| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
hanson
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:50 pm Post subject: Re: Tom Roberts, Eric Gisse and Uncle Al. |
 |
|
Hey, rect-Al .... ahahahaha... did Jeffie crank you... hahahahaha...
| Quote: |
carb"Uncle rect-Al" Schwartz <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote |
in message news:487F8F8B.F574CF25@hate.spam.net...
I don't know much about Tom Roberts, I've never really engaged him;
I read him when he cross-posts to Sci.Physics, which isn't often.
So, at least for now, I find he's worth reading but not very engaging.
Eric Gisse and Uncle Al heckle me once in awhile ..
no big deal, I reply back and that's basically where it ends.
| Quote: |
carb-"Uncle rect-Al" worte: |
"Heckle" you fucking imbecile shit megaspewer? HECKLE?
Jeff?Relf is a hot swollen pus-filled *carbuncle* upon humanity's ass.
.... so, did jeff remind you where you find your own carbuncles
which you so eloquently demonstrate here on your website
*** http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg ***
If they are "schwartz", you ought to consider an occult blood test.
Thanks for the laughs, Schwartzer Dreidel, ahahaha....
ahahaha... ahahahanson |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Pmb
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:18 am Post subject: Re: Tom Roberts, Eric Gisse and Uncle Al. |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:487F8F8B.F574CF25@hate.spam.net...
| Quote: |
Jeff?Relf wrote:
I don't know much about Tom Roberts, I've never really engaged him;
I read him when he cross-posts to Sci.Physics, which isn't often.
So, at least for now, I find he's worth reading but not very engaging.
Eric Gisse and Uncle Al heckle me once in awhile ..
no big deal, I reply back and that's basically where it ends.
"Heckle" you fucking imbecile shit megaspewer? HECKLE? Jeff?Relf is
a hot swollen pus-filled carbuncle upon humanity's ass.
The greatest obstacle to understanding reality is not ignorance but
the illusion of knowledge. Reality is not a peer vote.
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize): ignorance more
frequently begets confidence than does knowledge
|
That doesn't mean a heck of a lot coming from you since you rarely talk
about physics here. All you do is insult those who do because, apparently,
you believe yourself to be superior to them.
Pete |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Androcles
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:35 am Post subject: Re: Tom Roberts, Eric Gisse and Uncle Al. |
|
|
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:FvMfk.470$6O4.207@trnddc06...
| Hey, rect-Al .... ahahahaha... did Jeffie crank you... hahahahaha...
| >
| >
| carb"Uncle rect-Al" Schwartz <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote
| in message news:487F8F8B.F574CF25@hate.spam.net...
| >
| Jeff?Relf wrote:
| I don't know much about Tom Roberts, I've never really engaged him;
| I read him when he cross-posts to Sci.Physics, which isn't often.
| So, at least for now, I find he's worth reading but not very engaging.
| Eric Gisse and Uncle Al heckle me once in awhile ..
| no big deal, I reply back and that's basically where it ends.
| >
| carb-"Uncle rect-Al" worte:
| "Heckle" you fucking imbecile shit megaspewer? HECKLE?
| Jeff?Relf is a hot swollen pus-filled *carbuncle* upon humanity's ass.
| >
| hanson wrote:
| ... so, did jeff remind you where you find your own carbuncles
| which you so eloquently demonstrate here on your website
| *** http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg ***
| If they are "schwartz", you ought to consider an occult blood test.
| Thanks for the laughs, Schwartzer Dreidel, ahahaha....
| ahahaha... ahahahanson
Isn't Schwartz beautiful:
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
Isn't Roberts beautiful:
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts
http://sundials.org/about/humpty.htm
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,'
it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:36 am Post subject: Re: Tom Roberts, Eric Gisse and Uncle Al. |
|
|
Pmb wrote on Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:52:06 -0400:
| Quote: |
"Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez" <juanREMOVE@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
message news:pan.2008.07.17.17.54.20@canonicalscience.com...
Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:28:57 -0500:
(sniped a new lie by Tom)
Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez wrote:
Tom Roberts ignorance has been noticed in sci.physics.research
before.
