics Math Forum, do not belong in any forum.

Censorship

 

is the tool of mistaken minds

that have a desperate

fear of exposure.

 

Seldom is the goal accomplished.

 

Often interest is created . . .

where there was none.

 

And thus, it becomes

the ally of those

. . .

desiring that exposure.

You seem to speak, in your quote above, for the "Administration at Science Forums Network." Hopefully, such pejorative, ad hominem dialogue, as you often employ, will not be tolerated at SFN.

 

I might note that in every forum Thread in which I post the Views increase immediately and exponentially, and many favorable comments are garnered despite the pejorative, ad hominem comments of “Super Mentors.”

 

You of all persons, should be aware that the merits of a theory are judged on its logic and mathematics.

 

For the past month you have seemed incapable of discussing the merits of Pulsoid Theory regarding its logic or mathematics.

 

Is it possible that you can set aside your ad hominem animus long enough to address the real issue, which should be the logic and mathematics of the specific thoughts that you attack in general.

 

I include, below, words from a very excellent post that includes detailed procedures that should be a guideline for your discussion herein . . . in your own words.

 

I do not agree with the opening post (of fafalone' date=' “Spotting pseudoscience”, Science Forums and Debate, SFN; Pseudoscience and Metaphysics), as every point seems to address the theorist, and not the theory. There is no need to examine the theorist's actions or career to determine if his work is pseudoscience.

 

Tom Mattson, April 2, 2003

6th post of the lead “sticky”;

[i']"Pseudoscience and Metaphysics,"

[/i]

"Spotting Pseudoscience"

[Proof of One]

most theories are introduced in a paper, the ones that are introduced in other ways tend to be wrong

The operative word in your comment is "tend."

[YT2095]

You seem to speak, in your quote above, for the "Administration at Science Forums Network." Hopefully, such pejorative, ad hominem dialogue, as you often employ, will not be tolerated at SFN.

 

it`s beyond "Tolerated"... it`s AGREED WITH!

[Proof of One]

it`s beyond "Tolerated"... it`s AGREED WITH!

Thank you.

 

It's nice to set the record straight.

 

So much for academic Intellectual Inquiry.

[YT2095]

funny that, we we`re just thinking the same thing!

 

and yes, Tom does have the backing of the SFN staff, that isn`t a Problem is it?

[Proof of One]

funny that' date=' we we`re just thinking the same thing!

 

and yes, Tom does have the backing of the SFN staff, that isn`t a Problem is it?[/quote']Not at all. Tom should significantly increase the number of Views that his joining the dialogue should provide.

 

Tom has been a wonderful foil with his participation in censorship and personal attack; despite his own words as I cited several posts above.

 

He never debates the issue or topic.

 

I can only conclude that he is in full agreement with the logic and math of Pulsoid Theory, as he never disputes a single premise.

 

Apparently, Tom has a problem with my presentation, which is rquired, as Oppenheimer, in 1955, precluded all possibility that I could ever be peer revued.

.

[Tom Mattson]

Your pejorative' date=' ad hominem attacks in this Thread (see above), which is under the topic, [i']"Pseudoscience and Metaphysics,"[/i] are interesting.

 

It's a right pity that you see an honest, valid criticism, based solely on what you have written, as an ad hominem attack.

 

Particularly, as you used an ad hominem attack to ridicule the Elliptical Constant and ignored what is no more than simple geometry and algebra, as a Super Mentor, elsewhere.

 

It seems clear enough to me that you really don't understand what "ad hominem" really means. I don't employ those arguments.

 

Your ad hominem attacks, and those of other Super Mentors, such as Gokul43201, which led to editing posts and banning Brunardot at Physics Math Forum, do not belong in any forum.

 

To the contrary, it was brunardot's nonsense that does not belong at a serious forum. Furthermore, when Forum Staff enforce policies, it is not a personal attack against anyone.

 

Censorship

 

is the tool of mistaken minds

that have a desperate

fear of exposure.

 

Seldom is the goal accomplished.

 

Often interest is created . . .

where there was none.

 

And thus, it becomes

the ally of those

. . .

desiring that exposure.

 

*yawn*

 

Like I haven't heard that before.

 

You seem to speak, in your quote above, for the "Administration at Science Forums Network." Hopefully, such pejorative, ad hominem dialogue, as you often employ, will not be tolerated at SFN.

 

Don't the warnings that are issued to you tell you anything at all about how the Administration here at SFN regards your posts? Does not the slightest clue sink in when you are told by Staff members that you are doing something that is not appreciated here?

 

I might note that in every forum Thread in which I post the Views increase immediately and exponentially, and many favorable comments are garnered despite the pejorative, ad hominem comments of “Super Mentors.”

 

This is nothing other than argumentum ad populum, an informal fallacy.

 

You of all persons, should be aware that the merits of a theory are judged on its logic and mathematics.

 

For the past month you have seemed incapable of discussing the merits of Pulsoid Theory regarding its logic or mathematics.

 

Is it possible that you can set aside your ad hominem animus long enough to address the real issue, which should be the logic and mathematics of the specific thoughts that you attack in general.

 

I don't recall ever addressing the ideas of Pulsoid Theory at all, let alone with hostility. I think you're imagining things.

 

I include, below, words from a very excellent post that includes detailed procedures that should be a guideline for your discussion herein . . . in your own words.

I do not agree with the opening post (of fafalone, “Spotting pseudoscience”, Science Forums and Debate, SFN; Pseudoscience and Metaphysics), as every point seems to address the theorist, and not the theory. There is no need to examine the theorist's actions or career to determine if his work is pseudoscience.

 

Tom Mattson, April 2, 2003

6th post of the lead “sticky”;

"Pseudoscience and Metaphysics,"

"Spotting Pseudoscience"

 

Yes, and I don't think that my actions at PF or at SFN (especially in this thread) are inconsistent with what I said there.

[Tom Mattson]

He never debates the issue or topic.

 

Patently false.

 

The one and only extendend conversation you and I have had was at Physics Forums in the thread' date=' The fundamental concepts of physics are all based upon metaphysics. Anyone with at least a pair of brain cells to rub together can see that I was debating the topic and that I did not resort to ad hominem argumentation.

 

And while we're at it, let's also review one of Gokul's beastly personal attacks that you've bemoaned in this thread. From An elliptical constant at Physics Forums.

 

If this is going to be based entirely upon that post' date=' this is sufficient reason to close this thread as it stands right now. At this point there is no mathematical content to this thread, brunardot, and its continued existence in this section is a result of patience.

 

If you do not make a mathematical point in your next post, this thread will be moved or closed.

[/quote']

 

Oh, yeah, what a Nazi! He had the gall to tell you to make some mathematical sense in a math forum of all places!

 

It sounds to me like you just can't accept the fact that the ideas that seem so precious to you are actually nonsense, and that you have to go back and hit the books. Well you know what? Tough. Everyone has to do it. You are not special.

[Proof of One]

Patently false.

 

The one and only extendend conversation you and I have had was at Physics Forums in the thread' date=' The fundamental concepts of physics are all based upon metaphysics. Anyone with at least a pair of brain cells to rub together can see that I was debating the topic and that I did not resort to ad hominem argumentation.

Regarding ad hominem, I believe you have just made my point.

 

Also, I can not access the URL you provide above as my computer IP address is locked out of PhysicsForums, even to view my own posts.

 

You of all persons should understand that stating that something is “Patently false: does not make it so. You must present some evidence to bolster your argument.

 

And while we're at it' date=' let's also review one of Gokul's beastly personal attacks that you've bemoaned in this thread. From An elliptical constant at Physics Forums.

 

Oh, yeah, what a Nazi! He had the gall to tell you to make some mathematical sense in a math forum of all places!

I provided plenty of “math sense” in a reply to Gokul, which was deleted. You can locate all the "math sense" to make my argument that you want at: Pulsoid Theory.

