When Is This A Valid Refutation?

[BeholdTheTruth]

Someone (me) who:

1) may be a crank; or

2) just an outsider poking around at what's inside and outside of the inside of what's outside of conventional thinking about sides

recently got a refutation of my proposal that Hamilton (as noted by Prof. Paul J. Nahin) had introduced the idea of imaginary length via Hamilton's interpretation of quaternions.

My philosophical question is not whether or nor I am a crank, nor even whether or not Prof. Nahin is a crank, but rather is it in the modern philosophical tradition (ie., not since the days of the Scholastics) to refute someone because of lack of academic credentials, or even in the case where a Ph.D. in E.E. is not enough for someone who claims to be a mathematician.

[scribble]

No matter what you think people in that other thread said, BTT, we don't call you a crank because your ideas are "out there." We call you a crank because YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Your lack of degrees is only further *evidence* of this - we already knew it to be true before you admitted to being uneducated.

[BeholdTheTruth]

Originally posted by scribble
No matter what you think people in that other thread said, BTT, we don't call you a crank because your ideas are "out there." We call you a crank because YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Your lack of degrees is only further *evidence* of this - we already knew it to be true before you admitted to being uneducated.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SGT




Have you perceived that we spent 10 pages discussing absurdities? I have two hypotheses concerning BTT :



He really does not understand maths and believes the mad things he writes. In this case he would present some arguments supporting his ideas, instead of claiming he had an epiphany relating imaginary numbers and the true nature of the Universe.

He is a smart guy and is making fun of us, as the two quotes above seem to prove.



Occam's razor indicates that we should opt for the second hypothesis. So, unless he puts some arguments showing that the first one is true, I am done with this thread.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BeholdTheTruth (BTT):

I vote for a heavy dose of the first door with a dash of the second door, just enough so as to holy be the door to truth.

And thus now behold the truth -- at least the truth to and from someone like me who truly (or falsely) sees himself as having beheld the truth (about truth)...

Occams' Razor is not always the best tool in the shed of math for shedding light on something odd, funny, strange or otherwise counter to conventional wisdom. Neither is it necessarily the brightest candle in the church of modern science for whatever else tends to be too easy and convenient for lazy scientific and mathematical minds to immediately accept or reject without further thinking.

E.g., and in all seriousness, and knowing that this is going to fall on more deaf ears hear than a nursing home filled with old-age rock fans...

the diagram found at http://theometry.org/arcof_thecov.gif is a two-dimensional diagram lying in the x-y plane. All of the straight lines in that diagram lie in-side that x-y plane. The hyperbolic parabola curve lies in-side that x-y plane. Each pair of perpendicular line segments of each of the diagonal lines lying in-side of the x-y plane lie in-side the x-y plane.

time and again in this thread, and more and more lately your unscientific knee-jerk rejectings of x and your just as mindless automatic acceptings of y prove to me and hopefully to at least a few of the lurkers here that being smart and being well-educated (and I have no fear of screaming at the top of my lungs that most of you are both much smarter and much more educated than me) has nothing to do with seeing what is there to be seen and not seeing what is not there to be seen, regardless of what you were taught and what you believe to be... true. Someone here just referred me to Penrose. But the recommender does not seem to see (and I could be wrong) a very important subtlety per the title of Penrose's famous book. In the famous story of the New Clothes, everyone viewing the royale procession except for a little unschooled child saw the finely spun golden clothes that Da Man was wearing -- even though the royale jerk was stark naked.

And thus now for who is the biggest jerk here, me or TeaBag420?

Drkitten's extremely well-thought out and just as well-articulated analysis is without question afine example of a brilliant mind at work and puts most of you guys to shame -- and of course me even more (I truly hope, but do not at all expect that he will use that brilliant mind of his to brilliantly explain more and more of his own discoveries about this diagram's two-sided mathematical object, a very weird thing in deed. Thus, Drk, for what it is or isn't worth please take a closer look at the arc of the covenant picture -- and see for yourself and accept nto your mind for further contemplation this irrefutable fact: in that diagram there is no z axis pointing inside and outside of its x-y plane.

In summary, and as my last words here on this thread:

1) per the arcof_thecov.gif diagram, what does the existence of perpendicular line segments of a straight line lying outside of SGT's capacity to see it and also the non-existence of a z axis lying anywhere but in Drk's fertile imagination say about lies vs. truth, about how easy it is for even smart and/or very educated people to not see what is there, the way SGT can not see the perpendicular line segments of a straight line but Drk can? And what does Drk's seeing a z axis when it is not there also say about other very smart and well-educated people's tendency to imagine what is needed to fill gaps in their observations about observations instead of further and more closely observing what is odd, funny, strange or just makes no sense -- at first?