Only by Juan R. Gonzlez-lvarez
Don't true. For instance, in sci.physics.research someone said this
year:
"Yours is a statement of profound ignorance in all of its parts."
--- X to Tom Roberts in sci.physics.research Feb 2008
And X was *not* Juan R. You know that very well because you replied to
*that poster* several times in hungry tone. You are lying again Tom.
I just read that. Its surprising that it got through the moderator. Tom
responded in his usual way I See. I.e. claiming that he was insulted and
ignoring the fact that he does the same thing to others.
|
But Tom was not insulted by X in above quote. X simply noticed a fact:
Tom Roberts post was "a statement of profound ignorance in all of its
parts."
This is similar to when Eric nonsense about Hamiltonian was noticed or
when Dono wrong Lagrangian reported. The three react insulting to the
poster who notices his mistakes. This is a tendency.
| Quote: |
I've snipped the rest because its just Tom repeating his nonsense. Not
worthy of reading.
|
Good thing, notice how Tom Roberts was caught above when lied "Only by".
Like Eric and Dono, Tom is desperately trying to hide now his legendary
ignorance.
Too late Tom, you would have stopped from insulting people several years
ago!
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:52 am Post subject: Re: Tom Roberts, Eric Gisse and Uncle Al. |
|
|
Cosmik de Bris wrote on Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:24:15 +1200:
| Quote: |
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:52:06 +1200, Pmb wrote (in article
-8ydnaoPDbJ6CeLVnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@comcast.com>):
"Juan R. González-Álvarez" <juanREMOVE@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
message news:pan.2008.07.17.17.54.20@canonicalscience.com...
Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:28:57 -0500:
(sniped a new lie by Tom)
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
Tom Roberts ignorance has been noticed in sci.physics.research
before.
Only by Juan R. González-Álvarez
Don't true. For instance, in sci.physics.research someone said this
year:
"Yours is a statement of profound ignorance in all of its parts." ---
X to Tom Roberts in sci.physics.research Feb 2008
And X was *not* Juan R. You know that very well because you replied to
*that poster* several times in hungry tone. You are lying again Tom.
I just read that. Its surprising that it got through the moderator. Tom
responded in his usual way I See. I.e. claiming that he was insulted
and ignoring the fact that he does the same thing to others.
I've snipped the rest because its just Tom repeating his nonsense. Not
worthy of reading.
Pete
You and Juan are unbelievable! Literally.
|
I am not sure what is more unbelievable on your attitude!
What you were defending 'people' who wrote nonsense like
(\blockquote
No. The special relativistic Hamiltonian is
H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/ c^2 ].
)
What you react this way when Tom Roberts has been caugth above in another
of his lies: his recent lie "Only by".
But you have nothing to say about that lie or about the liar: Tom Roberts.
What you have nothing to say when Tom Roberts makes unfair evaluations of
theories and papers that Tom *never* studied, and still you have the hard
face of accusing others from "dogmatically asserted their falsehoods with
no proof"!
Vote for your favorite :-)
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 9:07 am Post subject: Re: Tom Roberts, Eric Gisse and Uncle Al. |
|
|
"Juan R." González-Álvarez wrote on Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:52:52 +0200:
| Quote: |
Cosmik de Bris wrote on Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:24:15 +1200:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:52:06 +1200, Pmb wrote (in article
-8ydnaoPDbJ6CeLVnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@comcast.com>):
"Juan R. González-Álvarez" <juanREMOVE@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
message news:pan.2008.07.17.17.54.20@canonicalscience.com...
Tom Roberts wrote on Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:28:57 -0500:
(sniped a new lie by Tom)
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
Tom Roberts ignorance has been noticed in sci.physics.research
before.
Only by Juan R. González-Álvarez
Don't true. For instance, in sci.physics.research someone said this
year:
"Yours is a statement of profound ignorance in all of its parts." ---
X to Tom Roberts in sci.physics.research Feb 2008
And X was *not* Juan R. You know that very well because you replied
to *that poster* several times in hungry tone. You are lying again
Tom.
I just read that. Its surprising that it got through the moderator.
Tom responded in his usual way I See. I.e. claiming that he was
insulted and ignoring the fact that he does the same thing to others.
