The Earth Shall Not Be Moved
Brian Dean bridean@worldnet.att.net
Sun, 26 Apr 1998 21:22:19 -0400 (00893658139, 19980427011132.AAA6910@briandea)
>BRIDEAN
>So a contradiction of a theory is a law?
DICK
No. Can't you read? I said a theory contradicts a law.
>In that case, if you say that there
>does not exist a c such that f'(c)=(f(a) - f(b))/(a-b) are you stating the
>mean-valued law?
>
>In that case, is there such a thing as Einstein's law of non-relativity?
DICK
Certainly. Einstein was a fool whose guesses in physics
are slowly being proved wrong. The Law is Non-relativity.
But in other areas, he guessed better.
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the
unlimitable superior who reveals Himself in the slight
details we are able to perceive with our frail and
feeble minds."
--Albert Einstein
"True art is characterized by an irresistible urge."
--Albert Einstein
"It is in fact nothing short of a miracle that the
modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely
strangled the holy curious of inquiry."
--Albert Einstein
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity
opinions which differ from the prejudices of their
social environment. Most people are even incapable of
forming such opinions."
--Albert Einstein
"Never lose a holy curiosity."
--Albert Einstein
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right."
--Albert Einstein
BRIDEAN
So where is this evidence that the theory of relativity is wrong?
>>DICK
>>This only proves you're a fool,
>>BRIDEAN
>>Is this yet another FALLACY OF HUMOR AND RIDICULE?
>DICK
>No, certainly not. When there is demonstrative proof
>that you're a fool, then it's a logical conclusion
>and an empirical fact.
>BRIDEAN
>Such as your 2" wong?
DICK
No, this is only your illogical conclusion based on
no empirical facts. You don't know how to know the
truth, so you just make things up and call them the
truth.
BRIDEAN
Sounds like tit for tat.
>>DICK
>>since no theory proves anything about reality. The
>>theory that time exists is nothing but a theory. The
>>theory that motion is real is nothing but a theory. You
>>claim guess after guess are reality when they're
>>nothing but guesses. There is some scientific
>>evidence that motion is simply an illusion and
>>does not in fact exist, that things wink out of
>>existence at one point and wink back into existence
>>a minute distance away. Reality is quantum in
>>nature, not analog, so any guesses about speed
>>are wrong. It appears nothing moves.
>>BRIDEAN
>>Well I thought you didn't go by mere appearances.
>DICK
>Mere appearances? Where did you get that idea? I
>say mere appearances are usually the best source
>of knowledge human beings have, surpassing even
>faith, and far, far, far above reason.
>BRIDEAN
>Hmm, where did I get that idea? I simply read what you said
>immediately above. It is sort of like, hmm let me guess, the
>last sentence?
DICK
No, again you demonstrate that you cannot read or understand
what others have read to you. I said it appears that nothing
moves. And nothing does move.
BRIDEAN
Well, is there, or is there not a difference between appearances
and reality?
DICK
The Universe, God, is unchanging.
The universe is but a single unchanging thought of God.
"The universe begins to look more like a great thought than
a great machine."
--Sir James Jeans, Scientist, Astronomer, Physicist
>BRIDEAN
>But I do not boast. I merely stated a fact that you can verify
>if you contact a professor in Ireland by the name of Ray Ryan.
DICK
This is a boast. I too stated only facts but Atheist High
Priest Tilly pronounced them the sins of boasts. Of course,
Tilly, as an alleged English teacher, seems never to know
the customary meanings of words:
BRIDEAN
So now you are agreeing with Till on the meaning of words?
>DICK
>Do you know the meaning of the term wager? You appear to
>offer a trade, a trade where I have nothing to gain.
>BRIDEAN
>Well, I don't imagine that a multi-millionaire would have anything to
>gain by being on an errancy list in the first place, other than to
>waste time. Seems like you would have more fruitful things to do.
DICK
And again, a fallacy, rather than an answer. What I'm
doing here is pointing out the numerous fallacies, errors,
lies, falsehoods and multiple sillinesses of those who claim
to use logic and reason, when they are only prejudiced fools
filled with hatred who make meaningless sounds, then claim
victory when their "opponents" leave in disgust.
>>DICK
>>But math is only a silly game played by fools who
>>overrate its importance in reality. My daughter
>>abandoned it for something that paid some real
>>money.
>>BRIDEAN
>>I both did, and didn't abandon it for something that pays real
>>money.
