Results 1 to 10 of 10
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Neverfly

Thread: Intellectual Ethics

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Intellectual Ethics

    Grapes looks like he (or Neverfly) has closed my thread on Fermat and Physics; if so, like Neverfly he is unethical and hypocritcal in limiting the free flow of ideas and rational discussion, calling "nonsense" when the discussion gets too difficult or is beyond their limited intellectual capabilities, training, or personal research.

    If so, the rest of you are going to be missing out on my own further research (As I said earlier, I wasn't going to post here anymore anyway but jumped in because I had recognized a fundamental issue about the relativistic unit circle and number theory that I hadn't seen anywhere else and wanted to discuss it with someone intelligent on this forum, hoping that not all of them have left ...)

    It seems now that there are only village idiots left to moderate on this forum ....

    If Tom can't see this (or worse, simply just doesn't care), then there is nothing more I can do...
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 12-18-2016 at 02:07 PM.
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  2. #2
    Moderator grapes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    4,006

    Default Re: Intellectual Ethics

    The thread was closed for a few reasons. First, it should have been in the math forum, so another thread has been opened there to discuss Fermat's Last Theorem, and issues related (including, if you like, the theory of relativity). Second, you said in your last post that you were not going to comment any longer. Third, there were issues brought up that should have been resolved instead of being ignored. Fourth, too much revision of previous versions of posts. Fifth, I'll take the fifth, happy holydays to everyone!

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: Intellectual Ethics

    This is bullshit.

    You're an idiot, and my whole point is that Fermat's theorem is related to theory of relativity (and QFT, and GTR, for that matter).

    No issues were brought up that were ignored. You are incompetent, mathematically and ethically; the ethical way would have been asking "what did you mean by that?", or "I think there is a mistake, do you mean....?", or "I don't understand, can you explain further?" (which I would have done, but didn't have to, since your points were so simple-minded.)

    Rather than braying "nonsense" like the donkeys both you and Neverfly are, and why there are so few left on this forum.

    Neither of you had any fricken idea what John Gabriel was talking about, for example. I suggested what was wrong very early on, when I said he was ignoring curvature, and eventually showed his mistaken definition of slope in Cartesian coordinates for the derivative as well as discussing curvature in context (like every community college handbook in beginning calculus).

    You are shameful and irresponsible as moderators; these issues are difficult (which is why I couldn't discuss them on other forums), but it doesn't mean they are wrong. But trying to blank out intellectual points by shouting "bullcrap" through a megaphone is bad enough when one is a simple "contributor" but completely unethical when one is a moderator. Calling me "dishonest" because I disagreed with you is unethical as well.

    In particular, there may be others (excluding Grapes) who might have something to say about the issues I was attempting to discuss.

    I call bullshit on you and yours, and am very disappointed in Tom (or whoever owns the cacophony of village idiot moderators) if he doesn't take an intellectual stand.

    Or was the thread closed because you finally realized I am correct and didn't have the courage to admit it to the world?

    FWIW, to others who may not be village idiots, my point about STR is that positive integers only exist in the one dimension for so that which is the foundation of for = 1, h = ct = ct' = 1 = .

    Pauli's (and Dirac's) point is that negative numbers require two dimensions; and STR says they must be equal by invoking simultaneity relative to the origin (if they are not equal, one can always translate the origin so they are - except in GTR). If another independent dimension is required, then ....??

    (Fuck it....)
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 12-18-2016 at 03:19 PM.
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  4. #4
    Moderator grapes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    4,006

    Default Re: Intellectual Ethics

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    This is bullshit.

    You're an idiot, and my whole point is that Fermat's theorem is related to theory of relativity (and QFT, and GTR, for that matter).

    No issues were brought up that were ignored. You are incompetent, mathematically and ethically; the ethical way would have been asking "what did you mean by that?", or "I think there is a mistake, do you mean....?", or "I don't understand, can you explain further?" (which I would have done, but didn't have to, since your points were so simple-minded.)

    Rather than braying "nonsense" like the donkeys both you and Neverfly are, and why there are so few left on this forum.

    Neither of you had any fricken idea what John Gabriel was talking about, for example. I suggested what was wrong very early on, when I said he was ignoring curvature, and eventually showed his mistaken definition of slope in Cartesian coordinates for the derivative as well as discussing curvature in context (like every community college handbook in beginning calculus).