I've snipped the rest because its just Tom repeating his nonsense. Not
worthy of reading.
Pete
You and Juan are unbelievable! Literally.
I am not sure what is more unbelievable on your attitude!
What you were defending 'people' who wrote nonsense like
(\blockquote
No. The special relativistic Hamiltonian is H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/
c^2 ].
)
What you react this way when Tom Roberts has been caugth above in
another of his lies: his recent lie "Only by".
But you have nothing to say about that lie or about the liar: Tom
Roberts.
What you have nothing to say when Tom Roberts makes unfair evaluations
of theories and papers that Tom *never* studied, and still you have the
hard face of accusing others from "dogmatically asserted their
falsehoods with no proof"!
Vote for your favorite 
|
I forgot this one!
Dono saying
(\blockquote
JuanShit,
You ARE an idiot, the relativistic Lagrangian is indeed:
L=-m_0*c^2 *(1-(v/c)^2)
)
and then trying to falsify the Groups archive by deleting his initial
post and submitting other after Dono was corrected :-)
Of course, you also said *nothing* when Dono deleted *his* message for
hiding, negated in many times he wrote that and even accused others from
making the mistakes he was doing!
Dono nonsensical message is still available on other places
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2008-07/
msg00824.html
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/
msg/6db93e88919413fe?dmode=source
But again, Cosmik, you omit comment on that dishonesty from Dono...
Now vote for your favorite :-)
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:16 am Post subject: Re: Effect of Scan Rate |
|
|
| Quote: |
For LS and CV techniques at a planar electrode in a simple
reversible and irreversible charge reactions, the peak current increases
linearly as square root of scan rate increases, which agrees with the eq.
(2. .
In adsorption reaction, the peak current increases linearly with
increasing scan rate. So absorption current increases more rapid than
diffusion current. But in quasi-reversible reaction, these relationships
are not linear anymore.
In catalytic reaction, the limit current is independent of scan rate.
For reversible charge and adsorption reactions, the peak location and the
width at half peak are independent of scan rate. For irreversible charge
and adsorption reactions, the widths at half peak are still independent
of scan rate, but the peak locations are not. The reduction peak location
shifts linearly to more negative potential and the oxidization peak
location shifts linearly to more positive potential as log of scan rate
increases. Therefore, the separation between the reduction and
oxidization peaks becomes larger as scan rate increases. These agree with
theoretical equations.
For square wave and additive square wave techniques, the peak current
increases linearly as square root of frequency increases.
At a microelectrode, the steady-state currents are independent of the
time factors (e.g. the scan rate, the electrode-rotating rate, the drop
time, the pulse time, or the sampling time) for all LS, DC, and normal
pulse techniques, which agree with the theoretical equations.
----------------------------------------------------
www.DrHuang.com
Software www.ELECTROCHEMIST.com simulates
user-design waveform chronoamperometry and voltammetry
------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:54 pm Post subject: Re: New lie by crackpot Eric |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote on Fri, 18 Jul 2008 05:14:28 -0700:
(...)
Did not promise you would not reply again in this nasty thread?
In any case, I want to inform you that the new guidelines are ready but
are not still in the server. It will be updated next week.
The guidelines now contains further recommendations and tactics to ignore
nasty posters as you and include quotes from you like
(\blockquote
No. The special relativistic Hamiltonian is
H = L = -mc^2 * [1 - v^2/ c^2 ].
)
And
(\blockquote
Yea but I'm smarter than both of you. By such a wide margin it boggles
the mind
)
Remember you accepted because you "don't care" about you wrote :-)
I am now working in the next Micro-thought
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/
"Some samples of USENET fauna"
Initially I waited to write a single one with samples on crackpots
messages, but your one is so large that I may split into several parts.
For instance, I had initially counted 4 nonsenses from you: (H = L), (H <
0), the square root, and H(v).
But revising your posts I found many more sound mistakes. When you said
that (p = mv) in relativity, your (T+V) (T-V) confusion, when you
proposed another latter Hamiltonian with imaginary energies, etc.
The list of your nonsenses is really large, you are a gem!
--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
92 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
