The Emergence of Crackpots from the SciForums Space-Time

And those who actually understand Einstein's theories are going to have to keep their mouths shut or face a lot of garbage from those who don't but who see Einstein as their sacred cow.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Relativity can look like it's flying when journals reject papers that disprove any claims to the contrary.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's not true pryzk. See, here's my proof.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1328816&postcount=54

I strive to be civil and to make a sincere contribution. Check back through the threads - when you see me getting fierce, look at the preceding post.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's it exactly, heliocentric. There's go to be somewhere where we can kick things around. Some people seem to see everything as some kind of threat, even when the ideas are clearly labelled as speculative.

I'm something of an Einstein fan actually! I wouldn't say I know all his theories inside out, but I like to think I've got a good grasp of relativity. I'm confident that I know why the main postulate of SR applies - the speed of light is always the same because light defines our time. And I'm confident that GR doesn't actually explain gravity. That's the important thing. People study something for years and think they understand it, but if they can't explain it succinctly to a layman, you have to wonder if they really do.

One thing that's surprised me a little is that I haven't had people saying "Sorry Farsight, you're wrong I'm afraid. Here's a better, clearer, more correct explanation of what energy actually is". Instead I tend to see rather too many posts that say "Farsight, you're a crackpot because nobody can explain mass". But we'll see.

Whatever happens with all this, I think the most surprising thing I've learned is the history. Einstein had his own curiosities, he didn't stop thinking about relativity when he turned out GR, his ideas kept evolving, and he didn't necessarily interpret things the way people do now. I think this is an interesting essay from Pete Brown:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0204044

 

I never said that. I referred to the fact that theories DON'T get proven, they are accepted as working models as the evidence agrees with the theory.

 

Yes, it is ALWAYS preceded by someone pointing out your misunderstandings. You get pissed because your assertions are shown to be so much nonsense. You get pissed because you think the last 100 years of accepted theory is wrong and you're right. You get pissed because people want to see your math, and you don't have any nor think you need to show any.

 

Farsight

Do you agree with Peter Browns paper?

 

I'm reading the essay by Brown and I have to wonder, when he says that Einstein's theories are accepted, how much those theories are accepted with no understanding of them. People simply take Einstein's word for it instead of learning the theories. Then of course Einstein's theories can't be wrong because they don't know enough about them to find out.

The fourth dimensional curvature at a given point can be a dimensionless number, but it also can be a number with a vector. That vector can be expressed for a given point, as this much acceleration this direction, but it will still be the instantaneous value of a curved geodesic. In other words, you can either say that you have 10 meters per second per second acceleration or you can say that you have 10 meters per second per second that direction. This actually establishes a firm mathematical relationship between the curvature in 4-space and the acceleration in 3-space. It's a lot easier to plot this out on a 2-dimensional plane so you can see what is going on.

Objects don't actually attract each other. They change the 3-space location of each other's future.

 

Now thats called being Religious.

 

Singularity, (Q) is correct. There is no such thing as a proven scientific theory. Scientific theories can be proven to be invalid but cannot be proven to be true.

 

It can be proven that an object dropped from a height near the earth's surface accelerates at 9.8 meters per second squared if that object has certain known characteristics. A theory that is modified to fit reality can be proven true within certain limits.

 

I wouldn't say I "agree" with it. I think it's interesting in the way it talks about shifting interpretations, but I don't assume it's authoritative and 100% correct in all aspects.

 

Listen Farsight, you arrogant little pissant, do not indulge your power fantasies by daring to patronise me. I routinely wipe your sort of the soles of my shoes.

Utter, irredeemable crap. You made a crass statement 'I don't believe in that time travel nonsense', or words to that effect. Where is the ****ing detailed, rational explanation in such a statement?

Previously I viewed your pedantic pontifications as colourful, amusing and simply wrong. Now I see you have an ego which is inflating faster than the Universe is alleged to be expanding.
1: You have failed completely to address why the perceptions on the matter of time travel by experienced physicists (including, I think, some Nobel laureates) are wrong. Simply stating you don't believe them because they are absurd and paradoxical will not cut the mustard. That is the reaction of a frightened school child who is out of his depth. Prove me wrong by providing a detailed refutation of the theory, not emoting without substance.
2: 'Catch 'em Young'. Very droll. Since I only became aware of the theoretical validity of time travel some fifteen years ago when I was already middle aged, and in full possession of my critical faculties, you appear to have made yet another boo boo. Not only is your grasp of physics apparently quite weak, but your character assessment skills are as deficient as your character.

1: I have no idea what time is. I don't think you do either.
2: Crackpot nonsense? The conclusions of the worlds leading physicists constitute crackpot nonsense because you say so? Give me a break. We've already established that you are a small minded, intellectually stunted, self deceiving flim flam man. Whose side should I choose in a debate? Flim flam Farsight, or the world physics community? Gee, that's a tough one.

 

>> it also means that anything and everything becomes public currency.

Just what do you guys think you are. The world if full of textbooks on science. Do you really think all your ramblings get slotted into the textbooks.