    You are shameful and irresponsible as moderators; these issues are difficult (which is why I couldn't discuss them on other forums), but it doesn't mean they are wrong. But trying to blank out intellectual points by shouting "bullcrap" through a megaphone is bad enough when one is a simple "contributor" but completely unethical when one is a moderator. Calling me "dishonest" because I disagreed with you is unethical as well.

    In particular, there may be others (excluding Grapes) who might have something to say about the issues I was attempting to discuss.

    I call bullshit on you and yours, and am very disappointed in Tom (or whoever owns the cacophony of village idiot moderators) if he doesn't take an intellectual stand.

    Or was the thread closed because you finally realized I am correct and didn't have the courage to admit it to the world?

    FWIW, to others who may not be village idiots, my point about STR is that positive integers only exist in the one dimension for so that which is the foundation of for = 1, h = ct = ct' = 1 = .

    Pauli's (and Dirac's) point is that negative numbers require two dimensions; and STR says they must be equal by invoking simultaneity relative to the origin. If another independent dimension is required, then ....??

    (Fuck it....)
    I said you were being dishonest with yourself, and showed you how and why.

    Your errors are clear and evident to everyone but yourself. I didn't say you were being dishonest with us (though you may be, regardless), I showed how you were fooling yourself.
    Last edited by grapes; 12-18-2016 at 03:19 PM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: Intellectual Ethics

    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    I said you were being dishonest with yourself, and showed you how and why.

    Your errors are clear and evident to everyone but yourself. I didn't say you were being dishonest with us (though you may be, regardless), I showed how you were fooling yourself.
    I am never dishonest with myself; I am always willing to admit errors. Your claim that I am "dishonest with myself" (whatever that may mean) is a simple statement that you have no idea what I am talking about.

    (particularly in your dishonest claim of errors that do not exist.)

    Your claim of "errors" are unfounded for that reason. You simply don't know very much and are incompetent and unethical besides. I do have a degree in mathematics from a reputable university, do you? From anywhere? Any professional credentials at all? I think not.

    (If you don't believe me, I will scan my credentials and post them here. But only if Tom makes me a moderator so I can protect myself from village idiots like you and Neverfly).

    You haven't shown me (or anyone else except maybe Neverfly or the Naked Emperor who may have faith in a false prophet, but are incompetent as well) jack shit....
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 12-18-2016 at 03:41 PM.
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  6. #6
    Moderator grapes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    4,006

    Default Re: Intellectual Ethics

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    I am never dishonest with myself; I am always willing to admit errors. Your claim that I am "dishonest with myself" (whatever that may mean) is a simple statement that you have no idea what I am talking about.

    (particularly in your dishonest claim of errors that do not exist.)

    Your claim of "errors" are unfounded for that reason. You simply don't know very much and are incompetent and unethical besides. I do have a degree in mathematics from a reputable university, do you? From anywhere? Any professional credentials at all? I think not.

    (If you don't believe me, I will scan my credentials and post them here. But only if Tom makes me a moderator so I can protect myself from village idiots like you and Neverfly).

    You haven't shown me (or anyone else except maybe Neverfly or the Naked Emperor who may have faith in a false prophet, but are incompetent as well) jack shit....
    We just disagree about all that. You can see many times throughout your posts where errors have been pointed out, but you react defensively rather than reviewing your work--you attack the person pointing out the error. Only after a couple posts like that do you finally look back over your work to find the error that was pointed out.

    Sometimes, you don't even do that. You just ignore your own errors. That's what I mean by being dishonest with yourself.

  7. #7
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: Intellectual Ethics

    This is cage match... So I will speak very freely.