2) what does the existence of the first and non-existence of the last say about me, and you, and about the way we all tend to reject some x's perhaps too quickly and accept some y's perhaps too easily?

and to take us back to the very beginning of this very silly thread,

3) what do the two perpendicular line segments/in-side and out-side sides of a straight line say about a two dimensional line being able to represent a three or even four or more dimension change? Indeed any change from x and to y? I.e., if one of those perpendicular line segments of sides is yalel's "going away from x" sh-t & the other is yalel's "coming towards y" sh-t, what does that say about, ah, sh-t? And also, of course, about who is and who isn't the biggest a**hole on this thread?

Personally, I don't think I rate higher than second place! See you in the R & P section. I am tired of playing amateur mathman and scienceman, especially as I am no good at either. Perhaps I'll find more compatible conversation there?

Regards, BTT alias?

PS see also http://www.polymorf.net/engineer67.htm

and also other links on the hypar such as...

http://www.hoberman.com/fold/Hypar/hypar.htm


__________________
Believer with no sense of humor: "There is no truth but the Truth."

Skeptic with a sense of irony and humor: "Tain't that the truth!"



Plus, a funny example of how some cranky skeptics here refute...

Originally posted by TeaBag420


Your points 1 and 2 above are refuted thus: Nahin is an EE (all three degrees), and his book on Heaviside was first published in 1988 by IEEE Press.


And some folks think I'm a crank! :-)
BTT (formerly CAD)


Last edited by BeholdTheTruth on 06-29-2004 at 05:23 PM

[scribble]

Originally posted by scribble
No matter what you think people in that other thread said, BTT, we don't call you a crank because your ideas are "out there." We call you a crank because YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Your lack of degrees is only further *evidence* of this - we already knew it to be true before you admitted to being uneducated.

[scribble]

Drkitten's extremely well-thought out and just as well-articulated analysis is without question afine example of a brilliant mind at work and puts most of you guys to shame -- and of course me even more

Dr Kitten's post was *basic* linear algebra. And I do mean basic. I'm almost certain he only went into such detail for *you.* Because *I* already have studied linear algebra, he only had to mention the concept to tell me what you were on about.

But I still don't believe it - I don't believe you have understood a single word you have said, I think you are just parroting words you've heard.

The only thing that has shamed you is your ignorance.

[Dancing David]

Where did this pissing contest begin?

BTW BTT, math is a closed symbolic system that does have definitive answers, I would like to review what the brouhaha is about, yet math is the one area where the experets can at least prove themselves to be correct.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Where did this pissing contest begin?

BTW BTT, math is a closed symbolic system that does have definitive answers, I would like to review what the brouhaha is about, yet math is the one area where the experets can at least prove themselves to be correct. '


Trust me, you don't want to see this. But if you DO go read it, I invite you to pay attention to how nice I was to the idiots until they started insulting me.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41832

For once, the trolls have managed to *nearly* confine themselves to one thread, so you can, in fact, read the entire exchange there.

BTT doesn't come in until the end, but he's saying the exact same things the other idiots were saying, a fact which has led more than a few to assume they're just sock puppets of whoever the real idiot is.

[BeholdTheTruth]

Originally posted by scribble
'


Trust me, you don't want to see this. But if you DO go read it, I invite you to pay attention to how nice I was to the idiots until they started insulting me.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41832

For once, the trolls have managed to *nearly* confine themselves to one thread, so you can, in fact, read the entire exchange there.

BTT doesn't come in until the end, but he's saying the exact same things the other idiots were saying, a fact which has led more than a few to assume they're just sock puppets of whoever the real idiot is.

The reason that you tend not to see originality in my, pupsoc's and yalel's words, and anyone else's here who dares to think differently than you, Scribble, is very simple: you are the kind of a**hole fundamentalist skeptic who as blind to the truth about organized science (and organized religion) as any equally closed-minded fundamental religionist. The only difference is that you should know better, and of course do think you know better, because of your highly self-regarded intellect and sophomoric level of education.

As proof of the correctness of my belief that people cannot see things that are there if they don't want to se them, and as proof also of my belief that people see things that are not there if they need to see them, consider this... 1) SGT still cannot imagine two perpendicular line segments at each point meeting on the hypar curve where their straight lines in the diagram at http://theometry.org/arcof_thecov.gif touch the curve.

2)Drkitten imagines a z axis in the above diagram's x-y plane.

3) And you can't se the first, can seee the second and think I am a fool.

