You introduced arguments based on physics, including but not limited to the work of Prof. Amdahl. People knowledgeable in physics gave you well-reasoned rebuttals, which you simply brushed off. You insisted instead that the professor's work -- as you interpreted it, and later tried to "correct" him on -- had to be accepted as represented. Your ability to understand the physics arguments you made, citing others as authority, and your ability to understand how the rebuttals work is therefore supremely relevant. And you assured us, despite your manifest lack of competence in basic Newtonian dynamics, that you were sufficiently educated in physics to understand the arguments and rebuttals. That contradiction requires additional details, whereupon you revealed that your "five years" of study in physics had been at a decidedly junior level -- not at, say, the college level where it's taught completely differently than to youngsters.
As much as you want to present to the world that JayUtah (as with LondonJohn, no intervening space) is picking on you inappropriately, the problem is and always has been your desire to be accepted as knowledgeable on topics you clearly can't demonstrate proficiency in. I'm perfectly happy not knowing a damn thing about the Yom Kippur War, or principles of chartered accountancy, or how to grow orchids. That others know far more about such things than I do doesn't scare me. When the conversation turns to them, I listen instead of talk. This doesn't seem to be how you want to go about life. I'm not questioning your choices, but in contexts like debates at ISF, bluffing has consequences.
