sci.physics.electromag

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Benj wrote:

> On Mar 13, 4:44 pm, "Timo A. Nieminen" wrote:
>
>> Still, your behaviour is hardly surprising, given your posting history.
>
> Hey Timo,
> I wasn't speaking to you!
> (And you spelled "behavior" and "asshole" wrong)
>
>> _You_ are the one who has refused to discuss any of the substance of the
>> argument, and the one who resorted to lying, hypocrisy, and general
>> arsehole-ness. If that's your choice (presumably you're seeking some kind
>> of "usenet points", not a discussion of physics or the philosophy of
>> physics), so be it, but I don't see why I should let you spray your shit
>> on other branches of the thread without comment.
>
> I see you were elected god of the Internet! I thought Algore held
> that position. I also take note of the fact that you have decided that
> an appropriate response to any questioning of your dearly-held beliefs
> is to initiate an inquisition! Well THAT is certainly a "traditional"
> scientific response! Perhaps a taste of the rack will loosen my tongue
> and extract a confession of witchcraft and heresy! Your charges are
> patently false (except perhaps for "general arsehole-ness") and
> happily you are not moderator of the Usenet physics groups and cannot
> impose your will and beliefs upon our free speech. So sad!

"Patently false", while you're still patently issuing falsehoods? Well, it
is possible that you're not wilfully lying. However, I didn't think you
were so demented or so utterly stupid as to be able to misread fairly
plain English. Let me write it again, in caps, just for you: MATHS IS NOT
REALITY.

> Happily, my science career is long over and you can't destroy it. I
> have written no papers that you can use your position to keep from
> publication. I truly couldn't care less if you ever become
> "converted" away from your worship of mathematics as an ultimate
> reality. After all, who was it that said that if you cannot express
> your knowledge of physics in mathematics you have basically no
> knowledge at all? So be it.

Why accuse others of claiming that maths is reality when they have
directly said the opposite? _YOU_ are the one who has been making idiotic
claims about mathematics, such as the meaning of equations depending on
how the terms in them are arranged (your non-standard definition of
"causal"), that an algebraic derivation of one equation from a set of 4
depends on the interpretation of the symbols therein, etc.

Maths is a convenient, precise, compact language, very useful for the
description of physics and physical systems (note that engineers get great
use from it, too). Maths is _not_ physical reality, and mathematical
existence is not physical existence (which is why your denial that the E
field exists in the _mathematical_ sense was bizarre - don't you
understand the difference between mathematical and physical existence?).

If you post garbage and lies, expect corrections. If you post outlandish
unsupported crap, expect dispute. That's pretty much all you've done in
this sub-thread; you've avoided any discussion of the issues at hand. If
you don't want to discuss physics or EM (note newsgroups), fine, but why
bother posting in the thread? I'm not attacking your science or your ideas
- you've refused to contribute any of either in this thread - but your
lies (and how can you seriously claim to not lie here when you admitted
lying upthread?).

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html