It is you who are a fool. And not as wise a fool as The Fool. At least he is wise enough to conveniently enter the fray just after I've left our, mutually enjoyable I hope, field of intellectual and psychological combat. OTOH, perhaps he is being less wise and just chicken as he has been in the past with yalel.

That's it, eureka! You are as blind as a bat to the truth of perpendicular line segments of a straight line (as seen in the above diagram) and as daffy as a duck about the truth of organized science vs. organized religion. And The Fool is as chicken as, ah, a chicken. :)

At least yalel's http://neo-gnosis.org/index_000023.htm picture is afine example of what "organization" ought to be in a sane and not foolish world.

[scribble]

Originally posted by BeholdTheTruth
The reason that you tend not to see originality in my, pupsoc's and yalel's words, and anyone else's here who dares to think differently than you, Scribble, is very simple: you are the kind of a**hole fundamentalist skeptic who as blind to the truth about organized science (and organized religion) as any equally closed-minded fundamental religionist.


No, the reason it seems like more of the same meaningless drivel is much simpler than that.

It's because it is more of the same meaningless drivel.

So is the rest of your message, I can't even be bothered to respond to it except to note that a) thanks to DrKitten's explaning you meant matrix transformations, I understand everything you said, and b) I seriously doubt *you* understand *anything* you said.

That is all.

[BeholdTheTruth]

Originally posted by scribble


No, the reason it seems like more of the same meaningless drivel is much simpler than that.

It's because it is more of the same meaningless drivel.

So is the rest of your message, I can't even be bothered to respond to it except to note that a) thanks to DrKitten's explaning you meant matrix transformations, I understand everything you said, and b) I seriously doubt *you* understand *anything* you said.

That is all.

You are such a silly light-weight. It's a shame that The Fool and his hordes of heavy-weight cohorts are leaving it to you do the heavy-lifting for them here. You do it so poorly.

I am here and now calling your bluff. Either: 1) stop saying that the things I say are drivel, or 2) simply explain here and now how it is that the straight lines lying wholly in an x-y plane of the x-y diagram of http://theometry.org/arcof_thecov.gif can cause a z axis to emerge?

Or are you going to further act like the light-weight I now am sure you are and keep informing us that you "cant' be bothered to respond."

Or respond by calling me names? And otherwise try to take the spotlight off of your more and more obvious to more and more people on this forum intellectual inadequacies by using ad hominems ad nauseum instead of explaining what is easily explainable?

[scribble]

Originally posted by BeholdTheTruth

Or are you going to further act like the light-weight I now am sure you are and keep informing us that you "cant' be bothered to respond."

Or respond by calling me names?

I'll try a little of both.

"I can't be bothered to respond, you breathtakingly stupid ignoramus."

On top of that, it was YOU who ducked out of our debate in the math thread.

Don't try to rewrite history, coward.

[scribble]

In fact, anyone who wants to follow that link above can see I gave you TEN PAGES.

You are not only ignorant, you're delusional.


It's a shame that The Fool and his hordes of heavy-weight cohorts are leaving it to you do the heavy-lifting for them here.


Go read the Thread. The Fool chimed in. He chimed in to warn me that he's already fed up with you, you're a total waste of time, and by even talking to you I am engaging in futility.

In other words, he won't talk to you anymore because he can't be bothered.

Seems you have this effect on a lot of people. Perhaps it's time you wake up and realize you haven't got any idea what you are talking about, and anyone who does will shun you, rightfully, as the willful ignoramus you remain.

[BeholdTheTruth]

Originally posted by scribble


I'll try a little of both.

"I can't be bothered to respond, you breathtakingly stupid ignoramus."

On top of that, it was YOU who ducked out of our debate in the math thread.

Don't try to rewrite history, coward.

Let me see if I have this right...

Are you saying that if I return to pupsoc' in-side and out-side of a curved line thread, you will explain with mathematical accuracy and precision (and assuming you know the difference between mathematical accuracy and mathematical precison) how it is that the straight lines lying wholly in an x-y plane of the x-y diagram of http://theometry.org/arcof_thecov.gif can cause a z axis to emerge?

Or are you saying that you are going to keep informing me there as well as here that you "cant' be bothered to respond."

Or are you saying that you are going to continue to respond by calling me names? And otherwise try to take the spotlight off of your more and more obvious to more and more people on this forum intellectual inadequacies by using ad hominems ad nauseum instead of explaining what is easily explainable?

[scribble]

Originally posted by BeholdTheTruth
[B]

Let me see if I have this right...

Or are you saying that you are going to keep informing me there as well as here that you "cant' be bothered to respond."

Or are you saying that you are going to continue to respond by calling me names?

