More on mobile phones & other wireless devices

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:45:27 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On 23 Apr 2007 07:21:17 -0700, Corvus Corvax <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Apr 23, 2:28 am, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Actually , I do understand it, even if you don't. Feynman definitely
> >> >> did. And he did have a sense of humor and joked a lot (including his
> >> >> joke about no one understanding quantum mechanics).
> >> >
> >> >I'm glad YOU understand it. I've been thinking hard about it for many
> >> >years, and I am still completely confused. Here are some things I need
> >> >help with:
> >> >
> >> >* How do I formuate a self-consistent quantum field theory in a space
> >> >with no global timelike Killing vector?
> >> >* How do I handle quadratic divergences in scalar fields?
> >> >* What is the origin of flavor symmetry?
> >> >
> >> >I and many of my friends would be very grateful if you could help us
> >> >out.
> >>
> >> Right. And when you're done, please completely explain Schrödinger's
> >> Equation -- every part of it.
> >
> >LOL. It's well covered in any number of undergraduate text books, so
> >I'll simply refer you to those - if you want me to teach you physics,
> >you can pay me to do it.

> I knew you couldn't explain it. You only throw around physics jargon
> for effect. Of course, it doesn't work. It's obvious that you can't
> explain why cell phones cause tumors.

Vandeman, you are an idiot. Killing vectors are used in Riemanian
geometries (curved spaced time, i.e., in physics applications, general
relativity). We aren't trying to formulate a quantum field theory for
gravity or anything like that. We were, rather, discussing the
interaction of matter with low levels of electromagnetic radiation at
a frequency of 1 or 2 gigahertz, something we understood very well
during the first half of the 20th century.

As to the Shroedinger equation, I'm not going to play games with you
where you try to waste my time by trying to get me to write a text
book and publish it on usenet (where I'd also have to deal with the
difficulty of rendering mathematical notation in ASCII text), only to
have you ignore it anyway.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:49:38 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >>
> >> I knew you wouldn't answer his questions. You just like ot drop names.
> >> You don't really know how to use them.
> >
> >Vanderman is desparately trying to get out of a the fact that he made
> >a fool of himself. Of course I'm not going to answer his
> >questions.
>
> As I said, I knew you wouldn't, because you CAN'T!

Vandeman, being unable to explain how electromagnetic at one
gigaherz (with a wavelength of around 30 cm) would somehow "focus"
its alleged negative effects on a specific spot on a specific
nerve, is now trying to get out of his foolishness with idiotic
personal attacks.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:53:28 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 02:09:13 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Corvus Corvax <[email protected]> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> On Apr 23, 7:13 pm, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You might start with the difference [... yadda yadda yadda ...]
> >> >>
> >> >> Wow. Clueless, humorless, AND pedantic. Extra point for trying to name-
> >> >> drop Richard Feynman. Have at 'im Mikey. He deserves you.
> >> >
> >> >You have the nerve to call me "clueless" when you post an irrelevant
> >> >question
> >>
> >> Which, coincidentally, you couldn't answer. That's what happens when
> >> one name dropper meets a better one.
>
> I was talking about your physics jargon, which you thrpow around just
> for effect.

Vandeman is now reduced to pretending that physics is not relevant,
presumably because he can't produce any plausible mechanism that
would justify his silly hypothesis.

>>Liar - I didn't drop any names. *You* quoted something out of a text
>>book and I replied with an anecdote that I heard from a friend who
>>had taken one of his classes to show why what you quoted was merely
>>a joke. Even funnier, if you had actually read the text you quoted
>>with any real understanding, you'd have known that what followed was
>>a very clear and understandable explanation.

No response to that, Vandeman? LOL! -


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[the Moderator]

"Mass Murderers COALition" <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:[email protected]...

I thought this was going to be about Al Gore's company that sells 'energy
credits'. The economics of global warming seems to be designed to line the
pockets of the crack pots.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 24 Apr 2007 16:24:08 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:45:27 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> On 23 Apr 2007 07:21:17 -0700, Corvus Corvax <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Apr 23, 2:28 am, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Actually , I do understand it, even if you don't. Feynman definitely
>> >> >> did. And he did have a sense of humor and joked a lot (including his
>> >> >> joke about no one understanding quantum mechanics).
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm glad YOU understand it. I've been thinking hard about it for many
>> >> >years, and I am still completely confused. Here are some things I need
>> >> >help with:
>> >> >
>> >> >* How do I formuate a self-consistent quantum field theory in a space
>> >> >with no global timelike Killing vector?
>> >> >* How do I handle quadratic divergences in scalar fields?
>> >> >* What is the origin of flavor symmetry?
>> >> >
>> >> >I and many of my friends would be very grateful if you could help us
>> >> >out.
>> >>
>> >> Right. And when you're done, please completely explain Schrödinger's
>> >> Equation -- every part of it.
>> >
>> >LOL. It's well covered in any number of undergraduate text books, so
>> >I'll simply refer you to those - if you want me to teach you physics,
>> >you can pay me to do it.
>
>> I knew you couldn't explain it. You only throw around physics jargon
>> for effect. Of course, it doesn't work. It's obvious that you can't
>> explain why cell phones cause tumors.
>
>Vandeman, you are an idiot. Killing vectors are used in Riemanian
>geometries (curved spaced time, i.e., in physics applications, general
>relativity). We aren't trying to formulate a quantum field theory for
>gravity or anything like that. We were, rather, discussing the
>interaction of matter with low levels of electromagnetic radiation at
>a frequency of 1 or 2 gigahertz, something we understood very well
>during the first half of the 20th century.
>
>As to the Shroedinger equation, I'm not going to play games with you
>where you try to waste my time by trying to get me to write a text
>book and publish it on usenet (where I'd also have to deal with the
>difficulty of rendering mathematical notation in ASCII text), only to
>have you ignore it anyway.

