Tomorrow's headline:

vandivx · Oct 9, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I agree with you VANDIVX!!! DR. Rockets' PHD has not completed any work that im aware of <br />Posted by dabiznuss</DIV><br /><br />seeing as you sparked a number of replies, I have to disapoint you, I didn't mean it as a direct attack on my adversary here but quite generally, I don't think it fair to put people on spot like that, besides one doesn't have to produce some original ideas himself in order to be able to judge that others do in work like phd thesis and one sparrow doesn't make spring nor fall I would add, meaning its beside the point what DrRocket did or didn't do</p><p>the point I tried to make was that phd works are being put out in thousands each year and if only a tiny fraction among them made a half significant contribution to physics advancement, the progress in the discipline would virtually fly ahead but I don't see that happening, clearly we have very much different idea of what original contribution means, fact is that independent, that is original thinking is very rare today and always was and even those capable of it rarely transform it into some advancement in their field of science</p><p>that said, I don't think a phd thesis is where one would or should expect to see some original thinking, on the contrary, it is given by the nature of the work and the whole context in which it gets written, there have been notable exceptions to be sure but that's what they have been, exceptions</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Oct 9, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>seeing as you sparked a number of replies, I have to disapoint you, I didn't mean it as a direct attack on my adversary here but quite generally, I don't think it fair to put people on spot like that, besides one doesn't have to produce some original ideas himself in order to be able to judge that others do in work like phd thesis and one sparrow doesn't make spring nor fall I would add, meaning its beside the point what DrRocket did or didn't dothe point I tried to make was that phd works are being put out in thousands each year and if only a tiny fraction among them made a half significant contribution to physics advancement, the progress in the discipline would virtually fly ahead but I don't see that happening, clearly we have very much different idea of what original contribution means, fact is that independent, that is original thinking is very rare today and always was and even those capable of it rarely transform it into some advancement in their field of sciencethat said, I don't think a phd thesis is where one would or should expect to see some original thinking, on the contrary, it is given by the nature of the work and the whole context in which it gets written, there have been notable exceptions to be sure but that's what they have been, exceptions  <br />Posted by vandivx</DIV><br /><br />Have you ever thought about writing in non run on, gramatitically correct sentences with periods at the end?</p><p> </p><p>It would make your rants a lot easier to read.</p><p>I find it ironic that one who cannot write in coherent sentences is denigrating the value of a serious poster's contributions.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

kyle_baron · Oct 9, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Kyle, I have no intention of replying to your silly post or going through my dissertation in this forum.  That would be quite pointless.  There is nothing here that strike fear, but quite a bit that strikes boredom. I don't have the time or inclination to even attempt to try to explain work at that level to you.  You simply do not have the necessary background. Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p><strong>I understand you now.  I CLEARLY gave you the opportunity to "put up or shut up"  about your PHD.  You have chosen the latter.  That's fine.  However, you lose your arguement, about it being an original concept (by default).  What you and others do, is take an existing concept, do additional research on it (adding information) and call that "original".  Myself, and others here will attest, that that isn't the case for an original concept.  Therefore:</strong></p><p><strong><font size="6">***CASE-CLOSED***</font></strong></p><p><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

kyle_baron · Oct 9, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Stop trolling.. ? <br />Posted by nimbus</DIV></p><p><strong>Not the case at all.  I'm just trying to get a straight answer from someone who is avoiding the question.</strong><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

Mee_n_Mac · Oct 9, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not the case at all.  I'm just trying to get a straight answer from someone who is avoiding the question. <br />Posted by <strong>kyle_baron</strong></DIV><br /><br />Since M_A seems to still be recuperating let me play his part ...</p><p>So exactly when did you stop beating your wife ?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Oct 9, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I understand you now.  I CLEARLY gave you the opportunity to "put up or shut up"  about your PHD.  You have chosen the latter.  That's fine.  However, you lose your arguement, about it being an original concept (by default).  What you and others do, is take an existing concept, do additional research on it (adding information) and call that "original".  Myself, and others here will attest, that that isn't the case for an original concept.  Therefore:***CASE-CLOSED*** <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>Kyle, I made a general statement about the requirement for ALL Ph.D. degrees.  That assertion remains.  I have actually made no specific claims whatever about my educational background, or the content of my dissertation or other publications.  I have simply pointed out that your notions of what transpires in educational and research circles are badly mistaken. </p><p>What I have declined to do is to discuss my personal dissertation with you.   There are several reasons:</p><p>1)  I receive quite enough junk mail now without exposing myself to more.  I have no intention of putting my name out in an uncontrolled public form like this.</p><p>2)  I have no particular desire to provide you with a venue to publish any more of your ignorant and abusive rants.</p><p>3)  Your questions have no relevance to this or any other thread on this forum.</p><p>4)  Dissertations are quite specialized, I have seen your attempts to deal with technical topics in other threads, and you are simply not equipped for a discussion at that level.  You can't even handle high school level physics and mathematics let alone topics at the cutting edge of research.</p><p>5)  Finally I have no desire to feed the flames of your twisted attempt to somehow construe education as a reason for disqualifying someones statements.  To engage in such a discussion with you on the topic of how research is conducted would be pointless.  You are clearly ignorant of the background necessary to understand the discussion.  Given numerous unsuccessful attempts to provide you with some of that background, it is also apparent that you lack the ability to apply the necessary intelligence to correct that ignorance.  </p><p>If you are able, go get an education, learn how to think, and demonstrate that you can reason logically.  Then perhaps we can talk.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kyle_baron · Oct 10, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Since M_A seems to still be recuperating let me play his part ...So exactly when did you stop beating your wife ? <br />Posted by Mee_n_Mac</DIV></p><p><strong><font size="4">LOL!</font></strong><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

