This new equation might finally unite the two biggest theories in physics, claims physicist

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by paddoboy, Aug 20, 2016.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    And that's why I posted the views at post 61:
    And of course no one worth his salt will say that they categorically do not exists, agreed?


     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. expletives deleted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    @ James R:

    Not so, by any stretch. Paddoboy from day one of my joining set in immediately telling me who I should or should not converse with and how, trying to prejudice me against other members based on his own personal likes and disikes and (as it turned out0, on his many misundertandings on the science and inimical interactions with the person based on beliefs and other personal things irrelevant to actual science points under discussion. Whereas I have never done that or would ever presume to do that, because I just want on science fair discourse without his usual personal attacks and irrelevances tactics. So right from the start, the difference in character and intent between paddoboy and myself could not be more evident for anyone who is aware of all the facts re that.

    I assure you that that distinction was always understood by me. Perhaps it is the assumptions brought by the moderators reading my reports that gave them the impression that was not already nderstood by me? But, be that as it may.

    Insulting and other personal irrelevant comments, mischaracterizations, misattributions is exactly what paddoboy has done time and again, across many threads. Moreover, he posts repetitively and gratuitously his personal opinions and assertions and appeals to authority which only serve to bury the narrative in his blizzard os distractiion from the actual point and narrative of the discussion. You've seen that and warned him before for that and more. To no avail it seems, since it seems to be quickly forgotten by you and other moderators when it comes to excusing the instigator while advising the reporter of that behavior.

    It's not a question of correcting, its a question of pointing out that his blizzard of bald, irrelevant personal and attacks and opinions have nothing to do with the science being discussed. And when he is asked to keep on point and on science, he just accelerates the rate of RE-posting his irrelevant, opinionated and personal beliefs which were already made clear and didn't have to be repeated ad nauseam; or accelerates his dragging into an exchange other people who are not party to the relevant exchange, also other issues from other threads which are off-topic and only confuse and bury the actual on point discussion.

    Again, please be assured that such distinctions are no problem for me to discern. Perhaps you would be better to direct that enquiry to paddoboy, since he has demonstrated repeatedly that he misses subtle (and even many cases even obvious) distinctions not only in the rules but also in the science issues being discussed (and even in his own linked references and quotes).

    The "correctness" i am interested in is the behavior against the rules and against the discussion on science narrative. That is my only concern. The "correctness" of whatever on science comment or point is, and always has been for me, something which I have always left to the discussion itself (which would be better and more clear if paddoboy's personal irrelevances and assertions and appeals to authority were kept out of it).

    I trust that subtle but important distinction, as to which "correctness" I am interested in, has been clarified for you and other moderators who may read any Future Reports from me (which I hope and trust, after this discussion with you, will turn out to be rare or even non-existent).

    CONTINUED NEXT POST
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2016
    dumbest man on earth likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Well the rantings of anyone on any blog can be taken with a grain of salt when compared to a scientific paper. and again please note his use of the word [probably]
    But at least you have tried with links and references, to invalidate what we generally know as factual: That's a start.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Good.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. expletives deleted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST TO JAMES R:

    I am only interested in the case between me and paddoboy as reported. Any 'general impression' upon which moderators are currently working is not helpful when the actual situation is being misunderstood due to generalizations of this kind which should be anathema to the process of fair adjudication of the instance at hand. Maybe one should stop to consider the possibility that, perhaps, it is such generalizations based impressions generating not-fully-informed moderator actions, that have exacerbated and allowed the paddoboy problem to grow such a pass that almost every interesting thread and discussion is buried and derailed as many have commented upon and even you have noticed and warned him about in the recent past (to no corrective effect it seems)?

    Yes, I understand the difficulty and the approach. But consider the "common denominator" INSTIGATOR of the reported problems (in the science threads which I am only interested in)? I have tried the polite and tolerant approach; even the ignoring approach. But the problem of irrelevance, attacks and off-topic material burying and derailing any discussion I am interested in is becoming more than just the 'ordinary' case. Sure both parties to constant bickering should be brought to heel; but the case here is that I DON"T WANT TO be involved in paddoboy's bickering instigations. He posts micharacterizations and inciting stuff (like invoking gods and demons etc when I am an ATHEIST and a scientist interested only in the science; and not interested in his personal distractions and agendas which almost invariably posts across threads; and not in his assertions and appeals to authority which he admitted to often not misunderstanding the subtleties of and so just expresses ad nauseam his 'belief in their inerrancy etc while because he patently cannot provide a cogent scientific argument of his own on the scientific point).