>DICK
>Not surprising, but I seriously doubt that it's true.
>BRIDEAN
>Well, if you are as smart as you say you are, you would be able to verify
>where I am currently employed at. I will give you a hint, it is not
McDonalds.
DICK
And you cannot read simple English, can you? I said I
seriously doubted that it was true that you accomplished
the contradiction of "both did and didn't", but then you
probably never saw your contradiction, not knowing anything
of logic or reason.
BRIDEAN
It is not a contradiction because I meant "did" and "didn't" in two
different respects. But then you never saw that did you? Is this
another projection on your part?
DICK
And certainly I could have a copy of
your credit report in minutes, but why ever would I bother?
I've already read the credit reports of two of the fools
on this list who are mightly slim pickings.
BRIDEAN
My credit report doesn't really contain much information about me
other than that I procrastinate on bills.
>>Don't tell that to Mathematicians I know.
>DICK
>It's likely that I won't but your command will not be
>the deciding factor.
>>(Including a tenured professor at the University of Pittsburg
>>by the name of Chris Lennard, there one of my sources)
>DICK
>Tenured professors are the worst kind. Those without tenure
>at least try. U Pit is hardly first class. What's a source?
>BRIDEAN
>I would wager that Chris Lennard has more knowledge of Mathematics
>than you do. He also knows me pretty well, and had some imput [sic] into
>getting me published.
DICK
Wager? Once again you use this word without knowing its
meaning. Wagers ALWAYS involve money risked on an uncertain
event. You have never mentioned any amount of money or claimed
that the event is uncertain. Indeed, you claim the opposite.
You should learn the meanings of words you use.
Almost ANYBODY has more knowledge of Mathematics than I do,
since once I realized it was only a silly game, I didn't
learn any more and tried to forget what I already knew.
So you admit you need help and influence to get published?
Your work couldn't stand on its own merits? You couldn't
get published in your own country, not even in one of the
second-rate hack journals that prints anything of reasonable
length? I don't think I've ever had a peer-reviewed paper
rejected.
BRIDEAN
I am not a writer, so I needed help in the literary standards of typical
Math journals. It was the idea that got people convinced to help me.
>DICK
>You can't prove anything with pictures since you have
>no idea what proof is. There are false pictures just
>as there are false statements and false equations.
>BRIDEAN
>But there exists a path, which gets closer and closer to being a straight
line
>from one diagonal to the other which ALWAYS has length 2. It would be easy
>to draw a picture to show you what that path is, but not very easy to
explain it.
DICK
Anything truly known by a human being can be clearly
stated in words.
BRIDEAN
Very well. Consider the path going north one unit, then west one unit. This
is a path that has length two. Now consider the path going norh a half a
unit, west a half a unit, north a half a unit, then west a half a unit. This
path also has length two. Now apply this over and over again reducing the
amount you go north and west by 1/2 and you will see that this path gets
closer and closer to a straight line. Yet this path ALWAYS has length two.
>>BRIDEAN
>>And I am sure that she found the error using the truth ...
>DICK
>No, she used the silly game of math, but then she knows
>it's only a silly game and not the truth. She saved the
>taxpayers millions of dollars since they planned to junk
>the satellite which was inoperative as it was, so her
>grateful government gave her a letter. But it was signed
>by a real human. I guess.
>BRIDEAN
>Well well well, some silly game called Mathematics had some influence
>on something empirically there, like a satellite.
DICK
No. You draw false conclusions not knowing how to reason.
Her scribblings on a piece of paper didn't influence
the satellite physically there. The radio signal to the
satellite to move it is what "influenced" it.
BRIDEAN
But didn't the Math tell her what kind of radio signals to send?
>There is a friend of mine
>who is writing computer software used for tracking jet airplanes from
>satellites and giving the pilot weather information. If you want to verify
>this, his name is Lou Worrellia and he works at a company called
>Executive Jet.
DICK
What the hell is the meaning of this non sequitur, yet
another logical fallacy? Is this supposed to mean anything
to anybody anywhere? Richard Nixon, George Wallace, and
Sam Walton were friends of mine. So what?? Are you claiming
that the thoughts of this Worrellia person are rubbing off
on you? Is he your good luck charm?
BRIDEAN
I am claiming that I have access to how satellites work and how information
is passed between them. I don't find it surprising at all that one of your
friends was Richard Nixon. I shook his hand when I was a kid, but of course
that doesn't mean anything.