kyle_baron · Oct 10, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Kyle, I made a general statement about the requirement for ALL Ph.D. degrees.  That assertion remains.  I have actually made no specific claims whatever about my educational background, or the content of my dissertation or other publications.  I have simply pointed out that your notions of what transpires in educational and research circles are badly mistaken. What I have declined to do is to discuss my personal dissertation with you.   There are several reasons:1)  I receive quite enough junk mail now without exposing myself to more.  I have no intention of putting my name out in an uncontrolled public form like this.2)  I have no particular desire to provide you with a venue to publish any more of your ignorant and abusive rants.3)  Your questions have no relevance to this or any other thread on this forum.4)  Dissertations are quite specialized, I have seen your attempts to deal with technical topics in other threads, and you are simply not equipped for a discussion at that level.  You can't even handle high school level physics and mathematics let alone topics at the cutting edge of research.5)  Finally I have no desire to feed the flames of your twisted attempt to somehow construe education as a reason for disqualifying someones statements.  To engage in such a discussion with you on the topic of how research is conducted would be pointless.  You are clearly ignorant of the background necessary to understand the discussion.  Given numerous unsuccessful attempts to provide you with some of that background, it is also apparent that you lack the ability to apply the necessary intelligence to correct that ignorance.  If you are able, go get an education, learn how to think, and demonstrate that you can reason logically.  Then perhaps we can talk.  <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p><strong>I'll say it once again, and FYI, I have a BBA from UW-Milwaukee.  Any other snide remarks?</strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><font size="7">***CASE-CLOSED***</font></strong></p><p><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

vandivx · Oct 10, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Have you ever thought about writing in non run on, <font color="#000000">gramatitically</font> correct sentences with periods at the end? It would make your rants a lot easier to read.I find it ironic that one who cannot write in coherent sentences is denigrating the value of a serious poster's contributions. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br />look at your own run on post first, please, and then speak</p><p> and I don't mean the doubble misspeling you made there in a single word, ironically in the word grammar none the less</p><p>I am not saying I am not guilty of some of the runon but mainly its the dumb forum software that contributes to the problem when it can't keep paragraph formating in quotes which makes it difficult when people quote me in order to make replies to specific parts of my posts but that's horrible job with any longer post even if you dot your sentences</p><p> </p><p> if the forum can't sort its $% don't expect me to dot my lines, also given the overall grammatical quality of average posts here I don't think I am much worse in that regard</p><p> AND if you didn't notice, I wasn't denigrating the poster in question in that particular post but on the contrary I upheld his case if anything, you just put your foot in your mouth</p><p>besides I am not denigrating anybody in my postings, on the contrary its DrRocket here who is denigrating in a gross way and moderators don't show up to do anything about it, also am I not a serious poster and on top of that one whose posts do really get denigrated? and by none less than the one you call a serious poster?</p><p>and your labeling my posts as 'rants', isn't that denigration in a gross way of a serious poster? </p><p> </p><p>if anything I do value DrRockets contributions here on forums because he is at least worthy adversary who knows his physics, I just wish he didn't have the urge to label his opponents with derogatory and denigrating comments when he can't see how their ideas could ever mesh with established physics cannons because that greatly belittles him in my eyes</p><p>--------------------</p><p> given you label my posts as rants, I wonder why you should care to read them in the first place beyond the first determination as rants, typically when I see rants, it wouldn't come to me to admonish the poster to make them more legible, typically one would do that precisely when one thinks the posters posts are worth reading which rants most certainly are not</p><p>I think its more likely the content, that is, the ideas in my posts that are difficult to digest and dotting my sentences wouldn't help much, may I suggest if you think what I post are rants that you don't bother reading them and spare yourself the criticism of my grammar</p><p> </p><p>also if you are going to inject yourself into ongoing long discussion in which you took no part, it is better form when you have something positive to contribute to the subject and not just to express negative comment regarding one of the posters</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Mee_n_Mac · Oct 10, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'll say it once again, and FYI, I have a BBA from UW-Milwaukee.  Any other snide remarks?</p><p> ***CASE-CLOSED*** <br />Posted by <strong>kyle_baron</strong></DIV><br /><br />It's times like these, when life lets you peek into it's ironies, that it all seems to be worth it.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