As I suspected, you can't do it. You are a fake, which we knew all
along.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On 24 Apr 2007 16:24:08 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:45:27 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >> >> Right. And when you're done, please completely explain Schrödinger's
> >> >> Equation -- every part of it.
> >> >
> >> >LOL. It's well covered in any number of undergraduate text books, so
> >> >I'll simply refer you to those - if you want me to teach you physics,
> >> >you can pay me to do it.
> >
> >> I knew you couldn't explain it. You only throw around physics jargon
> >> for effect. Of course, it doesn't work. It's obvious that you can't
> >> explain why cell phones cause tumors.
> >
> >Vandeman, you are an idiot. Killing vectors are used in Riemanian
> >geometries (curved spaced time, i.e., in physics applications, general
> >relativity). We aren't trying to formulate a quantum field theory for
> >gravity or anything like that. We were, rather, discussing the
> >interaction of matter with low levels of electromagnetic radiation at
> >a frequency of 1 or 2 gigahertz, something we understood very well
> >during the first half of the 20th century.
> >
> >As to the Shroedinger equation, I'm not going to play games with you
> >where you try to waste my time by trying to get me to write a text
> >book and publish it on usenet (where I'd also have to deal with the
> >difficulty of rendering mathematical notation in ASCII text), only to
> >have you ignore it anyway.
>
> As I suspected, you can't do it. You are a fake, which we knew all
> along.

LOL! Do you have any idea what I studied in graduate school? If
you want me to provide you with some tutoring, you can damn well pay
for the privledge. Why don't you first tell me what you know about
Hilbert spaces? You'll have to learn about that as background
material. Read up on Hermitian operators too.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Chris]

[email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 24 Apr 2007 16:24:08 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:45:27 GMT, [email protected] (Bill
>> >> Z.) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >> >> Right. And when you're done, please completely explain
>> >> >> Schrödinger's Equation -- every part of it.
>> >> >
>> >> >LOL. It's well covered in any number of undergraduate text books,
>> >> >so I'll simply refer you to those - if you want me to teach you
>> >> >physics, you can pay me to do it.
>> >
>> >> I knew you couldn't explain it. You only throw around physics
>> >> jargon for effect. Of course, it doesn't work. It's obvious that
>> >> you can't explain why cell phones cause tumors.
>> >
>> >Vandeman, you are an idiot. Killing vectors are used in Riemanian
>> >geometries (curved spaced time, i.e., in physics applications,
>> >general relativity). We aren't trying to formulate a quantum field
>> >theory for gravity or anything like that. We were, rather,
>> >discussing the interaction of matter with low levels of
>> >electromagnetic radiation at a frequency of 1 or 2 gigahertz,
>> >something we understood very well during the first half of the 20th
>> >century.
>> >
>> >As to the Shroedinger equation, I'm not going to play games with you
>> >where you try to waste my time by trying to get me to write a text
>> >book and publish it on usenet (where I'd also have to deal with the
>> >difficulty of rendering mathematical notation in ASCII text), only
>> >to have you ignore it anyway.
>>
>> As I suspected, you can't do it. You are a fake, which we knew all
>> along.
>
> LOL! Do you have any idea what I studied in graduate school? If
> you want me to provide you with some tutoring, you can damn well pay
> for the privledge. Why don't you first tell me what you know about
> Hilbert spaces? You'll have to learn about that as background
> material. Read up on Hermitian operators too.
>
>
Bill,
You are arguing with an idiot. He knows everything, just as him. I
do find his answers amusing.

Ever wonder what his true goal is? If it were to 'educate' the
mountain biker to their evil ways and possibly convince them to stop
riding off road, he has FAILED miserably.

If on the other hand, his goal is to have you 'wrapped around the
axel' here, and not out riding, then he has succeeded to some degree.

Best thing you can do is ignore him. Just like you would any 4 year-
old throwing a temper tantrum.

Go out and ride, that will get his goat.

Chris Foster

PS Mike: You note that I signed my 'real' name and will be in San Jose
in May. Would you like to get together and have a nice polite
discussion??

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 24 Apr 2007 16:24:08 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:45:27 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> On 23 Apr 2007 07:21:17 -0700, Corvus Corvax <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Apr 23, 2:28 am, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Actually , I do understand it, even if you don't. Feynman definitely
>> >> >> did. And he did have a sense of humor and joked a lot (including his
>> >> >> joke about no one understanding quantum mechanics).
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm glad YOU understand it. I've been thinking hard about it for many
>> >> >years, and I am still completely confused. Here are some things I need
>> >> >help with:
>> >> >
>> >> >* How do I formuate a self-consistent quantum field theory in a space
>> >> >with no global timelike Killing vector?
>> >> >* How do I handle quadratic divergences in scalar fields?
>> >> >* What is the origin of flavor symmetry?
>> >> >
>> >> >I and many of my friends would be very grateful if you could help us
>> >> >out.
>> >>
>> >> Right. And when you're done, please completely explain Schrödinger's
>> >> Equation -- every part of it.
>> >
>> >LOL. It's well covered in any number of undergraduate text books, so
>> >I'll simply refer you to those - if you want me to teach you physics,
>> >you can pay me to do it.
>
>> I knew you couldn't explain it. You only throw around physics jargon
>> for effect. Of course, it doesn't work. It's obvious that you can't
>> explain why cell phones cause tumors.
>
>Vandeman, you are an idiot. Killing vectors are used in Riemanian
>geometries (curved spaced time, i.e., in physics applications, general
>relativity). We aren't trying to formulate a quantum field theory for
>gravity or anything like that. We were, rather, discussing the
>interaction of matter with low levels of electromagnetic radiation at
>a frequency of 1 or 2 gigahertz, something we understood very well
>during the first half of the 20th century.
>
>As to the Shroedinger equation,

You can't even SPELL it (or even copy it from me), much less EXPLAIN
it. No surprize there. You are a fraud.

