Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Reiku, Jan 10, 2012.
And obviously I cannot spell worth for shit today. If anyone saw my spelling mistake, I fixed it!
Most equations have time as the denominator of a fraction
velocity = [change in distance] / [change in time]
v = ds/dt or v = dx/dt
I have not yet seen where time is expressed AS THE change itself, where time IS the total derivative. In fact, there is no change without time.
T = [change of state]
T = that which changes - varies with respect to the invariant and unchanging
T = [variance of states] / c
Where c is the speed of light in vacuum.
Khan bumping this has made me bother to read the last few posts and, as usual, Reiku's developing his own version of events despite the evidence of how things happened a little differently being this very thread.
If you paid attention to what I said you'd notice I didn't accuse you of lifting that equation from Susskind. Firstly Susskind wouldn't write down something so completely and utterly nonsense. Secondly, I said that you should explain it properly so as to demonstrate it wasn't just a collection of LaTeX'd expressions you'd see Susskind write down and then you'd just jammed them together.
It would appear my first impression wasn't very far from the mark. It is mathematical gibberish and you couldn't explain it properly. Instead you just showed how you don't understand some of the most basic stuff in relativity.
Simply the fact other people can talk about matter fields properly doesn't mean you just jamming together different symbols and calling it a matter field makes your nonsense valid. I didn't say it was nonsense because it was referred to as a matter field, I said it was nonsense because it was mathematically nonsensical and then your 'explanation' of it was equally flawed.
If I posted "fklc ktlkhl Raovkl fklrla uuanlfg" and declared it poetry I wouldn't justify calling it poetry by pointing out other people write poetry and use the same symbols as I have.
You really need to learn to pay attention.
You can dress this up with whatever self deluded claims of understanding you want, the fact remains it is nonsense.
So not only are you unable to get vectors/scalars combined together properly or write down coherent mathematical formula, you're just pulling stuff out of your backside based on gut feelings (because it obviously isn't based on working knowledge) and trying to pass it off as something meaningful. It's only when you're pressed and pinned against the wall do you admit how completely unsupported it is.
You first posted it here, presenting it as if it were derived from something and set within a larger set of principles. No "I just made this up", you immediately start talking about applications of it. Here is the second time you talk about it. Again, not "I just made this up based on nothing", you continue talking about it's meaning and additional properties. You then follow that with additional elaboration about quantisation conditions on metrics, referring back to something to do with your equation.
If all of this is plucked from your backside one drunken evening why are you embellishing it? Why are you making claims about it which you cannot back up and which clearly do not follow from it or any of the 'derivation' you tried to fob James off with? Then you follow that with an unprompted 'derivation', trying to add further justification.
So we're several posts in and you haven't made a single mention of this being the result of a drunken evening and something people shouldn't pay attention to. Instead you have talked about it repeatedly without anyone even asking you about it. James and I haven't posted at all since your first post on the equation so you can't blame us for any of this.
Then you talk about 'referring back to your notes', implying you did some detailed calculations and work through to get your 'result', thus trying to further legitamise it. Of course wlminex wouldn't know actual physics if it gave him a prostate check so you're not going to be called out by him.
Then you make another post about it, despite no one asking you. This time it's to alter the expression, so as to make it seem like you'd rechecked some specific calculation and realised it had to be tweaked slightly. Too bad you couldn't even add in a limit properly.
Funny, for something you now claim you didn't want anyone to pay attention to you've brought it up more than half a dozen times without anyone asking, each time giving the impression you've working through various methodologies to derive and check it. And all without any posts from James or myself.
Only once James and I both make posts commented on its many problems do you suddenly come out with "Oh don't pay too much attention to that". So what happened to all those oscillating fields with metric quantisation conditions or Planck limits? Suddenly all this work you've been referring to, all your notes, disappear from consideration and it just becomes a post from some drunken evening.
You didn't make any statement about "Oh this might be BS, I'm just making stuff up" until you were forced into a corner. Before that it was oscillating fields, metrics, quantisation conditions, matter fields, tachyons, Einstein clocks, with notes you'd done. This isn't the first time you've done something like this. In fact it's the whole reason you're not welcome in the physics subforum. You present baseless stuff you've just fabricated as if it's viable. You present your heavily flawed knowledge as if its accurate. You present a generally dishonest picture of your 'work', be that understanding the mainstream or developing some laughable quantum theory and conciousness clap trap. Feel free to ask other people, similar comments have been made over in the open government forum's thread.
We shouldn't have to put your back against the wall for you to start admitting how baseless and unsupported what you post is. This is the alternative theories section, there's nothing wrong with posting your own claims provided you make it clear what is just made up nonsense and what you can actually justify. Being short with the truth isn't lying but its still dishonest.
It also just so happens that often the equations you post are, literally, precisely those Susskind writes down, notational errors and all. Or you refer to things by incorrect names in such a way as to mirror how something Susskind points at an equation while talking about a different one. I've already highlighted such examples.
If you're going to mindlessly copy at least be creative about it.
Separate names with a comma.