MeteorWayne · Oct 10, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>look at your own run on post first, please, and then speakI am not saying I am not guilty of some of that but mainly its your dumb forum software that contributes to the problem when it can't keep paragraph formating in quotes if the forum can't sort its $% don't expect me to dot my lines AND if you didn't notice, I wasn't denigrating the poster in question in this particular post but on the contrary I upheld his case if anything, you just put your foot in your mouthbesides I am not denigrating anybody in my postings, on the contrary its DrRocket here who is denigrating in a gross way and moderators don't show up to do anything about it, am I not also a serious poster and on top of that one whose posts do really get denigrated? and your labeling my posts as 'rants', isn't that denigration in a gross way of a serious poster?  given you label my posts as rants, I wonder why you should care in the first place, typically when I see patent rants, it wouldn't come to me to admonish the poster to make them more legible if you are going to inject yourself into ongoing discussion, it is better form when you have something positive to contribute to it and not just to express negative comment regarding one the posters <br />Posted by vandivx</DIV><br /><br />First, my post's sentences were not run on at all. It consisted of reasonably short sentences , with capital letters at the front, and periods at the end. That makes it much easier to read. Using the admittedly not great pluck software as an excuse is just not valid. It doen't prevent you from writing in understandable english.</p><p>Regarding your second point, it is possible that I may have confused your posts with that of another. I will go back and read them, and if I have misidentified the rants that I am referring to, I will correct myself and apologize.</p><p>The reason I care, is because I like to try and make an effort to read and understand all posts. If yours were easier to read, maybe more people would pay more attention to them and give them more credibility.</p><p>Feel free to ignore my suggestion. However, I think making your posts more readable would be a good thing, if your goal is to have them read.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Oct 10, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'll say it once again, and FYI, I have a BBA from UW-Milwaukee.  Any other snide remarks? ***CASE-CLOSED*** <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>That explains quite a lot and reinforces my conclusions. Apparently the only thing that you learned is how to use the font key.  My comments stand.  </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Oct 10, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>First, my post's sentences were not run on at all. It consisted of reasonably short sentences , with capital letters at the front, and periods at the end. That makes it much easier to read. Using the admittedly not great pluck software as an excuse is just not valid. It doen't prevent you from writing in understandable english.Regarding your second point, it is possible that I may have confused your posts with that of another. I will go back and read them, and if I have misidentified the rants that I am referring to, I will correct myself and apologize.The reason I care, is because I like to try and make an effort to read and understand all posts. If yours were easier to read, maybe more people would pay more attention to them and give them more credibility.Feel free to ignore my suggestion. However, I think making your posts more readable would be a good thing, if your goal is to have them read.  <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br />Having reread the whole thread, I think I was a bit harsh in calling your posts rants. Not much, but a bit. So I do apologize for that.</p><p>What makes it seem that way is your style of posting (i.e. run on sentences, no proper sentences, etc), which I misinterpreted.</p><p>I certainly don't agree with you, but "rant" was a poor choice to descibe your posts.</p><p> </p><p>Wayne</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Oct 10, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'll say it once again, and FYI, I have a BBA from UW-Milwaukee.  Any other snide remarks? ***CASE-CLOSED*** <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>A little research into the business curriculum at UW-Milwaukee is revealing.  While it appears to be a fairly standard business curriculum, and would provide adequate background for most straightforward business applications, the material covered is not adequate background for scientific discourse.  For a study of science beyond a superfical level you need more mathematics than what is covered in the Math 211 course that is required.  You would need at least the series Math 231, 232, 233 plus Math 234 as a basis to understand freshman/sophomore level physics. The required 6 Natural Science elective credits would have be to be expanded a bit to include Physics 209, 210, 214, 215 with additional work at the level of Physics 309, 317, 411, 420, 422.  Quantum mechanics at the level of Physics 441, 442 would also be advisable.  You might substitute mechanics and thermodynamics classes from Mechanical Engineering for the corresponding physics classes, and from your misconceptions in earlier threads Mechanical Engineering 423 (applied fluid mechanics) would be advisable.  That would peerhaps give you adequate preparation to understand basic engineering and physics issues, but not enough background for cutting edge research topics.  It would acutally be advisable to take a few more courses, and obtain the equivalent of a B.S. in physics or an engineering discipline.  </p><p>In order to follow the advanced research topics in which you have (probably unknowingly) expressed interest you would have to learn more mathematics.  