    BuleriaChk, Should the thread have been closed? Maybe, maybe not. The thread was going nowhere and had been going nowhere for a long time. You have several threads on the same topic. Grapes opened a new thread on this same topic when you pointed out that you felt obstructed.
    But the thread was nearing 700 replies and it never once proved Fermats Last Theorem. a proof needs to demonstrate that the statement is always valid and consistent. Your 'proof' only showed that the statement was consistent as long as you calculated the right numbers. Without trying each and every combination of numbers, a person following your proof has no way of really knowing if the statement is true or not.
    Not only algebraic or arithmetic errors; fundamental flaws were pointed out and you made excuses and swept them under the rug. You shifted the goal posts. You changed the subject. The only times you admitted to an error were the ones that you were able to correct without invalidating your statements. But when an error was pointed out that removed the validity of your statement, you tried to hide it and changed the topic to something else, whether Pauli matrices or Einsteins Relativity and went off on this new tangent which you claimed was a new reference idea of yours.
    And when all else failed, you fell back to claiming that the person pointing out your errors fails to understand your ideas. How simple but the problem is, like you completely fumbling transcendental numbers, you have shown that you do not understand the fundamentals. As Jay so elegantly put it, you hoisted yourself up by your own petard.
    That is intellectual dishonesty. By definition. It's a textbook case of it. Whether with others or yourself, someone is being deceived, there.
    You say that people have been just shouting the word, "nonsense" with a megaphone... but that statement is simply untrue. In fact, Grapes has almost only and exclusively posted to show an error.
    You say that only minor arithmetic errors were pointed out. This statement is also very untrue and your first clue it was should have been whenever Grapes posted the words, "That should have been your first clue..."
    You even took things this far:
    the ethical way would have been asking "what did you mean by that?", or "I think there is a mistake, do you mean....?", or "I don't understand, can you explain further?" (which I would have done, but didn't have to, since your points were so simple-minded.)
    Your "ethical way" demonstrates clearly that you fully believe that you are correct and we are all your students, asking teacher to please clarify their statements rather than correct their errors.
    Your statements were not unclear, they were just wrong. And when the statements were not wrong, they just did not apply to the topic. And when they were not wrong and they did apply, they still failed to Prove Fermats Last Theorem.

    It is also intellectual dishonesty to revise posts over and over and over again, especially those over a few days old and compounded when you did it to months old posts.
    It covers things up, hides previous errors and destroys the integrity of the Record.

    Should the thread have been closed down? You often act like you were using it as a sounding board to work out the kinks and to enable yourself to follow your thoughts. Which meandered heavily, I might add... you kept trying to use new methods for proving Fermats Last Theorem from Particle physics to Cosmology... but in the end, that is not how you were really using it when as all of the above demonstrates; you are convinced that you have discovered the very, very simple proof that went over the heads of all other mathematicians for hundreds of years.

    You are not the polite, calm and honest person you are trying to present yourself as. You regularly attack others that question your posts; are often viscous and demeaning. You don't calmly correct errors and move on. You ignore them, excuse them or change the topic.
    emperorzelos likes this.
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    564

    Default Re: Intellectual Ethics

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    I am never dishonest with myself; I am always willing to admit errors. Your claim that I am "dishonest with myself" (whatever that may mean) is a simple statement that you have no idea what I am talking about.

    (particularly in your dishonest claim of errors that do not exist.)

    Your claim of "errors" are unfounded for that reason. You simply don't know very much and are incompetent and unethical besides. I do have a degree in mathematics from a reputable university, do you? From anywhere? Any professional credentials at all? I think not.

    (If you don't believe me, I will scan my credentials and post them here. But only if Tom makes me a moderator so I can protect myself from village idiots like you and Neverfly).

    You haven't shown me (or anyone else except maybe Neverfly or the Naked Emperor who may have faith in a false prophet, but are incompetent as well) jack shit....
    Don't make us laugh! The moment we start pointing out errors and your ignorance you cry like a little baby.

    Faith? I have no faith in anything and what is this "false prophet" you even speak of? I have nothing of the sort you delusional bastard.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,766

    Default Re: Intellectual Ethics

    Village idiots -

    Grapes, Neverfly, The Naked Emporer .... who are only capable of thinking in one dimension... (simple arithmetic at the third grade level.)

    and who have no idea of what Descartes is talking about, much less Newton or Maxwell.... and especially Einstein...
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 12-19-2016 at 02:24 PM.
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle 03/28/2017 07:40 AM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    564

    Default Re: Intellectual Ethics

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    Village idiots -

    Grapes, Neverfly, The Naked Emporer .... who are only capable of thinking in one dimension... (simple arithmetic at the third grade level.)

    and who have no idea of what Descartes is talking about, much less Newton or Maxwell.... and especially Einstein...
    Don't make me laugh, I am superior to you in mathematics at all levels. And one dimension? I deal with 1, 2, 3 and infinite dimensions and all between, I even deal with things that cannot be assigned any dimension!

    You are so laughable juvenile in mathematical understanding. You think you are anywhere near my level here? That is nothing short of hubris from you.

    If you think so, let's have the contest I challanged you to, but you never accepted it because you know I will surpass you and humiliate you.
    Last edited by emperorzelos; 12-21-2016 at 04:21 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •