The Fractal Nature Of Geometry & Benoit B. Mandelbrot

I did not say that AN does not have his supporters. I just said that AN’s obnoxious arrogance discourages young minds from an interest in science. My approach is to bring in people who have mustered the courage to stop lurking and post some ideas they have been playing with. Those formative minds need to be encouraged and focused on good science so that they keep their interest and learn why their ideas need shaping.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What you are advocating is not science. As I have explained to you before, science is not a bunch of people sitting in a room going "hey, I wonder what happens if we do this." Science takes a simple observation like the speed of light is a constant in all inertial frames and finds what the consequences are. You are trying to put the consequences first - it doesn't work.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The trouble is that having something explained by someone who doesn't understand science in the first place is a joke. Why have you not participated in this thread since it was inspired by you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The people that assesed me for my degree thought I could do science. The people that accepted me onto my PhD course thought I could understand science. The people that pay me to do science think I can do science. The people that publish my articles on science think I can do science. However, they must all be wrong since you say I can't right?

I'm waiting to see where that thread goes. So far it seems to be going nowhere.

 

And yet you believe you are the person to 'guide' the development of QWC, which attempts to start off where mainstream stops? So you're going to use your ignorance of all the known universe to help guide you and your cohorts describing/explaining/hypothesising about the unknown universe?

Yes, because the best place to start expanding knowledge is to have none yourself....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

QWC acts as a filter on the Internet just like a Pseudoscience forum does on forums like this. It brings to the surface various deep seated views that drive the threads and posts on a science forum.

If you are interested in science whether from a layman’s view of as a professional, you have opinions about what a science discussion forum is.

If you look at the structure of a forum you will see that science topics are broken down into a wide range from hard science to pseudoscience. There is a reason for the structure and that is to provide a forum for all of the various views about science where topics are placed according to the various categories. Often, Pseudoscience is not even a part of the science section as is the case at SciForums.

There is another reason for the forum structure and that is to provide an advanced forum for hard science like Physics and Math, or Astronomy and Cosmology for high level discussions and where professionals often lurk to answer questions. If a thread is started that is not valid science according to the guidelines, it is moved by the moderator to an appropriate forum.

Pseudoscience is one of the popular places to put questions, half-baked theories and ideas where the discussion crosses the line between science consensus and speculation. Pseudoscience often gets the threads started by young people who have not learned the basics of science, who have pet theories that are half-baked, or who have speculative ideas that go beyond where science can go when applying the scientific method.

How people are treated in the various science forums should reflect the level of science, i.e. hard science topics or Pseudoscience. I view Pseudoscience as a place to encourage science, to recognize the ideas with understanding, to let people talk and discuss those ideas from the perspective that science starts with ideas, and most of all to help that individual focus on the basics of science that their ideas show a lack of.

It should be easy work. But it isn’t accomplished by referring to science that the individual obviously doesn’t understand and then saying they have been “told” they are wrong and yet they still hang around. There is a huge difference between working with a newcomer and “telling them they are wrong” and then starting the character assignation staring with mild ad homs and piling on by those who are charged up by that activity.

Look at the difference between how various people deal with new Pseudoscience threads and you will see how the different approaches to treading new comers pays off.

 

Is Pseudoscience about making claims you never back up, wildly proclaiming you've got simple answers to huge, difficult questions and then being allowed to ardently ignore any and all requests you show your evidence or method? Or is it a place where people are welcome to make claims which go against the grain of mainstream work provided they can put a little justification to it.

Now if every thread here was "I have issue with general relativity!" and then a lengthy explaination of their mathematical or philosophical views in regards to GR and rational, informed discussion I'd have no problem. Yes, something does need to replace GR if we're to move into quantum gravity. Yes, if you've got a well developed concept, with some mathematical structure to it and you can put forth a list of experiments to distinguish between GR and your work wonderful. But if you're just going to say "GR is wrong, physicists are retarded, I've got the answer, it came to me during a peyote trip!", not so wonderful.

As Prom keeps saying you aren't doing science. You can do science and not be mainstream. You can do science and go against the mainstream. You haven't.

Don't mistake our comments you aren't doing anything worthwhile for the impression noone can. The common factor is you, not us.

 

Like I said, “FYI I have learned that you never intend to discuss anything with me. You have said you like to make fun of me, you said you don't like me, you have used a variety of ad homs to describe me, and you say I am your entertainment. If I respond to you in a discussion mode you always revert to one of those behaviors and pretend you have slapped me down. That leaves the issue of following me around to perform those objectives; that is trolling.”