I don't know. Why don't you try posting something interesting and coherent about mathematics? I think you're incapable of doing so, but I'll keep reading until you do.

Until then, you'll probably get more of the same. I'm not the first one here to toss you into the "what a useless ignoramus" pile. I won't be the last.

[scribble]

Originally posted by BeholdTheTruth
I am tired of playing amateur mathman and scienceman, especially as I am no good at either.


Guess that was a lie? You seem to want to keep going. You seem to think you're better than I am. Prove it. Say something coherent about math. Try answering my simple questions, even when I've provided the correct answers. See you back in the pupcos thread, ignoramus.

[BeholdTheTruth]

Originally posted by scribble


I don't know. Why don't you try posting something interesting and coherent about mathematics? I think you're incapable of doing so, but I'll keep reading until you do.

Until then, you'll probably get more of the same. I'm not the first one here to toss you into the "what a useless ignoramus" pile. I won't be the last.

There is a line I remember from my youth, "Come back when you bleed." In your case, don't come back. I will no longer respond to you on any thread. Light-weight! :D

[scribble]

Originally posted by BeholdTheTruth


There is a line I remember from my youth, "Come back when you bleed." In your case, don't come back. I will no longer respond to you on any thread. Light-weight! :D

Just as well - I'll take this as solid proof that you cannot speak about math coherently. I made my questions simple. TRUE/FALSE. And I EVEN GAVE YOU THE RIGHT ANSWERS. All you'd have to do is parrot a few more words you don't understand.

Instead, you back down. This means you are everything I said you are.

[BeholdTheTruth]

Originally posted by scribble


Just as well - I'll take this as solid proof that you cannot speak about math coherently. I made my questions simple. TRUE/FALSE. And I EVEN GAVE YOU THE RIGHT ANSWERS. All you'd have to do is parrot a few more words you don't understand.

Instead, you back down. This means you are everything I said you are.

Ok, now that I have helped Scribble established without a doubt that he can not explain what to him is inexplicable, and is inexplicable and thus perhaps a bit scary to some of you (as it puts people's beliefs about what is and isn't true in jeopardy) is there anyone here who can explain how it is that the straight lines lying wholly in an x-y plane of the x-y diagram of http://theometry.org/arcof_thecov.gif either cause a z axis to emerge or not emerge? Or perhaps both?

BTW, keep track of how many times Scribble attempts to distract you from this question. It will be a further metric of his more and more discernible intellectual inadequacies.

[scribble]

Originally posted by BeholdTheTruth
Ok, now that I have helped Scribble established

Hahaha... you won't respond to me, you say. Somehow, responding to me but directing the response to the crowd doesn't count as responding to me.

Delusional ignoramus.

[scribble]

You say I'm going to attempt to distract from your question.

Not at all. In fact, let me aid the new seekers in finding more context for your question, so they may be better prepared to respond as you wish.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870521277#post1870521277

Enjoy, new seekers.

BTT, maybe you'd better put me on ignore if you want to keep to your promise of not responding to me. It's clear you can't control yourself.

[BeholdTheTruth]

Originally posted by scribble


Hahaha... you won't respond to me, you say. Somehow, responding to me but directing the response to the crowd doesn't count as responding to me.

Delusional ignoramus.

1 :)

[scribble]

Originally posted by BeholdTheTruth

1

Number of times you've responded to me after saying you won't:

2

Looks like I win so far. Maybe you'd better put me on ignore if you want to keep to your promise of not responding to me. It's clear you can't control yourself.

And so this won't be distracting from your idiotic questions again, here's a link to the thread for the readers to follow:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870521277#post1870521277

PLEASE, someone, answer this man's totally incoherent and idiotic qustions... again!

[BeholdTheTruth]

Originally posted by scribble


Number of times you've responded to me after saying you won't:

2

Looks like I win so far. Maybe you'd better put me on ignore if you want to keep to your promise of not responding to me. It's clear you can't control yourself.

And so this won't be distracting from your idiotic questions again, here's a link to the thread for the readers to follow:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870521277#post1870521277

PLEASE, someone, answer this man's totally incoherent and idiotic qustions... again!

2 :) :( And counting. Folks, after a hundred of these Randi may have to make up some more of these smilies.

[scribble]

Originally posted by BeholdTheTruth


2 :) :( And counting. Folks, after a hundred of these Randi may have to make up some more of these smilies.

3 and counting. I don't mind playing this game. I'll always be one count ahead of you!

And just for fun, consider: So far, the number of posts YOU have made distracting from YOUR OWN QUESTION equal the number you claim *I* have made.

Of course, you're not being consistent (there's a huge surprise :rolleyes: ) : you don't count the first time I linked to your idiotic questions, but you do count the other?