Not all the necessary material appears to be offered at UW-Milwaukee, but for starts you would need to master the material in Mathematics 621, 711, 713, 726, 731, and 753.  You would then need additional work in abstract algebra, more topology, some theory of differentiable manifolds, the theory of Lie groups and their representations to include at least Kirillov's orbit theory, abstract Fourier analysis at the level of Rudin's Fourier Analysis on Groups and Katznelson's Introduction to Harmonic Analysis, theory of Banach algebras and Operator theory, plus a bit more advanced work in the theory of one complex variable at the level of the first few chapters of Duren's book on Hp Spaces.  Some additional independent reading in selected topics could then supplement this background and provide preparation for understanding of original research.  Then perhaps we can talk.</p><p>So, no the case is not closed, except perhaps in your mind.  It is rather wide open, but perhaps invisible to you at your present level of preparation.  Right now you do not understand that you do not understand. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kyle_baron · Oct 10, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A little research into the business curriculum at UW-Milwaukee is revealing.  While it appears to be a fairly standard business curriculum, and would provide adequate background for most straightforward business applications, the material covered is not adequate background for scientific discourse.  For a study of science beyond a superfical level you need more mathematics than what is covered in the Math 211 course that is required.  You would need at least the series Math 231, 232, 233 plus Math 234 as a basis to understand freshman/sophomore level physics. The required 6 Natural Science elective credits would have be to be expanded a bit to include Physics 209, 210, 214, 215 with additional work at the level of Physics 309, 317, 411, 420, 422.  Quantum mechanics at the level of Physics 441, 442 would also be advisable.  You might substitute mechanics and thermodynamics classes from Mechanical Engineering for the corresponding physics classes, and from your misconceptions in earlier threads Mechanical Engineering 423 (applied fluid mechanics) would be advisable.  That would peerhaps give you adequate preparation to understand basic engineering and physics issues, but not enough background for cutting edge research topics.  It would acutally be advisable to take a few more courses, and obtain the equivalent of a B.S. in physics or an engineering discipline.  In order to follow the advanced research topics in which you have (probably unknowingly) expressed interest you would have to learn more mathematics.  Not all the necessary material appears to be offered at UW-Milwaukee, but for starts you would need to master the material in Mathematics 621, 711, 713, 726, 731, and 753.  You would then need additional work in abstract algebra, more topology, some theory of differentiable manifolds, the theory of Lie groups and their representations to include at least Kirillov's orbit theory, abstract Fourier analysis at the level of Rudin's Fourier Analysis on Groups and Katznelson's Introduction to Harmonic Analysis, theory of Banach algebras and Operator theory, plus a bit more advanced work in the theory of one complex variable at the level of the first few chapters of Duren's book on Hp Spaces.  Some additional independent reading in selected topics could then supplement this background and provide preparation for understanding of original research.  Then perhaps we can talk.So, no the case is not closed, except perhaps in your mind.  It is rather wide open, but perhaps invisible to you at your present level of preparation.  Right now you do not understand that you do not understand. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p><strong>Just like Kirk said to Khan, in the Star Trek Movie, The Wrath of Khan:  "I'm LAUGHING at your superior intellect".  <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /></strong><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Oct 10, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just like Kirk said to Khan, in the Star Trek Movie, The Wrath of Khan:  "I'm LAUGHING at your superior intellect".  <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>Kirk never was very bright.  You picked an ideal surrogate.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kyle_baron · Oct 13, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>  Not all the necessary material appears to be offered at UW-Milwaukee, but for starts you would need to master the material in Mathematics 621, 711, 713, 726, 731, and 753.  You would then need additional work in abstract algebra, more topology, some theory of differentiable manifolds, the theory of Lie groups and their representations to include at least Kirillov's orbit theory, abstract Fourier analysis at the level of Rudin's Fourier Analysis on Groups and Katznelson's Introduction to Harmonic Analysis, theory of Banach algebras and Operator theory, plus a bit more advanced work in the theory of one complex variable at the level of the first few chapters of Duren's book on Hp Spaces.  Then perhaps we can talk. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p><strong>"Then I can talk to you?????  WTF?  Only an arrogant twit, with a HUGE and fragile ego, would say something like that.</strong><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Oct 13, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Then I can talk to you?????  WTF?  Only an arrogant twit, with a HUGE and fragile ego, would say something like that. <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>Then perhaps there can be an intelligent exchange.  You don't seem to be up the task at the moment.  <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Tomorrow's headline:

vandivx

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

Mee_n_Mac

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

vandivx

Guest

Mee_n_Mac

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page