“I don’t give any value to what you say because of that. If you could give me the golden keys to Tibia I would be out of luck because I would not trust you enough to discuss anything with you. You have a low character that is well known on the forum and just because I deal with your obnoxious arrogance by pointing it out to you, you troll where ever I post.”

I hope the gold key to Tibia wasn’t in that post because I stopped reading at, “Is Pseudoscience about making claims you never back up…”

 

Ah, he's back in his possum defence mechanism. If he just locks up and ignored things, maybe those things aren't there.

Yes, yes, keep just copy and pasting and maybe magically you'll end up doing science. That's the spirit!

 

A post like this goes unmentioned: "If you look at the structure of a forum you will see that science topics are broken down into a wide range from hard science to pseudoscience. There is a reason for the structure and that is to provide a forum for all of the various views about science where topics are placed according to the various categories. Often, Pseudoscience is not even a part of the science section as is the case at SciForums.

There is another reason for the forum structure and that is to provide an advanced forum for hard science like Physics and Math, or Astronomy and Cosmology for high level discussions and where professionals often lurk to answer questions. If a thread is started that is not valid science according to the guidelines, it is moved by the moderator to an appropriate forum.

Pseudoscience is one of the popular places to put questions, half-baked theories and ideas where the discussion crosses the line between science consensus and speculation. Pseudoscience often gets the threads started by young people who have not learned the basics of science, who have pet theories that are half-baked, or who have speculative ideas that go beyond where science can go when applying the scientific method.

How people are treated in the various science forums should reflect the level of science, i.e. hard science topics or Pseudoscience. I view Pseudoscience as a place to encourage science, to recognize the ideas with understanding, to let people talk and discuss those ideas from the perspective that science starts with ideas, and most of all to help that individual focus on the basics of science that their ideas show a lack of.

It should be easy work. But it isn’t accomplished by referring to science that the individual obviously doesn’t understand and then saying they have been “told” they are wrong and yet they still hang around. There is a huge difference between working with a newcomer and “telling them they are wrong” and then starting the character assignation staring with mild ad homs and piling on by those who are charged up by that activity.

Look at the difference between how various people deal with new Pseudoscience threads and you will see how the different approaches to treading new comers pays off."

... while posters come out in support of the people who prefer to squash young minds and send them off to religion. Go figure.

 

Pseudo science is a place where people can post work which is their own or not part of the mainstream view, but which the poster is trying to say "Hey, why isn't this part of science, I think it's good!". A fair assessment of one of the purposes of Pseudo?

Now, if you want something to eventually elevate to the level of being taken seriously by scientists you need to show that what you're pushing meets various criteria, are you making claims you can't back up?

It's entirely possible to have no quantitative framework and to talk about new ideas, non-mainstream ones. This is done by realising that you don't have 'simple explainations', you don't have results, you don't have much to go on, you are just starting out on your work.

But you and people like CSS aren't doing that. Look at CSS, he claims he's got simple explainations to dark energy but can't describe dark energy, can't provide experiments to test his work, can't provide anything other than vague concepts and poorly explained arm wavings. So why make those claims?

CSS claim : I've a model of the universe built using helix fractals
Us : You're wrong because a helix isn't a fractal. Can you provide anything to back up your claims?
CSS : You're mean, go away!

CSS makes a claim he knows he can't back up on something he's easily demonstrably wrong on and we're the bad people for correcting him? Should we just ignore him and let him make claims which involve "A helix as a fractal" when it's categorically not valid? Why come here if you're unwilling to be corrected on anything? Seriously, why do you come to a forum if you cry whenever anyone corrects you? You refuse to accept any correction, why? Do you believe you're perfect and no one can possibly be able to correct you? Given you ignore any and all corrections this must be the case, yet you call us egotistical for correcting you. It's our fault you aren't perfect but you wish you were?!

Come on, explain why it's egotistical of us to correct you on simple facts in areas you know nothing about and we do. Why is it egotistical for us to say "That isn't true" when you say something which isn't true? Why is it not egotistical of you to make claims you're doing work much much better than what you are actually doing? Why isn't it egotistical of CSS to claim he's got a simple explaination for dark energy when he knows nothing about GR or quantum mechanics? Prom and I do know things about that but we don't make such grand claims, yet we get called egotistical?! :shrug:

I want you to clarify what behaviour you do and don't think is egotistical and why. And I want you to clarify why you're above the scientific methodology and review that other people trying to do science have to submit to. You're trying to get people to believe your work is worthwhile but you complain when we see if it meets basic scientific criteria. Why? If you don't want to do science, why not post in the religion forum?

 

Like I said, “FYI I have learned that you never intend to discuss anything with me. You have said you like to make fun of me, you said you don't like me, you have used a variety of ad homs to describe me, and you say I am your entertainment. If I respond to you in a discussion mode you always revert to one of those behaviors and pretend you have slapped me down. That leaves the issue of following me around to perform those objectives; that is trolling.”

“I don’t give any value to what you say because of that. If you could give me the golden keys to Tibia I would be out of luck because I would not trust you enough to discuss anything with you. You have a low character that is well known on the forum and just because I deal with your obnoxious arrogance by pointing it out to you, you troll where ever I post.”

I hope the gold key to Tibia wasn’t in that post because I stopped reading at, “Now, if you want something to eventually elevate to the level of being taken seriously”


The fixation of a few posters on me personally is what keeps me interested; my peanut gallery so to speak.

 

You think overly highly of yourself. You're one of the biggest posters in Pseudo and you make huge things when people correct you. As a result, people like Prom and I explain our reasons and try to engage you in discussion. I've asked you relevant, direct questions and you post a copy and paste which amounts to an admission you do think that no one claiming you're wrong could possibly be worth listening to, so you don't bother to read. You claim I don't wish to engage you in discussion yet this thread is proof the refusal to discuss things is not coming from me.

You say we've got fixations with you, yet we post elsewhere and on other things. You PM me to complain when I correct you and how it might put others off.

You post something I have something relevant to say to, I'll reply. You keep making accusations against me so I explain myself. I try to engage you in discussion, you refuse. :shrug: I'm honestly wondering if you think you're somehow taking the high road, doing all the things you accuse me of, and more.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Like I said, “FYI I have learned that you never intend to discuss anything with me. You have said you like to make fun of me, you said you don't like me, you have used a variety of ad homs to describe me, and you say I am your entertainment. If I respond to you in a discussion mode you always revert to one of those behaviors and pretend you have slapped me down. That leaves the issue of following me around to perform those objectives; that is trolling.”

“I don’t give any value to what you say because of that. If you could give me the golden keys to Tibia I would be out of luck because I would not trust you enough to discuss anything with you. You have a low character that is well known on the forum and just because I deal with your obnoxious arrogance by pointing it out to you, you troll where ever I post.”

I hope the gold key to Tibia wasn’t in that post because I stopped reading at, “You think overly highly of yourself”


If I can ever stand to get all of the way through one of your posts I will reply to the content. Until then you need to learn a few things that you obviously are having trouble with like what a fixation is.

 

Your commitment to remaining ignorant is truly breathtaking.

 

Hmm, I think that is untrue but you would know.

 

Yeah, it's like he got to a question where he didn't want to admit the answer because it would mean he's admitting hypocrisy so he shut his eyes and stuck his fingers in his ears.

Yeah, because every thread you post in, so do I and I never post in threads where you aren't. Other than most of them, there's plenty of threads on the first page of Pseudo you (and CSS) have replied to but I haven't or I've largely ignored your posts. And there's plenty of threads I've replied to which you haven't. I think this is just like the case where you told me to read up on the property of matter, you're the one who needs to do some reading. You made a big song and dance on this issue, in multiple threads, you're the one who PM'd me, you're the one who can't engage in discussions.

Each time you accuse me of something you just pile on the hypocrisy by doing it yourself. :shrug: Seems a little odd. I suppose it's no skin off my nose, your ignorance is no hinder to myself. As time passes you go nowhere, which pretty much proves my point for me.

 

AN, you might want to change the attribution of the second quotation in your last post.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'll give him a minute.

 

On second thought ...

Like I said, “FYI I have learned that you never intend to discuss anything with me. You have said you like to make fun of me, you said you don't like me, you have used a variety of ad homs to describe me, and you say I am your entertainment. If I respond to you in a discussion mode you always revert to one of those behaviors and pretend you have slapped me down. That leaves the issue of following me around to perform those objectives; that is trolling.”

“I don’t give any value to what you say because of that. If you could give me the golden keys to Tibia I would be out of luck because I would not trust you enough to discuss anything with you. You have a low character that is well known on the forum and just because I deal with your obnoxious arrogance by pointing it out to you, you troll where ever I post.”

I hope the gold key to Tibia wasn’t in that post because I stopped reading at, “Yeah,…”

If I can ever stand to get all of the way through one of your posts I will reply to the content. Until then you need to learn a few things that you obviously are still having trouble with like what a fixation is.

The point is you have to become a student of your enemy to bring change. I am trying to change the forum and people who use shock and awe tactics don’t fit with the changes. When a few people stand up against your hateful twisted trolling rhetoric then change begins. I am standing up alone right now while you have the support of the peanut gallery.