 

It sounds to me like you just can't accept the fact that the ideas that seem so precious to you are actually nonsense, and that you have to go back and hit the books. Well you know what? Tough. Everyone has to do it. You are not special.

I can not argue with your opinion. I can only point out to the many "View"-ers of this dialogue that you consistently resort to ad hominem argument and never posit a single instance of a mathematical or logical statement from Pulsoid Theory that you disagree with.

 

You must be able to find at least one premise that you disagree with. The theory has some 60 plus original ideas. Have you ever had an original idea?

 

I am willing to put aside any differences that we may have and debate the issues; particularly, somewhere that you will not drag me off the Thread topic.

 

Will you agree?

[Tom Mattson]

Regarding ad hominem' date=' I believe you have just made my point.

[/quote']

 

No, I haven't. Stating that it is obvious to anyone with any intelligence that I debated you on the topic at hand in that thread is not the same as leveling a personal attack against you.

 

I say it again: You do not seem to know what ad hominem really means.

 

You of all persons should understand that stating that something is “Patently false: does not make it so. You must present some evidence to bolster your argument.

 

I did present the evidence. I posted a link to the thread. Do you need me to click the link and read it to you, too?

 

I provided plenty of “math sense” in a reply to Gokul, which was deleted.

 

Sorry, but no you didn't. As a Staff member of PF I can see deleted posts and all replies made by you to that thread are still there.

 

You can locate all the "math sense" to make my argument that you want at: Pulsoid Theory.

 

The point is that the thread in question was pure nonsense. It isn't up to the readers to chase down your material on Pulsoid Theory to make sense of what you posted at PF. It's up to you to make yourself clear.

 

I can not argue with your opinion. I can only point out to the many "View"-ers of this dialogue that you consistently resort to ad hominem argument

 

No, I don't. You simply do not understand what ad hominem argumentation is, and you are simply ignoring the arguments that I have made against your posts.

 

and never posit a single instance of a mathematical or logical statement from Pulsoid Theory that you disagree with. You must be able to find at least one premise that you disagree with. The theory has some 60 plus original ideas.

 

Again: You are imagining things. I have never expressed any opinion whatsoever about Pulsoid Theory. In fact I don't even give a damn about Pulsoid Theory. I am talking about the discussion that we did have.

 

Have you ever had an original idea?

 

Funny, I thought you didn't approve of ad hominem argumentation.

 

I am willing to put aside any differences that we may have and debate the issues; particularly, somewhere that you will not drag me off the Thread topic. Will you agree?

 

What a joke. You say that you are willing to put aside our differences, after a long tirade of lying about me and the non-existent ad hominems you say that I have leveled against you. And as far as dragging the thread off topic, you are more responsible for that than anyone. You hijacked a thread made by some curious kid asking a question, and you completely ignored the point that I initially made when I entered this thread, which was about how Einstein built relativity on the existing edifice of scientific knowledge. Rather than actually discuss the topic, you would turn this into a discussion of how you've been mistreated at Physics Forums.

 

Get a clue. If there's anyone here who resorts to ad hominem attacks and who avoids debating the topic at hand, it's you.

[Proof of One]

No, I haven't. Stating that it is obvious to anyone with any intelligence that I debated you on the topic at hand in that thread is not the same as leveling a personal attack against you.

I was referring to your ad hominem statement of the following, which was part of said paragraph:

“Anyone with at least a pair of brain cells to rub together can see that I was debating the topic and that I did not resort to ad hominem argumentation”

 

I say it again: You do not seem to know what ad hominem[/i'] really means.

It would appear obvious to anyone following this dialogue that one of us has this problem.

 

I did[/b'] present the evidence. I posted a link to the thread. Do you need me to click the link and read it to you' date=' too?[/quote']Would you please?

 

My IP computer address is locked out of PhysicsForum.

 

I cannot even read my own posts.

 

Sorry, but no you didn't. As a Staff member of PF I can see deleted posts and all replies made by you to that thread are still there.