I'm not going to play games with you
>where you try to waste my time by trying to get me to write a text
>book and publish it on usenet (where I'd also have to deal with the
>difficulty of rendering mathematical notation in ASCII text), only to
>have you ignore it anyway.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 24 Apr 2007 16:24:08 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:45:27 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> On 23 Apr 2007 07:21:17 -0700, Corvus Corvax <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Apr 23, 2:28 am, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Actually , I do understand it, even if you don't. Feynman definitely
>> >> >> did. And he did have a sense of humor and joked a lot (including his
>> >> >> joke about no one understanding quantum mechanics).
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm glad YOU understand it. I've been thinking hard about it for many
>> >> >years, and I am still completely confused. Here are some things I need
>> >> >help with:
>> >> >
>> >> >* How do I formuate a self-consistent quantum field theory in a space
>> >> >with no global timelike Killing vector?
>> >> >* How do I handle quadratic divergences in scalar fields?
>> >> >* What is the origin of flavor symmetry?
>> >> >
>> >> >I and many of my friends would be very grateful if you could help us
>> >> >out.
>> >>
>> >> Right. And when you're done, please completely explain Schrödinger's
>> >> Equation -- every part of it.
>> >
>> >LOL. It's well covered in any number of undergraduate text books, so
>> >I'll simply refer you to those - if you want me to teach you physics,
>> >you can pay me to do it.
>
>> I knew you couldn't explain it. You only throw around physics jargon
>> for effect. Of course, it doesn't work. It's obvious that you can't
>> explain why cell phones cause tumors.
>
>Vandeman, you are an idiot. Killing vectors are used in Riemanian
>geometries (curved spaced time, i.e., in physics applications, general
>relativity). We aren't trying to formulate a quantum field theory for
>gravity or anything like that. We were, rather, discussing the
>interaction of matter with low levels of electromagnetic radiation at
>a frequency of 1 or 2 gigahertz, something we understood very well
>during the first half of the 20th century.
>
>As to the Shroedinger equation, I'm not going to play games with you
>where you try to waste my time by trying to get me to write a text
>book and publish it on usenet (where I'd also have to deal with the
>difficulty of rendering mathematical notation in ASCII text),

Right. It must be VERY difficult to write "P" instead of the
corresponding Greek letter. We all sympathize with your terrible
plight.

only to
>have you ignore it anyway.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 25 Apr 2007 23:15:06 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 24 Apr 2007 16:24:08 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:45:27 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >> >> Right. And when you're done, please completely explain Schrödinger's
>> >> >> Equation -- every part of it.
>> >> >
>> >> >LOL. It's well covered in any number of undergraduate text books, so
>> >> >I'll simply refer you to those - if you want me to teach you physics,
>> >> >you can pay me to do it.
>> >
>> >> I knew you couldn't explain it. You only throw around physics jargon
>> >> for effect. Of course, it doesn't work. It's obvious that you can't
>> >> explain why cell phones cause tumors.
>> >
>> >Vandeman, you are an idiot. Killing vectors are used in Riemanian
>> >geometries (curved spaced time, i.e., in physics applications, general
>> >relativity). We aren't trying to formulate a quantum field theory for
>> >gravity or anything like that. We were, rather, discussing the
>> >interaction of matter with low levels of electromagnetic radiation at
>> >a frequency of 1 or 2 gigahertz, something we understood very well
>> >during the first half of the 20th century.
>> >
>> >As to the Shroedinger equation, I'm not going to play games with you
>> >where you try to waste my time by trying to get me to write a text
>> >book and publish it on usenet (where I'd also have to deal with the
>> >difficulty of rendering mathematical notation in ASCII text), only to
>> >have you ignore it anyway.
>>
>> As I suspected, you can't do it. You are a fake, which we knew all
>> along.
>
>LOL! Do you have any idea what I studied in graduate school? If
>you want me to provide you with some tutoring, you can damn well pay
>for the privledge. Why don't you first tell me what you know about
>Hilbert spaces? You'll have to learn about that as background
>material. Read up on Hermitian operators too.