    That is not what I was trying to convey. My point was that I have avoided engaging in Private Conversations with paddoboy precisely because of his habit of mischaracterizing and bringing in personal issues which are irrelevant to the thread. And also because from day one he tried to prejudice me against his perceived 'enemies'. That immediately identified him to me as someone who should be avoided at all costs when it comes to Private Conversations which if he (and in keeping with character so far demonstrated, likely will) mischaracterizes then will require me in defense to ask moderators to post same in open forum to clear myself of any misimpression given by him. It was to AVOID having to ask moderators to intervene re Private Conversations with him that I avoid going that route with him. I trust that has clarified for you what I meant?




    Of course I am aware of that situation; however, I sometimes get the impression that someone 'on staff' with whom paddoboy is on 'firndly terms' with may be feeding him info about what is going on (and is thus helping undermine reports against him? I have to trust that is not actually the case). But that is an impression gained after seeing paddoboy 'slapped on the wrist' while others have been warned and even banned for breaking the rules so often and in so many ways, in total disregard of your 'warnings' to him.

    Just because "he makes exactly the same complaints" doesn't make those complaints supportable in fact. My complaints about him are about the very things you have warned him about before (without effect). Perhaps, instead of treating complaints 'just the usual two-way tactical wars etc', they may for a little while at least be considered on their individual merits that may differentiate better which complaints are frivolous and tactical, and which complaints have substance; for that is the only way to avoid moderators letting the situation get out of hand and encouraging the INSTIGATOR in most cases (at least in the science threads which I am only interested in).

    Not at all, I give credit as far as I can, knowing also that moderators are human, and general impressions combined with limited time or patience for deeper investigation into the full background to reported matter, may lead to moderator action/inaction which may have exacerbated the paddoboy problem which has become the most common denominator behind 'wasting' your time when it could be so easily avoided if timely and firm action was taken which would encourage the INSTIGATOR to desist doing so (again and again).


    FURTHER CONTINUED NEXT POST
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2016
    dumbest man on earth likes this.
  8. expletives deleted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    CONTINUED FROM TWO PREVIOUS POSTS TO JAMES R:


    I am not surprised. Why should I be? That is part of the 'tactics' which I am complaining about that is used by others to attack and disparage others. That is not what I do. That is what others may do, but that's not my problem unless the moderators don't act to prevent such tactical character assassination based NOT on science but on the tactician's own personal issues which I want no part of, and have been trying to avoid by sticking to on science discussion unless and until paddoboy introduces his personal and irrelevant stuff which sometimes needs to be tackled right away lest the "wrong impression' he wishes to create in the mind of the reader/moderator may become difficult to dispel later (as has been the situation lately re impressions about me which have been insinuated over time by paddoboy's tactical mischaracterizations).

    I took it at face value as intended by you in good faith. I trust that that sensible approach obtains in future in the minds of all the moderators. Thanks.

    I have often tried to avoid engaging his trolling etc behavior; you know this full well by now I trust. However it becomes unavoidable when my tolerance and politeness keeps being thrown back in my face and moderator inaction only further emboldens and magnifies his personally motivated and unwarranted irrelevant intrusions into my discussions with others. It is not a case of "he did it first", it is a case of "he does it time and again first", and every time I have tried to avoid it he does it more. I've tried every which way reasonable to NOT get dragged into his tactical crap. But to no avail. Perhaps if you stopped looking at this as the usual 'it takes two to tango' two-party problem in my case, you will see that, while it may be the case with others, I have tried NOT to engage with his behavior, hence my past reports in lieu of responding to his "doing it first" instigations.

    Yes, it has been of much help to make clear what is and is not the situation at least as I am concerned. Nevertheless, it has also not yet helped much to solve the main 'problem' which/who appears to be the main common denominator 'doing it first' these situations.