>Since you are a gazillionaire [sic] you have probably heard of
>Executive Jet haven't you?
DICK
This is again the fallacy of non sequitur, I guess the one
you have chosen to replace your more obvious one of
ridicule. And you treated a nonexistent, a gazillionaire [sic],
as though it were real. But getting on to your question, the
answer is yes.
Executive jet is mostly for corporate dummies. In my business
before retiring at age 45, I was a lawyer who often camped
for weeks in one spot for a trial (or mostly last minute
negotiating), with NEVER any urgency for getting anywhere,
so there was NEVER any need to fly. In my current situation,
avoiding humanity in the wilderness as a semi-recluse, but
usually traveling six months out of the year in a tiny
camper, with NEVER an urgency to get anywhere, why in the
world should I know ANYTHING about a company that's mostly
for corporate dummies? I do happen to know several people
high up at TWA and Boeing, but this is only coincidental.
On the rare occasions when I do fly, it's first class on
a major airline and not with a bunch of corporate dummies
who can't afford their own company planes.
BRIDEAN
It is not so much that they can't afford their own company planes, but
they choose to save money by using Executive Jet instead.
>>And I am sure that she found the error using the truth that
>>everything is God, the Catholic church is the true church
>>and that Arius taught the truth. Again, show me your sources
>>and I will show you mine.
>DICK
>She did use the truth that everything is God since there
>is no other possibility. But I never implied that the
>Catholic church is the true church. FALLACY OF STRAWMAN.
>I never implied that Arius taught ANY truth. FALLACY OF
>STRAWMAN. I used Arius as PROOF of the FALLACY OF FALSE
>GENERALIZATION that ALL Christians say Jesus is God.
>You need to improve your reading skills, so you wouldn't
>commit such obvious fallacies.
>BRIDEAN
>But you agree with Arius that Jesus was not God. Interesting.
DICK
Sigh. I do not agree with Arius that Jesus was the Christ.
Interesting? I do not agree with Arius that Jesus ever
performed a miracle. Interesting? Arius was wrong in saying
that Jesus was not God while I am right in saying that Jesus
was not God. Arius did not teach the truth about the nature
of Jesus or God. The fact that our words might agree does
not imply that our concepts might agree. You fail to know
the difference between concepts, words, meanings, and all
the other areas of semantics.
BRIDEAN
I am thinking in the back of my head, comparing
1) I am right in saying that Jesus was not God.
with
2) The Catholic WAS and IS the ONLY form
of true Christianity, and the ONLY basic Christianity.
Thinking especially about the word TRUE in statement 2.
Since I don't know the difference between concepts, words,
meanings, and all the other areas of semantics please
explain this to me.
>DICK
>If you were a 16 year-old female this might be possible
>but since it's only Tilly's challenge of a 5 year-old
>fool, not interested. Sources are the FALLACY OF APPEAL
>TO AUTHORITY. What is this odd game played on this list
>demanding tit for tat?
>BRIDEAN
>What difference does it make whether or not I am a 16 year old female?
>Oh, I forgot, you like little girls don't you? And where do you get 5 year
>old from. Is there some fascination you have with 5 year olds as well?
DICK
No, I don't like little girls, yet another lie and/or false
conclusion on your part.
BRIDEAN
Where was there any conclusion there? Oh I forgot, I don't know anything
about the difference between concepts, words, meanings, and all
the other areas of semantics. Perhaps then you can explain to me
where I mentioned any "conclusions" about you and 5 year olds.
DICK
I like girls about six feet tall and not skinny. I like girls with fully
developed breasts. But I do like young women who have some
interest in learning more about sex. Your cheap ad hominem
after I correctly identified you as offering the argument of a 5
year-old fool is where I got the 5 year-old from. I do have a fascination
with those who claim to be adults, such as you, but who have
and/or use only the mental powers of five year-olds.
BRIDEAN
Well since I know nothing of the difference between concepts, words,
meanings, and all the other areas of semantics, perhaps you can tell
me where I ever claimed to be an adult?
DICK
You are most fascinating with your curious blend of odd facts and no
reasons beyond those of a silly five year-old.
BRIDEAN
Since you find the reasonings of a five year old fascinating, perhaps
it would be more fruitful for you to hang around your local kindergarden
school. Perhaps the saying, "Everything I need to know I learned in
kindergarden" applys to you.