Nothing, name-dropper. That's why I want you to explain it. After all,
I educated YOU for free. I didn't ask you to explain all that. Only
one equation, which you can't even spell correctly.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 26 Apr 2007 11:58:18 GMT, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> On 24 Apr 2007 16:24:08 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>>> >
>>> >> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:45:27 GMT, [email protected] (Bill
>>> >> Z.) wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>>> >> >> Right. And when you're done, please completely explain
>>> >> >> Schrödinger's Equation -- every part of it.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >LOL. It's well covered in any number of undergraduate text books,
>>> >> >so I'll simply refer you to those - if you want me to teach you
>>> >> >physics, you can pay me to do it.
>>> >
>>> >> I knew you couldn't explain it. You only throw around physics
>>> >> jargon for effect. Of course, it doesn't work. It's obvious that
>>> >> you can't explain why cell phones cause tumors.
>>> >
>>> >Vandeman, you are an idiot. Killing vectors are used in Riemanian
>>> >geometries (curved spaced time, i.e., in physics applications,
>>> >general relativity). We aren't trying to formulate a quantum field
>>> >theory for gravity or anything like that. We were, rather,
>>> >discussing the interaction of matter with low levels of
>>> >electromagnetic radiation at a frequency of 1 or 2 gigahertz,
>>> >something we understood very well during the first half of the 20th
>>> >century.
>>> >
>>> >As to the Shroedinger equation, I'm not going to play games with you
>>> >where you try to waste my time by trying to get me to write a text
>>> >book and publish it on usenet (where I'd also have to deal with the
>>> >difficulty of rendering mathematical notation in ASCII text), only
>>> >to have you ignore it anyway.
>>>
>>> As I suspected, you can't do it. You are a fake, which we knew all
>>> along.
>>
>> LOL! Do you have any idea what I studied in graduate school? If
>> you want me to provide you with some tutoring, you can damn well pay
>> for the privledge. Why don't you first tell me what you know about
>> Hilbert spaces? You'll have to learn about that as background
>> material. Read up on Hermitian operators too.
>>
>>
>Bill,
> You are arguing with an idiot. He knows everything, just as him. I
>do find his answers amusing.
>
> Ever wonder what his true goal is? If it were to 'educate' the
>mountain biker to their evil ways and possibly convince them to stop
>riding off road, he has FAILED miserably.

You mean that the mountain bikers have failed to learn anything, as
usual.

> If on the other hand, his goal is to have you 'wrapped around the
>axel' here, and not out riding, then he has succeeded to some degree.
>
> Best thing you can do is ignore him. Just like you would any 4 year-
>old throwing a temper tantrum.
>
> Go out and ride, that will get his goat.
>
> Chris Foster
>
>PS Mike: You note that I signed my 'real' name and will be in San Jose
>in May. Would you like to get together and have a nice polite
>discussion??

Whatever for? You have nothing to teach me.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Chris]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 26 Apr 2007 11:58:18 GMT, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 24 Apr 2007 16:24:08 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:45:27 GMT, [email protected]
(Bill
>>>> >> Z.) wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>> >> >> Right. And when you're done, please completely explain
>>>> >> >> Schrödinger's Equation -- every part of it.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >LOL. It's well covered in any number of undergraduate text
books,
>>>> >> >so I'll simply refer you to those - if you want me to teach you
>>>> >> >physics, you can pay me to do it.
>>>> >
>>>> >> I knew you couldn't explain it. You only throw around physics
>>>> >> jargon for effect. Of course, it doesn't work. It's obvious that
>>>> >> you can't explain why cell phones cause tumors.
>>>> >
>>>> >Vandeman, you are an idiot. Killing vectors are used in Riemanian
>>>> >geometries (curved spaced time, i.e., in physics applications,
>>>> >general relativity). We aren't trying to formulate a quantum
field
>>>> >theory for gravity or anything like that. We were, rather,
>>>> >discussing the interaction of matter with low levels of
>>>> >electromagnetic radiation at a frequency of 1 or 2 gigahertz,
>>>> >something we understood very well during the first half of the
20th
>>>> >century.
>>>> >
>>>> >As to the Shroedinger equation, I'm not going to play games with
you
>>>> >where you try to waste my time by trying to get me to write a text
>>>> >book and publish it on usenet (where I'd also have to deal with
the
>>>> >difficulty of rendering mathematical notation in ASCII text), only
>>>> >to have you ignore it anyway.
>>>>
>>>> As I suspected, you can't do it. You are a fake, which we knew all
>>>> along.
>>>
>>> LOL! Do you have any idea what I studied in graduate school? If
>>> you want me to provide you with some tutoring, you can damn well pay
>>> for the privledge. Why don't you first tell me what you know about
>>> Hilbert spaces? You'll have to learn about that as background
>>> material. Read up on Hermitian operators too.
>>>
>>>
>>Bill,
>> You are arguing with an idiot. He knows everything, just as him.
I
>>do find his answers amusing.
>>
>> Ever wonder what his true goal is? If it were to 'educate' the
>>mountain biker to their evil ways and possibly convince them to stop
>>riding off road, he has FAILED miserably.
>
> You mean that the mountain bikers have failed to learn anything, as
> usual.
>
>> If on the other hand, his goal is to have you 'wrapped around the
>>axel' here, and not out riding, then he has succeeded to some degree.
>>
>> Best thing you can do is ignore him. Just like you would any 4
year-
>>old throwing a temper tantrum.
>>
>> Go out and ride, that will get his goat.
>>
>> Chris Foster
>>
>>PS Mike: You note that I signed my 'real' name and will be in San
Jose
>>in May. Would you like to get together and have a nice polite
>>discussion??
>
> Whatever for? You have nothing to teach me.

As I said, you feel that you know everything. In reality, you have quite
a bit to learn. For example, how to along with other people,

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On 24 Apr 2007 16:24:08 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:45:27 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> On 23 Apr 2007 07:21:17 -0700, Corvus Corvax <[email protected]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Apr 23, 2:28 am, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Actually , I do understand it, even if you don't. Feynman definitely
> >> >> >> did. And he did have a sense of humor and joked a lot (including his
> >> >> >> joke about no one understanding quantum mechanics).
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I'm glad YOU understand it. I've been thinking hard about it for many
> >> >> >years, and I am still completely confused. Here are some things I need
> >> >> >help with:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >* How do I formuate a self-consistent quantum field theory in a space
> >> >> >with no global timelike Killing vector?
> >> >> >* How do I handle quadratic divergences in scalar fields?
> >> >> >* What is the origin of flavor symmetry?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I and many of my friends would be very grateful if you could help us
> >> >> >out.
> >> >>
> >> >> Right. And when you're done, please completely explain Schrödinger's
> >> >> Equation -- every part of it.
> >> >
> >> >LOL. It's well covered in any number of undergraduate text books, so
> >> >I'll simply refer you to those - if you want me to teach you physics,
> >> >you can pay me to do it.
> >
> >> I knew you couldn't explain it. You only throw around physics jargon
> >> for effect. Of course, it doesn't work. It's obvious that you can't
> >> explain why cell phones cause tumors.
> >
> >Vandeman, you are an idiot. Killing vectors are used in Riemanian
> >geometries (curved spaced time, i.e., in physics applications, general
> >relativity). We aren't trying to formulate a quantum field theory for
> >gravity or anything like that. We were, rather, discussing the
> >interaction of matter with low levels of electromagnetic radiation at
> >a frequency of 1 or 2 gigahertz, something we understood very well
> >during the first half of the 20th century.
> >
> >As to the Shroedinger equation,
>
> You can't even SPELL it (or even copy it from me), much less EXPLAIN
> it. No surprize there. You are a fraud.