    I trust some good will come from our frank exchange on the matter, James R. Thank you for all your efforts, either way.
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2016
    dumbest man on earth likes this.
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    And yet you saw the need to come into this thread which I started, on some matter re wormholes that you have absolute no support for your stance and simply chose to again and again and again and again, to argue against reputable scientific articles and papers, and the known speculative nature of them.
    Just one more comment before I butt out of your's and James " talk"

    In my mind its obvious what you are trying to do.
    I've been watching you with your fairy tale stories about what you believe I do and what I don't do.
    At this time, its water off a duck's back, as any fairy tale should be.
    Let me state it again in no uncertain terms:
    This is simply the question of whether physicists believe categorically that wormholes do not exist: You are unable to show anything as yet to support that, and neither has dmoe.
    Let's get it clear again, before you once again, run away with some wrong interpretation of what I am saying.
    No physicists has categorically said that wormholes do not exist. Fact!
    Other relevant facts as much as you prefer not to hear them, is that many of your "ideas""opinions"on 21st century cosmology are just plain wrong...DM, gravitational waves, cosmological redshift are three that come to mind. rpenner has issued you warnings and asked you to calm down and also pointed out errors in your assumptions, so to have schneibster, PhysBang and Dave, but none could sway you one iota.
    yet strangely, like the current issue, you could support nothing of what you said, with any reputable links or citations.
    Back on the current debate, and just as James has said: wormholes are a hypothetical, or as dmoe prefers, science fiction outcome and prediction of GR.
    They have never been seen and we have absolutely no evidence for their existence.
    But at one time we also had no evidence for BH,s spacetime curvature, DM, gravitational waves, and now all are accepted and/or confirmed within the defining aspect of what a scientific theory is.
    So please, don't stand/sit there and say wormholes categorically do not exist.
    Unless you can support such certainty with some reputable citation or link.
    We just cannot at this time, be 100%sure...its as simple as that.
     
  10. expletives deleted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    CONTINUED STILL FURTHER as a 'PS' to MY PREVIOUS POSTS TO JAMES R:

    PS: James, here is the latest example, just posted now, of paddoboy mischaracterizing my original contribution to the discussion of this thread OP 'idea' from Susskind:

    If you will read my original post, James, you will see my valid observations which have also been made by mainstream fact and understandings re the OP 'idea'. The point I raised was that GR itself has not actually predicted wormholes, but only "certain extensions" of GR by mathematicians have 'implied' them; but they were not interested in physical constraints and domains of applicability which GR is limited to if GR is to be considered valid in physical terms (hence they use the term "Certain Extensions to GR"; as most genuine physicists recognize, even in paddoboy's own references).

    So my 'stance' has always been one of valid scientific skepticism as dictated by the scientific method and its principles of objectivity and relevance on the science at issue.

    Whereas paddoboy's repeated reposting of his irrelevant, unscientific beliefs and unwarranted mischaracterizations and personal attacks, have turned this into then usual kind of paddoboy-initiated mess with confused and conflated personal and unscientific assertions from him.

    Sure, the 'philosophical stance' paddoboy takes----(ie, that nothing can be 'categorically' be said to be 'impossible')-----is OK in that context; but that is all it is at this stage, a philosophical stance; since the GR and the Quantum theory and physical considerations I alluded to strongly and unequivocally indicate that wormholes, central singularities/naked singularities in black holes (which do exist), entanglement of black holes across vast space distances and the "exotic energy" needed for wormholes, can IN FACT NOT 'exist' other than in science fiction/fantasy speculations which even the mainstream physicists recognize are so far just that and no more.

    The burden of proof is on the Susskind OP speculations, not on me (as paddoboy seems to think, hence his posting of unreasonable and unrelenting irrelevant personal beliefs and attacks when I merely point out the scientific requirement of burden of proof).

    I only posted this because it was forced upon me by paddoboy's continuing mischaracterization tactics based on his own misunderstandings and personal/emotional way of 'discussing' what should be dispassionately considered scientific points at issue. I trust your own impression, James, is much more in tune with what actually happened; which is distinctly different from paddoboy's demonstrably mischaracterized version above. Thanks.

    I will answer your on-science post addressed to me asap, James; in my next post I hope. Until then. Best.
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2016
    dumbest man on earth likes this.
  11. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    Again with the puerile "Emojis", paddoboy. Respect!

    Would you be so kind as to directly Cite or Quote the Post authored by myself where I : "tried with links and references, to invalidate what we generally know as factual", paddoboy?