I may be mistaken. I had so many posts deleted or edited that it is hard to remember them all. I could not access your link when I tried. Probably, my reply was discarded because I had been locked out of the site. Certainly, I want every opportunity that I can get to argue the mathematics of Pulsoid Theory. Said mathematics is the crux of the theory, which, incidentally, should add considerably to the theories of pure arithmetic.

 

The point is that the thread in question was pure nonsense. It isn't up to the readers to chase down your material on Pulsoid Theory to make sense of what you posted at PF. It's up to you[/b'] to make yourself clear.

If I knew how to make myself more clear in the format of a forum, I would. It seems that providing links that a Viewer may optionally peruse is an excellent solution to the problem of clarity. I will gladly consider any other suggestion that you may have.

 

No, I don't. You simply do not understand what ad hominem[/i'] argumentation is, and you are simply ignoring the arguments that I have made against your posts.

Please; if I have ignored any arguments, advise of what they are. I will make every effort to immediately address them.

 

Again: You are imagining things. I have never expressed any opinion whatsoever about Pulsoid Theory. In fact I don't even give a damn about Pulsoid Theory. I am talking about the discussion that we did[/b'] have.

Fair enough. You are at an advantage, as I am locked out of all these arguments. It seems then, that you have no disagreement with the merits of Pulsoid Theory as a viable, alternative theory to the ludicrous ones that are proposed by Pomo, academic theoretical physicists. I assume that you do not fall into the category of a theoretical physicist.

 

Funny, I thought you didn't approve of ad hominem[/i'] argumentation.

Being so often the victim, in principle, I do not.

 

What a joke. You say that you are willing to put aside our differences, after a long tirade of lying about me and the non-existent ad hominems[/i'] you say that I have leveled against you.

"Lying" is a strong word. It should be used advisedly. I believe every one of your posts regarding “Proof of One” will make my point regarding ad hominem argument. The call should not be either of ours.

 

And as far as dragging the thread off topic, you are more responsible for that than anyone. You hijacked a thread made by some curious kid asking a question, and you completely ignored the point that I initially made when I entered this thread, which was about how Einstein built relativity on the existing edifice of scientific knowledge. Rather than actually discuss the topic, you would turn this into a discussion of how you've been mistreated at Physics Forums.

So be such an unfortunate state of affairs.

 

I did my best to assist when I began. At which time this Thread was languishing. Now the Thread is one of the most active within the forum; and all within only a few days.

 

Regarding Einstein’s addition to original thought; history will be the final arbiter.

 

Get a clue. If there's anyone here who resorts to ad hominem[/i'] attacks and who avoids debating the topic at hand, it's you.

Again, I cannot argue with your opinions. However, I still await your finding an issue of mathematics or logic of mine, which you can disagree.

 

Every one who is viewing this dialogue is well aware of your feelings concerning my person. Why not let it rest?

[ydoaPs]

I was referring to your ad hominem statement of the following, which was part of said paragraph:[indent'][/indent]

that was after you repeatedly accused him.

It would appear obvious to anyone following this dialogue that one of us has this problem.

that would be you

My IP computer address is locked out of PhysicsForum.

 

I cannot even read my own posts.

sounds like you got banned. with your posts here, it wouldn't surprise me.

 

I may be mistaken. I had so many posts deleted or edited that it is hard to remember them all.

ever think there may be a reason for that?

[Tom Mattson]

I was referring to your ad hominem statement of the following, which was part of said paragraph:

“Anyone with at least a pair of brain cells to rub together can see that I was debating the topic and that I did not resort to ad hominem argumentation”

 

Once again: That is not an ad hominem statement. Go look the term up if you don't know what it means.

 

It would appear obvious to anyone following this dialogue that one of us has this problem.

 

Well' date=' that's what I've been saying all along!

 

Would you please?

 

My IP computer address is locked out of PhysicsForum.

 

I cannot even read my own posts.

 

Try reading it as a guest, without logging in. And if you can't do that then try reading it from another computer.

 

Even so, you were a participant in the discussion and you read the posts in question. I did address your points, and at no point did I ever engage in ad hominem argumentation.