You mean I didn't hit the 'c' key hard enough when typing and didn't
bother switching to german-postfix mode to put an umlaut over the 'o'?
I'll admit to being an inaccurate typist and to not bother with careful
proofreading of responses to people like you. But your 'fraud' comment
would leave any of the people I've worked with or gone to school with
quite literally rolling on the floor, laughing their asses off!

BTW, you posted a bunch of garbage about cell phones hurting bees
recently. Did you read today's San Francisco Chroncle, where some
UCSF reeearchers identified a parasite that might be responsible
for the problem? You can read all about it at
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/26/MNGK7PFOMS1.DTL>.
I'll bet you'll call UCSF biologists "frauds" too, all because the
real world does not fit your bizarre preconceptions.

<The rest of your posts from today ignored, as you are now reduced to
completely content-free ranting after having shown yourself to be a
fool - a complete and utter idiot, actually.>



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 26 Apr 2007 15:30:05 GMT, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 26 Apr 2007 11:58:18 GMT, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>[email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 24 Apr 2007 16:24:08 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:45:27 GMT, [email protected]
>(Bill
>>>>> >> Z.) wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>> >> >> Right. And when you're done, please completely explain
>>>>> >> >> Schrödinger's Equation -- every part of it.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >LOL. It's well covered in any number of undergraduate text
>books,
>>>>> >> >so I'll simply refer you to those - if you want me to teach you
>>>>> >> >physics, you can pay me to do it.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> I knew you couldn't explain it. You only throw around physics
>>>>> >> jargon for effect. Of course, it doesn't work. It's obvious that
>>>>> >> you can't explain why cell phones cause tumors.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Vandeman, you are an idiot. Killing vectors are used in Riemanian
>>>>> >geometries (curved spaced time, i.e., in physics applications,
>>>>> >general relativity). We aren't trying to formulate a quantum
>field
>>>>> >theory for gravity or anything like that. We were, rather,
>>>>> >discussing the interaction of matter with low levels of
>>>>> >electromagnetic radiation at a frequency of 1 or 2 gigahertz,
>>>>> >something we understood very well during the first half of the
>20th
>>>>> >century.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >As to the Shroedinger equation, I'm not going to play games with
>you
>>>>> >where you try to waste my time by trying to get me to write a text
>>>>> >book and publish it on usenet (where I'd also have to deal with
>the
>>>>> >difficulty of rendering mathematical notation in ASCII text), only
>>>>> >to have you ignore it anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I suspected, you can't do it. You are a fake, which we knew all
>>>>> along.
>>>>
>>>> LOL! Do you have any idea what I studied in graduate school? If
>>>> you want me to provide you with some tutoring, you can damn well pay
>>>> for the privledge. Why don't you first tell me what you know about
>>>> Hilbert spaces? You'll have to learn about that as background
>>>> material. Read up on Hermitian operators too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Bill,
>>> You are arguing with an idiot. He knows everything, just as him.
>I
>>>do find his answers amusing.
>>>
>>> Ever wonder what his true goal is? If it were to 'educate' the
>>>mountain biker to their evil ways and possibly convince them to stop
>>>riding off road, he has FAILED miserably.
>>
>> You mean that the mountain bikers have failed to learn anything, as
>> usual.
>>
>>> If on the other hand, his goal is to have you 'wrapped around the
>>>axel' here, and not out riding, then he has succeeded to some degree.
>>>
>>> Best thing you can do is ignore him. Just like you would any 4
>year-
>>>old throwing a temper tantrum.
>>>
>>> Go out and ride, that will get his goat.
>>>
>>> Chris Foster
>>>
>>>PS Mike: You note that I signed my 'real' name and will be in San
>Jose
>>>in May. Would you like to get together and have a nice polite
>>>discussion??
>>
>> Whatever for? You have nothing to teach me.
>
>As I said, you feel that you know everything. In reality, you have quite
>a bit to learn. For example, how to along with other people,