Well, just for the record, I have no intrest in distracting from your question. I just refuse to allow your bulls**t to go unchallenged.

So keep playing. I'll always win.

[BeholdTheTruth]

:)

[scribble]

Originally posted by BeholdTheTruth
:)

Seriously: You'd better put me on ignore. Every time you respond to me, you only weaken your own credibility (as if you had any to begin with :rolleyes: ).

You're only proving exacly how little meaning your words have in your own ears.

[Dancing David]

BBT, you are one sick puppy in the other thread, you keep assuming that you can percieve the total line segment from the inside of a two dimensional spce.

I asked you politely to retstate your lunacy, you have failed to do so because you can't.

restate your original argument, there are no diagonals on a curve.

You are so confused it isn't evn funny.

Please restate your argument in terms that simpletons like myself can comprehend.

[BeholdTheTruth]

Originally posted by Dancing David
BBT, you are one sick puppy in the other thread, you keep assuming that you can percieve the total line segment from the inside of a two dimensional spce.

I asked you politely to retstate your lunacy, you have failed to do so because you can't.

restate your original argument, there are no diagonals on a curve.

You are so confused it isn't evn funny.

Please restate your argument in terms that simpletons like myself can comprehend.

One least time for you and anyone here on this thread interested in something really cool, what I essentially said to Drkitten, who has indicated he could see what I said can be seen. If you can't also see it then I suggest that you take it up with him...

"The diagram to be found at http://theometry.org/arcof_thecov.gif is a generalized representation of a transaction taking place as seen over the course of the trans-action. Each straight line in the x-y plane represents how far the transaction has gone (1-x) and what is left to go (x), and how far the transaction has come (y) and what remains for the transaction to become completely finished (1-y). For example the transaction could be exchanging ten camels (1x) for one hundred sheep (1y), or changing one gallon of water (1x) into one quart of wine (1y), or transitioning from moving due east (1x) to moving due north (1y). Note I think you know what I mean, but you could certainly help me by advising me how to make what I am saying mathematically correct. As I am sure it is not.

"But what I am sure is that as one draws straight lines from "20% of x gone and 80% of x to go" to "20% of y has arrived and "80% of y to come" over the course of this transaction, a hyperbolic parabola curve (which of course is both literally and figuratively the course of this transaction) emerges. And what also emerges for one's viewing if one is open to it is a "plain" within the x-y plane -- a "plain" with some very weird properties.

"For example, if one "lies" at x = 1 and y = 0, and looks into the x-y plane, it is as if one is lying flat on the ground and looking across a flat plain. Whereas if one is standing a x=0 and y = 1, it is as if one is wholly looking down on this plain. Thus, while it is convenient to see and explain this plain as being a result of some conventional z axis perspective, I think that such a perspective itself loses information and matter of factly trivializes the fact of the matter, for example, that each straight's two line segments (on either side of where it hits the plain's virtual [as possibly related to a constantly changing vertex] horizon) are perpendicular to each other. Calling this just an optical illusion might be like saying that it's no big deal that an apple falls to the ground.

"Of course, I may be making a mountain out of a mole hill about this diagram and its curve and its plain, all of which lie in the x-y plane. OTOH, while most people obviously yawn and worse when they see it, every once in a while it resonates with the kind of mathematician or scientist who thrills at seeing something weird and "funny" in an exciting new way. I have been told that it can open one's eyes to a taken-for-granted portion of the complex plane that has a relation to the concept of possibility and the mathematics of probability (i.e, from 0 to 1), and I have been told that it can also some shed light on the part of the path of a heavenly body as it is passing by another heavenly body and goes from being free of to coming under the influence of the other's gravity and then goes from being under the influence of the other's gravity to becoming free of it again."

And now just for your, Dancing David...

I am reminded of the line that Winston Churchill used when a lady called him a drunk. He said something to the effect, "Madam, while I may be drunk tonight, I'll be sober tomorrow, but you will still be ugly," or something like that.

Dave, if I see something that is is not there, I'm talking like a lunatic. If I can see something and others can see it, but they poo-poo its importance, I am talking like a crank. If you can't even see what others have already said they also can see, your not being able to see it has nothing to do with me and everything to do with you. You seem to be at least as confused as I am. But I will be clear-thinking as soon as I get off this thread. Which is now.

[Doctor X]

Yeah . . . well . . . yeah . . . and . . . er . . . yeah . . . uh . . .

. . .

. . .

. . . what?

Suddenly does not feel so bad about posting that huge dismemberment of Radrock on the Murder thread. . . .

--J.D.