Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: Baez agrees with Nemesis & Al? Hillman wonders.
Replies: 13   Last Post: Dec 4, 2001 1:15 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 90
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: Baez agrees with Nemesis & Al? Hillman wonders.
Posted: Nov 29, 2001 5:12 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <9u65db$klc$1@nntp1.u.washington.edu>,
bwreed@u.washington.edu (Bryan Reed) wrote:

>In article <p2uc0u83dnodq43vi9ilvfmjp1fca3hudl@4ax.com>,
>Nemesis <Nemesis@nospam.com> wrote:

>>Anybody who claims that math explains physics is either a moron or a
>>con artist. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that the amount of math
>>one uses in one's "explanations" of nature is directly proportional to
>>one's propensity for deception and ass-kissing, and a lack of
>>understanding of what is really going on. Chris Hillman falls into
>>that category.

>Typical of someone who doesn't understand any math.

You're making my point. One needs math to explain math. A good example
is Newton's gravity equation. To understand the equation, one needs to
understand some rudimentary math but does the equation explain
gravity? Of course not. But then again your response could be
indicative of two things or both: either you're kissing Hillman's ass
or you think this is a good way to discredit me.

>>Unless an explanation can be understood by the average person, you can
>>be certain the explainer hasn't got a clue. I guess this covers the
>>majority of the pompous asses who populate the higher echelons of the
>>physics community.

>Typical of someone who doesn't have a clue. How many people in the
>"higher echelons of the physics community" do you actually know?

I know two personally and neither one of them subscribe to the chicken
feather voodoo physics that passes for science these days. I mean
voodoo Star Trek nonsense like spacetime warps, quantum computing,
parallel universes, wormholes, time travel through wormholes and
similar crackpottery.

>you're bashing is a stereotype, not real people.

You mean Kip Thorne, David Deutsch and Stephen Hawking are not real
people? You may have a point. 'Real mules' is more like it.

>And I have yet to see a physics explanation from you that makes any sense
>at all, much less that could be "understood by the average person."

It takes an average person. The know-it-alls and the pompous asses
never get it.

>You have all the marks of someone who wants to feel intellectually
>superior without actually putting out the effort to learn anything.

Who wants to learn any physics that leads up to time travel? Sure,
crackpots and con artists like you love this sort of crap. I'll pass.


Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2016. All Rights Reserved.