Go ahead. Teach! Show us what you know!
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 26 Apr 2007 10:11:00 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 24 Apr 2007 16:24:08 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:45:27 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 23 Apr 2007 07:21:17 -0700, Corvus Corvax <[email protected]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Apr 23, 2:28 am, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Actually , I do understand it, even if you don't. Feynman definitely
>> >> >> >> did. And he did have a sense of humor and joked a lot (including his
>> >> >> >> joke about no one understanding quantum mechanics).
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I'm glad YOU understand it. I've been thinking hard about it for many
>> >> >> >years, and I am still completely confused. Here are some things I need
>> >> >> >help with:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >* How do I formuate a self-consistent quantum field theory in a space
>> >> >> >with no global timelike Killing vector?
>> >> >> >* How do I handle quadratic divergences in scalar fields?
>> >> >> >* What is the origin of flavor symmetry?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I and many of my friends would be very grateful if you could help us
>> >> >> >out.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Right. And when you're done, please completely explain Schrödinger's
>> >> >> Equation -- every part of it.
>> >> >
>> >> >LOL. It's well covered in any number of undergraduate text books, so
>> >> >I'll simply refer you to those - if you want me to teach you physics,
>> >> >you can pay me to do it.
>> >
>> >> I knew you couldn't explain it. You only throw around physics jargon
>> >> for effect. Of course, it doesn't work. It's obvious that you can't
>> >> explain why cell phones cause tumors.
>> >
>> >Vandeman, you are an idiot. Killing vectors are used in Riemanian
>> >geometries (curved spaced time, i.e., in physics applications, general
>> >relativity). We aren't trying to formulate a quantum field theory for
>> >gravity or anything like that. We were, rather, discussing the
>> >interaction of matter with low levels of electromagnetic radiation at
>> >a frequency of 1 or 2 gigahertz, something we understood very well
>> >during the first half of the 20th century.
>> >
>> >As to the Shroedinger equation,
>>
>> You can't even SPELL it (or even copy it from me), much less EXPLAIN
>> it. No surprize there. You are a fraud.
>
>You mean I didn't hit the 'c' key hard enough when typing and didn't
>bother switching to german-postfix mode to put an umlaut over the 'o'?
>I'll admit to being an inaccurate typist and to not bother with careful
>proofreading of responses to people like you. But your 'fraud' comment
>would leave any of the people I've worked with or gone to school with
>quite literally rolling on the floor, laughing their asses off!

You obviously aren't careful. You also don't know how to COPY & PASTE.

>BTW, you posted a bunch of garbage about cell phones hurting bees
>recently. Did you read today's San Francisco Chroncle, where some
>UCSF reeearchers identified a parasite that might be responsible
>for the problem? You can read all about it at
><http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/26/MNGK7PFOMS1.DTL>.
>I'll bet you'll call UCSF biologists "frauds" too, all because the
>real world does not fit your bizarre preconceptions.

No, you are the only fraud: "Government scientists who have been
tracking the phenomenon they call Colony Collapse Disorder were
skeptical, however, saying the parasite had been an early suspect in
the bee die-off but that they had concluded it probably was not
responsible. "

You didn't even read the article, obviously.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On 26 Apr 2007 10:11:00 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >You mean I didn't hit the 'c' key hard enough when typing and didn't
> >bother switching to german-postfix mode to put an umlaut over the 'o'?
> >I'll admit to being an inaccurate typist and to not bother with careful
> >proofreading of responses to people like you. But your 'fraud' comment
> >would leave any of the people I've worked with or gone to school with
> >quite literally rolling on the floor, laughing their asses off!
>
> You obviously aren't careful. You also don't know how to COPY & PASTE.

LOL. I didn't "copy and paste" because I don't have to, and there is no
reason to be "careful" regarding typos in usenet posts.


> >BTW, you posted a bunch of garbage about cell phones hurting bees
> >recently. Did you read today's San Francisco Chroncle, where some
> >UCSF reeearchers identified a parasite that might be responsible
> >for the problem? You can read all about it at
> ><http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/26/MNGK7PFOMS1.DTL>.
> >I'll bet you'll call UCSF biologists "frauds" too, all because the
> >real world does not fit your bizarre preconceptions.
>
> No, you are the only fraud: "Government scientists who have been
> tracking the phenomenon they call Colony Collapse Disorder were
> skeptical, however, saying the parasite had been an early suspect in
> the bee die-off but that they had concluded it probably was not
> responsible. "
>
> You didn't even read the article, obviously.

Obviously I *did* read the article, which is why I wrote "might be
responsible" instead of "is responsible." Unlike you, apparently, I
read it to completion, the last few sentences of which contained the
following statements:

It is possible that a more virulent strain of Nosema ceranae
has evolved in the United States, but Pettis doubts it. "We
can't rule it out completely,'' he said.

Evan Skowronski, senior team leader for biosciences at the
Army lab and a friend of DeRisi's, said that because the stake
are high, every important lead in the search for the cause of
the honeybee deaths needs to be pursued.

"We're not ready to say this is it, but it is a pathogen of
interest,'' he said.

Skowronski said there is no reason to think that the cause of
Colony Collapse Disorder is "anything other than Mother
Nature.'' However, he said that any natural threat to
honeybees has major implications for the United States. "This
needs a high level of attention,'' he said.

DeRisi agreed that more tests will be needed to prove or
disprove the parasite's role in the disappearance of the bees.

"In our results, the control bees did not have it, and the
sick ones were loaded with the stuff,'' he said. "It is going
to take a lot of time to figure out.''

Now, how about explaining where your cell phone towers come in.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 26 Apr 2007 19:09:02 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 26 Apr 2007 10:11:00 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >You mean I didn't hit the 'c' key hard enough when typing and didn't
>> >bother switching to german-postfix mode to put an umlaut over the 'o'?
>> >I'll admit to being an inaccurate typist and to not bother with careful
>> >proofreading of responses to people like you. But your 'fraud' comment
>> >would leave any of the people I've worked with or gone to school with
>> >quite literally rolling on the floor, laughing their asses off!
>>
>> You obviously aren't careful. You also don't know how to COPY & PASTE.
>
>LOL. I didn't "copy and paste" because I don't have to, and there is no
>reason to be "careful" regarding typos in usenet posts.

Sure, if you have nothing to say. But it's an insult to your readers.