Public currency, so what, science is not consensus. Strange how an open discussion on science turns into "Oh think of the (idiot) children who read this". these children will never be scientists and if they learn even incorrect ideas here at least they have learnt something they never would have learnt. Brain exercise is GOOD> Questioning is better> Direct experience is best

Do you really think any of you has the last word on science... get real,.. here and on every other science forum on the Net... these are places to discuss ideas, far out or jaded ideas... IT IS ALL IDEAS, all fantasy... get it yet
Science is fantasy in action.
What is so precious ????????????????????

Why do y'all descend into protective mother F's and show unbelievably bad behaviour. Y'all metal mental poisoned IMO.

I for one have been banned from every science forum on the net... I am a scientist.... so you figure...hey I dare to be controversial, I dare to push science to the limits.... just too far for the arrogantly ignorant morons that infest forums such as this (moderators as well) You know a little, therefore you know everything....... LOL a joke, but way too serious for me to take it lightly.... thus this post.

But y'all are the majority, and the rudest people I have ever thought possible.

I don't post anymore..... wonder why....

I really do not think anyone here really knows what science actually is.

Go, show me I am wrong.
omegafour.com

 

I would be happy to give such a demonstration. Perhaps you could set some stipulations, preferably within the topics of evolution, abiogenesis, planetary formation, or geology.

You made some pertinent points regarding manners. I make no apologies for roundly condemning FarSight's narrow minded arrogance. I do so not to protect the 'innocent' who might read his (probably) incorrect ideas; not to shake him into an awareness of how consumately foolish he is being; not to present an alternative world view; but simply because such self righteous arrogance offends me. Had he said 'I know conventional interpretation of Einstein's theories permit time travel, but I reject it on philosophical grounds, and upon my own interpretation of physical reality.' then I should have said, fair enough. But he chose instead to denigrate minds very likely superior to his own who have declared time travel is theoretically possible.
Such mindless behaviour does not merit a polite response, therefore I did not deliver one.
In contrast you have managed to be both passionate, committed, robust and vigorous in your contribution, without being offensive. That does merit a polite and measured response. I believe that is what I have delivered.

 

URI, I utterly empathize with your post above.

Ophiolite, LOL. You want crackpot? This is crackpot.

THE UNIVERSE MACHINE

Here we have your respected scientists talking about a machine that knows the answer before you put in the question. LOL. This isn't The Emperor's New Mind, this is The Emperor's New Clothes. You actually swallow this stuff? Ye Gods. Try thinking for yourself for a change, and try to stay civil, reasoning, and logical. All your insults are no substitute for going through my essays and trying to find some flaw in my logic. I challenge you to do it. You won't be able to. It's only a toy model, but it flies, and you can't break it. You want to understand Wave/particle duality? Read MASS EXPLAINED. You want to understand why GR doesn't break down at a black hole singularity? It's because there are none, because they're frozen stars. Come on, have a crack at it. If you can. Be a scientist, not a groupie.

RELATIVITY+

Remember Ben who started this thread was calling me names? Well, he hadn't read any more than the titles. LOL! And now he probably has, he's gone quiet. OK, he might be calling me mistaken, misguided, or a maverick. But not crackpot. Not any more.

So let me copy your post so you can dwell on it at your leisure, later.

 

Clearly these scientists are not respected by you. Ironic, isn't it. Here you are appealing to your readers to adopt an open minded approach to your ideas, while simultaneously condemning such an approach by intellects doubtless superior to your own. So why should I favour the speculations of a non-entity with more credence than those of individuals who have proven their quality?

Don't attempt such dissembling with me. I am challenging your dismissal of the theoretical possibility of time travel. Your introduction of another topic, even though it impinges on related issues such as causality, is itself an irrelevance.
I note, and ask interested parties to note, that you have still avoided defending your wholesale criticism of the concept of time travel, preferring to indulge in further attacks on innovative thinking.
[On a side note, you ask 'You actually swallow this stuff?'. You do see how intellectually dishonest such a question is, do you not? I have never made any remarks about this strawman topic you have pulled out of a hat and therefore resent you assigning me an opinion on it ex vacuo. I will say this, via the words of J.B.S. Haldane: 'The Universe is not only queerer than we imagine, but queerer than we can imagine.']

Here is my logic: please feel free to point out the flaw in it.
A: There are only so many hours in the day.
B: Invest them wisely.
c: When someone unknown arrogantly dismisses the thoughts, conclusions and theories of established thinkers, as opposed to questioning said thoughts, etc, it is unlikely that they have much to contribute.
D: Unlikely is not the same as impossible, but in view of points A and B it is generally best to ignore them.

In the matter of relativity and quantum mechanics I know my limitations and am quite happy with my groupie status. I shall reserve my scientific leanings for the important stuff like abiogenesis and planetary formation.

No, I'm quite sure he is calling you something else entirely.

Since my post is to be found further up the page the only reason i can think for you quoting it in its entirety is a suspicion that I might come in and amend it. If I placed any value on your judge of character I would be offended.

 

Just don't try to learn any physics from it.

 

No.

Acceleration is a four-vector.

 

You should totally make this your signature.