    All I have done is Post Honest, Earnest and Intelligent input from an Educated and Informed Real Scientist, who by all indications, actually knows the true Science that is being discussed in this Thread.
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Most reputable physicists know the "true science" dmoe, and none so far have said that wormholes do not categorically exist. Including your own educated real scientist.
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Any reference citations or links to support that?
    Only certain extensions!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    C'mon expletive deleted that's simply a cop out.
    It's either part of GR or its not.
    And of course just to reiterate and make clear where you are coming from, you also dispute apparently BH's gravitational waves, cosmological eredshifts, DM and a myriad of other accepted scenarios re 21st century cosmology.
    That's OK, refute and deny all you like. But you are unable to support any of your stories.
    [PS: I'm counting the number of times you have said "paddoboy" and for every time, I'm giving $5 to my local surf lifesaving charity]
     
  14. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    paddoboy, why must you constantly mis-characterize this discussion as : "This is simply the question of whether physicists believe categorically that wormholes do not exist:"
    Why not characterize it as : "This is simply the question of whether physicists believe categorically that wormholes do exist:"
    If, as you often parrot, paddoboy, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", then why do you not produce or Cite where any Scientist has ever Proclaimed "categorically that wormholes do exist" and has provided the "Extraordinary Evidence" to support that Proclamation?
    ...
    Present your evidence, paddoboy, that I "prefer" wormholes to be "science fiction".
    Please Cite or Quote any Post authored by me where I state : I prefer wormholes to be science fiction.
     
  15. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    As you so often state : "much ado about nothing..."
    And, again, with the intentional mis-characterization, paddoboy...
    Please Cite the Scientist that has "categorically" stated that "wormholes" do indeed "Exist" in "Physical Reality" and has produced the "Extraordinary" Physical "Evidence required" to back up that "Extraordinary Claim".
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Yep Give that man a cigar!
    Because that is not true.
    ...Because most do not, despite your own parroting.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    And possibly despite your parroting, no one is making any claim with regards to wormholes, other than that its a hypothetical prediction of GR, and we cannot be 100% sure either way as to their existence or otherwise.

    Did I say that?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Let me put it again in big bold letters.
    No physicists will ever categorically claim that wormholes do not exist.
    The answer is simply at this stage, we do not know!
     
  17. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    What is Post #93?
    There is no cogent response of any kind in the Post...
    There is absolutely no attempt to actually engage in an Honest discussion...
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    ...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I've seen many in the past trying to engage you in meaningful discussions including Kittamaru and Trippy.
     
  19. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    ...puerile "emojis", paddoboy. "Respect"!

    Again, paddoboy, would you be so kind as to backup what you have authored :
    1.) - in response to your Post #83 : Would you be so kind as to directly Cite or Quote the Post authored by myself where I : "tried with links and references, to invalidate what we generally know as factual", paddoboy?

    2.) - in response to your Post #86 : why do you not produce or Cite where any Scientist has ever Proclaimed "categorically that wormholes do exist" and has provided the "Extraordinary Evidence" to support that Proclamation?

    3.) - also in response to your Post #86 : Present your evidence, paddoboy, that I "prefer" wormholes to be "science fiction".
    Please Cite or Quote any Post authored by me where I state : I prefer wormholes to be science fiction.

    4.) - in response to your Post #89 : Please Cite the Scientist that has "categorically" stated that "wormholes" do indeed "Exist" in "Physical Reality" and has produced the "Extraordinary" Physical "Evidence required" to back up that "Extraordinary Claim".

    5.) - in response to your Post #95 : please explain how your statement : "I've seen many in the past trying to engage you in meaningful discussions including Kittamaru and Trippy." , has anything at all to do with "wormholes"...
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    ...

    You need to accept dmoe, that you will be judged on the seriousness and genuine nature of your questions or lack thereof, on this forum by your peers that have judged you in the past.
    I'll leave it at that for the reasons I stated.
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2016
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,620
    Does anyone participating here hold the opinion that any mainstream scientists proclaim wormholes do not exist?
    Does anyone participating here hold the opinion that any mainstream scientists proclaim wormholes do exist?

    If we're all in agreement about claims of existence v. non-existence, the meta-disagreement may be a moot point, thread-wise.
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Some prefer games to science discussion Dave, for different reasons.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The answer is of course we don't know, but as per the scientific method, and the fact that at one time, many speculative areas of cosmology are now accepted as confirmed, including time dilation, gravitational waves and gravitational lensing:
    Research in the meantime continues as per the OP and Professor Susskind, but the position here as I see it at this pedantic stage, is that those that have a fanatical "bee in their bonnet" re 21st century cosmology, [and/or myself

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ] must deride whenever they see something that overshadows there own fabricated fairy tales: hence the obvious "not so smart" obfuscation, the ignoring of the speculative nature of the OP and the recognised expert, the fact that it is predicted by GR whose track record is near perfect, the lies, the whinging, and total denial of exactly what you are saying.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,620
    Your stance is not ambiguous.
    I'm interested if anyone else disagrees, inasmuch as there's a lot of discussion about it that might simply go away.
     

Share This Page