>> >BTW, you posted a bunch of garbage about cell phones hurting bees
>> >recently. Did you read today's San Francisco Chroncle, where some
>> >UCSF reeearchers identified a parasite that might be responsible
>> >for the problem? You can read all about it at
>> ><http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/26/MNGK7PFOMS1.DTL>.
>> >I'll bet you'll call UCSF biologists "frauds" too, all because the
>> >real world does not fit your bizarre preconceptions.
>>
>> No, you are the only fraud: "Government scientists who have been
>> tracking the phenomenon they call Colony Collapse Disorder were
>> skeptical, however, saying the parasite had been an early suspect in
>> the bee die-off but that they had concluded it probably was not
>> responsible. "
>>
>> You didn't even read the article, obviously.
>
>Obviously I *did* read the article, which is why I wrote "might be
>responsible" instead of "is responsible." Unlike you, apparently, I
>read it to completion, the last few sentences of which contained the
>following statements:
>
> It is possible that a more virulent strain of Nosema ceranae
> has evolved in the United States, but Pettis doubts it. "We
> can't rule it out completely,'' he said.
>
> Evan Skowronski, senior team leader for biosciences at the
> Army lab and a friend of DeRisi's, said that because the stake
> are high, every important lead in the search for the cause of
> the honeybee deaths needs to be pursued.
>
> "We're not ready to say this is it, but it is a pathogen of
> interest,'' he said.
>
> Skowronski said there is no reason to think that the cause of
> Colony Collapse Disorder is "anything other than Mother
> Nature.'' However, he said that any natural threat to
> honeybees has major implications for the United States. "This
> needs a high level of attention,'' he said.
>
> DeRisi agreed that more tests will be needed to prove or
> disprove the parasite's role in the disappearance of the bees.
>
> "In our results, the control bees did not have it, and the
> sick ones were loaded with the stuff,'' he said. "It is going
> to take a lot of time to figure out.''
>
>Now, how about explaining where your cell phone towers come in.

That's your area, so you claim.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Bill Z.]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:

> On 26 Apr 2007 19:09:02 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On 26 Apr 2007 10:11:00 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
> >> >
> >> >You mean I didn't hit the 'c' key hard enough when typing and didn't
> >> >bother switching to german-postfix mode to put an umlaut over the 'o'?
> >> >I'll admit to being an inaccurate typist and to not bother with careful
> >> >proofreading of responses to people like you. But your 'fraud' comment
> >> >would leave any of the people I've worked with or gone to school with
> >> >quite literally rolling on the floor, laughing their asses off!
> >>
> >> You obviously aren't careful. You also don't know how to COPY & PASTE.
> >
> >LOL. I didn't "copy and paste" because I don't have to, and there is no
> >reason to be "careful" regarding typos in usenet posts.
>
> Sure, if you have nothing to say. But it's an insult to your readers.

What a hypocrite! All you do is "insult your readers"!
>
> >> No, you are the only fraud: "Government scientists who have been
> >> tracking the phenomenon they call Colony Collapse Disorder were
> >> skeptical, however, saying the parasite had been an early suspect in
> >> the bee die-off but that they had concluded it probably was not
> >> responsible. "
> >>
> >> You didn't even read the article, obviously.
> >
> >Obviously I *did* read the article, which is why I wrote "might be
> >responsible" instead of "is responsible." Unlike you, apparently, I
> >read it to completion, the last few sentences of which contained the
> >following statements:
> >
> > It is possible that a more virulent strain of Nosema ceranae
> > has evolved in the United States, but Pettis doubts it. "We
> > can't rule it out completely,'' he said.
> >
> > Evan Skowronski, senior team leader for biosciences at the
> > Army lab and a friend of DeRisi's, said that because the stake
> > are high, every important lead in the search for the cause of
> > the honeybee deaths needs to be pursued.
> >
> > "We're not ready to say this is it, but it is a pathogen of
> > interest,'' he said.
> >
> > Skowronski said there is no reason to think that the cause of
> > Colony Collapse Disorder is "anything other than Mother
> > Nature.'' However, he said that any natural threat to
> > honeybees has major implications for the United States. "This
> > needs a high level of attention,'' he said.
> >
> > DeRisi agreed that more tests will be needed to prove or
> > disprove the parasite's role in the disappearance of the bees.
> >
> > "In our results, the control bees did not have it, and the
> > sick ones were loaded with the stuff,'' he said. "It is going
> > to take a lot of time to figure out.''
> >
> >Now, how about explaining where your cell phone towers come in.
>
> That's your area, so you claim.