 

I may be mistaken. I had so many posts deleted or edited that it is hard to remember them all. I could not access your link when I tried. Probably, my reply was discarded because I had been locked out of the site.

 

There's no "may be" about it. You're mistaken.

 

Certainly, I want every opportunity that I can get to argue the mathematics of Pulsoid Theory. Said mathematics is the crux of the theory, which, incidentally, should add considerably to the theories of pure arithmetic.

 

It's all well and good that you are eager to discuss Pulsoid Theory, but the way you are going about it is positively obnoxious. You hijacked this thread, and for the last several posts you have been baiting me to discuss it with you, when all I did in this thread was address your comment about Einstein.

 

If I knew how to make myself more clear in the format of a forum, I would. It seems that providing links that a Viewer may optionally peruse is an excellent solution to the problem of clarity. I will gladly consider any other suggestion that you may have.

 

How about checking with the Staff of a forum to see if they host non-peer-reviewed work? How about heeding the warnings that are issued to you when you by the people who own and/or run the site? How about waking up and moving on once it becomes painfully obvious that your posts are not welcome at a particular site? How about sticking to the sites that do welcome your ideas?

 

Please; if I have ignored any arguments, advise of what they are. I will make every effort to immediately address them.

 

I did advise you, via a link.

 

Fair enough. You are at an advantage, as I am locked out of all these arguments. It seems then, that you have no disagreement with the merits of Pulsoid Theory as a viable, alternative theory to the ludicrous ones that are proposed by Pomo, academic theoretical physicists. I assume that you do not fall into the category of a theoretical physicist.

 

Don't assume too much. Just because I have no opinion on Pulsoid Theory, it doesn't mean that I consider it viable. And yes, I do fall in the category of a theoretical physicist, in training at least.

 

Being so often the victim, in principle, I do not.

 

Then why did you attempt to engage in it just there?

 

"Lying" is a strong word. It should be used advisedly.

 

It's also a serious offense, so you would be well advised to stop doing it.

 

I believe every one of your posts regarding “Proof of One” will make my point regarding ad hominem argument. The call should not be either of ours.

 

But you did make the call, when you unjustifiably dubbed my comments ad hominem. If all you really wanted was for the readers to look at the evidence and make up their minds on it, then you would simply have highlighted my comments without coloring them with your personal judgment (which is obviously wrong).

 

So be such an unfortunate state of affairs.

 

It's a state of affairs created by you.

 

I did my best to assist when I began.

 

Correction: You did your best to turn this thread into a discussion about Pulsoid Theory when you began.

 

At which time this Thread was languishing. Now the Thread is one of the most active within the forum; and all within only a few days.

 

Again: This is argumentum ad populum, an informal fallacy.

 

People are also more likely to view a fatal car wreck than someone changing a flat tire. It doesn't mean that fatal car wrecks are a good thing.

 

Regarding Einstein’s addition to original thought; history will be the final arbiter.

 

Since you are so keen on talking about Einstein, maybe you can finally address my initial point in this thread, which was about Einstein's work. Is it too much to hope for that your next post will actually say something about that?

 

Again, I cannot argue with your opinions. However, I still await your finding an issue of mathematics or logic of mine, which you can disagree.

 

Again: You are baiting me into a discussion of Pulsoid Theory, which is something I could not care less about.

 

Every one who is viewing this dialogue is well aware of your feelings concerning my person. Why not let it rest?

 

Hey, you're the one who's grandstanding. You can end this any time you want.

[swansont]

I can not argue with your opinion. I can only point out to the many "View"-ers of this dialogue that you consistently resort to ad hominem argument and never posit a single instance of a mathematical or logical statement from Pulsoid Theory that you disagree with.

 

 

 

Pointing out that you don't understand something is not ad hominem, and when I click on your link, there's no math there. Lots of new buzzwords, though. It may sound impressive, but there's no substance that I can find.

 

If you want to discuss, then discuss. Quit dancing around the issue. What predictions does your theory make that are not made by the current models, so that we may test it?