Huh? I never claimed to be a biologist, but you posted articles
touting this "cell phone towers bad for bees" thing. Now, care to
explain why your sources didn't mention all the other more plausible
explanations?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Chris]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 26 Apr 2007 15:30:05 GMT, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 26 Apr 2007 11:58:18 GMT, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>[email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote in
>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 24 Apr 2007 16:24:08 -0700, [email protected] (Bill
>>>>>> Z.) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:45:27 GMT, [email protected]
>>(Bill
>>>>>> >> Z.) wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>> >> >> Right. And when you're done, please completely explain
>>>>>> >> >> Schrödinger's Equation -- every part of it.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> >LOL. It's well covered in any number of undergraduate text
>>books,
>>>>>> >> >so I'll simply refer you to those - if you want me to teach
>>>>>> >> >you physics, you can pay me to do it.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> I knew you couldn't explain it. You only throw around physics
>>>>>> >> jargon for effect. Of course, it doesn't work. It's obvious
>>>>>> >> that you can't explain why cell phones cause tumors.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Vandeman, you are an idiot. Killing vectors are used in
>>>>>> >Riemanian geometries (curved spaced time, i.e., in physics
>>>>>> >applications, general relativity). We aren't trying to
>>>>>> >formulate a quantum
>>field
>>>>>> >theory for gravity or anything like that. We were, rather,
>>>>>> >discussing the interaction of matter with low levels of
>>>>>> >electromagnetic radiation at a frequency of 1 or 2 gigahertz,
>>>>>> >something we understood very well during the first half of the
>>20th
>>>>>> >century.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >As to the Shroedinger equation, I'm not going to play games with
>>you
>>>>>> >where you try to waste my time by trying to get me to write a
>>>>>> >text book and publish it on usenet (where I'd also have to deal
>>>>>> >with
>>the
>>>>>> >difficulty of rendering mathematical notation in ASCII text),
>>>>>> >only to have you ignore it anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I suspected, you can't do it. You are a fake, which we knew
>>>>>> all along.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL! Do you have any idea what I studied in graduate school?
>>>>> If you want me to provide you with some tutoring, you can damn
>>>>> well pay for the privledge. Why don't you first tell me what you
>>>>> know about Hilbert spaces? You'll have to learn about that as
>>>>> background material. Read up on Hermitian operators too.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Bill,
>>>> You are arguing with an idiot. He knows everything, just as him.
>>>>
>>I
>>>>do find his answers amusing.
>>>>
>>>> Ever wonder what his true goal is? If it were to 'educate' the
>>>>mountain biker to their evil ways and possibly convince them to stop
>>>>riding off road, he has FAILED miserably.
>>>
>>> You mean that the mountain bikers have failed to learn anything, as
>>> usual.
>>>
>>>> If on the other hand, his goal is to have you 'wrapped around the
>>>>axel' here, and not out riding, then he has succeeded to some
>>>>degree.
>>>>
>>>> Best thing you can do is ignore him. Just like you would any 4
>>year-
>>>>old throwing a temper tantrum.
>>>>
>>>> Go out and ride, that will get his goat.
>>>>
>>>> Chris Foster
>>>>
>>>>PS Mike: You note that I signed my 'real' name and will be in San
>>Jose
>>>>in May. Would you like to get together and have a nice polite
>>>>discussion??
>>>
>>> Whatever for? You have nothing to teach me.
>>
>>As I said, you feel that you know everything. In reality, you have
>>quite a bit to learn. For example, how to along with other people,
>
> Go ahead. Teach! Show us what you know!


Once again, you vainly attempt to distort the subject. The subject is
not what I can teach you. The subject was what you can learn.

Bill, for example, appears to understand quite a bit more about physics
than you do. Yet you argue with him, why? Did it advance your cause?
No, it just made you look more foolish (if that was truly possible) and
alienated another person. Bill would make a very strong supporter with
his knowledge, but I feel that he will now avoid you or go out of his
way to discredit you.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 03:28:59 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 26 Apr 2007 19:09:02 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> On 26 Apr 2007 10:11:00 -0700, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >You mean I didn't hit the 'c' key hard enough when typing and didn't
>> >> >bother switching to german-postfix mode to put an umlaut over the 'o'?
>> >> >I'll admit to being an inaccurate typist and to not bother with careful
>> >> >proofreading of responses to people like you. But your 'fraud' comment
>> >> >would leave any of the people I've worked with or gone to school with
>> >> >quite literally rolling on the floor, laughing their asses off!
>> >>
>> >> You obviously aren't careful. You also don't know how to COPY & PASTE.
>> >
>> >LOL. I didn't "copy and paste" because I don't have to, and there is no
>> >reason to be "careful" regarding typos in usenet posts.
>>
>> Sure, if you have nothing to say. But it's an insult to your readers.
>
>What a hypocrite! All you do is "insult your readers"!

I don't insult anyone. I just tell the truth.

>> >> No, you are the only fraud: "Government scientists who have been
>> >> tracking the phenomenon they call Colony Collapse Disorder were
>> >> skeptical, however, saying the parasite had been an early suspect in
>> >> the bee die-off but that they had concluded it probably was not
>> >> responsible. "
>> >>
>> >> You didn't even read the article, obviously.
>> >
>> >Obviously I *did* read the article, which is why I wrote "might be
>> >responsible" instead of "is responsible." Unlike you, apparently, I
>> >read it to completion, the last few sentences of which contained the
>> >following statements:
>> >
>> > It is possible that a more virulent strain of Nosema ceranae
>> > has evolved in the United States, but Pettis doubts it. "We
>> > can't rule it out completely,'' he said.
>> >
>> > Evan Skowronski, senior team leader for biosciences at the
>> > Army lab and a friend of DeRisi's, said that because the stake
>> > are high, every important lead in the search for the cause of
>> > the honeybee deaths needs to be pursued.
>> >
>> > "We're not ready to say this is it, but it is a pathogen of
>> > interest,'' he said.
>> >
>> > Skowronski said there is no reason to think that the cause of
>> > Colony Collapse Disorder is "anything other than Mother
>> > Nature.'' However, he said that any natural threat to
>> > honeybees has major implications for the United States. "This
>> > needs a high level of attention,'' he said.
>> >
>> > DeRisi agreed that more tests will be needed to prove or
>> > disprove the parasite's role in the disappearance of the bees.
>> >
>> > "In our results, the control bees did not have it, and the
>> > sick ones were loaded with the stuff,'' he said. "It is going
>> > to take a lot of time to figure out.''
>> >
>> >Now, how about explaining where your cell phone towers come in.
>>
>> That's your area, so you claim.
>
>Huh? I never claimed to be a biologist,

You said it's just a matter of physics.

but you posted articles
>touting this "cell phone towers bad for bees" thing. Now, care to
>explain why your sources didn't mention all the other more plausible
>explanations?
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande