What is needed to disprove an "accepted" theory?

[James R]

paddoboy:

That's OK with me. I have so far posted two E-Mails from expert professionals in the GR/GW field, both essentially writing it off as the usual antics by the many out to show GR and the great man as wrong.

I've read at least one of them; I'd have to go back to find the other one I guess.

Again, the emails you quoted do not address the topic under discussion. I suppose that you've written to these guys and said "Oi! Some crank on a science forum is saying that GR is wrong. Can you give me something that will prove that he is writing rubbish, or come over and argue it out with him on my behalf?" And the replies you have had have basically said "We're busy people getting paid to do real science and we don't have time to get involved in discussions on internet forums. If this guy you're arguing with has a valid point to make, let him publish it in a peer-reviewed journal and the scientific community will decide whether it has merit." Which is fair enough.

Do you appreciate, though, that no number of endorsements or statements that "The guy you are arguing with is a probably wrong/a crackpot/a conspiracy theorist/etc." actually make a dent in the point being argued?

Science is not done by authority. You can get as many emails as you like from esteemed scientists who say "I think that guy is probably wrong, but I don't have the time or inclination to get into an argument about it on an internet forum." and it won't make a jot of difference. Probably Q-reeus is wrong. Possibly he's a conspiracy theorist. Maybe he's a crank. But no amount of ad hominem is going to address his argument. Only a discussion of the physics will do that.

Your experts are right, of course. It is up to Q-reeus to make his case convincingly. He won't be able to do it with mere words. If he's serious, he'll need to produce the relevant maths, and write it all up in a form that actual scientists will want to read. If he's really serious, he'll need to go about publishing it in the usual way in a peer-reviewed journal. Unless and until that happens, all we have here is some people tossing an idea back and forth on an internet discussion forum. Nobody's career will be made or broken from this. Nobody's life is on the line. It doesn't ultimately matter if somebody on the internet is wrong about something - that is to be expected.

Here are some possible ways this could go:

1. One of our resident experts might show that Q-reeus's ideas are fatally flawed, and that will be the end of it.
2. Q-reeus and others may lose interest and the thread will become an unresolved discussion that exists in the back corner of the internet and goes no further.
3. Q-reeus might decide to flesh out his idea and actually try to publish it. (This is a long shot, but you never know.) In that case, his idea will go into the pool with all the other unconventional ideas and be evaluated as normal, or be read by almost nobody and ignored, or it might go on to revolutionise physics as we know it.

Whatever happens, Q-reeus's idea will not be sunk by somebody's name-calling, even if that person happens to have several Nobel prizes.

Of course my other beef was the totally over the top arrogance and petulance in the title, and the continued issuing of challenges etc throughout and asking who had the balls to take him up on it.
That sums up the point I made the other day, re my total lack of respect for such arrogance.

I think you need to get over seeing challenges to "established" science as some kind of personal attack on you or your sense of what is right or in good taste.

There have been countless challengers to Einstein and other tall poppies over the years. When somebody shouts "I have proved that Einstein was wrong!" the response of the scientific community's response is not, as cranks would have us believe "Blasphemy! Suppress that person!" but "Really? How interesting. Show us your proof then." Soon after that is where the overconfident crank usually fails to produce the goods, making lots of excuses as he fails to do what he claimed he could do. Meanwhile, the scientific community gets on with business as usual. Just occasionally, though, the response is "Ok. Here's my proof, written up with all the maths in an easily-understood and coherent form. Go check it for yourselves!" And so the winds of change begin to blow.

In summing I would imagine you/mods are getting heaps of reports about myself and I would also guess that each of those reports are from 3 or 4 people.

Correct.

Perhaps you need to check out the last 15 or so posts on this thread and notice the trolling/evangelising/goading/preaching and general pretentious nonsense from one in particular.

I am paying careful attention to this thread, I assure you. Due to the numerous reports, it has attracted my particular attention. Also, I currently have some time to attend to this (though that will likely change in the very near future).

Sure I could take your past advice and the advice of the latest professional E-Mail reply and ignore this person.

Right. My advice would be to ignore unless you have something directly relevant to put in response.

 

[Schmelzer]

Probably Q-reeus is wrong. Possibly he's a conspiracy theorist. Maybe he's a crank. But no amount of ad hominem is going to address his argument. Only a discussion of the physics will do that.

He is wrong, and this is known and established here, without any ad hominem, by the simple reason that he has refused to discuss the physics.

 

[Q-reeus]

Some interesting 'alliances' are showing up. The common ground being to attack me without any justification. Flattering to be given so much attention.

 

[paddoboy]

Again, the emails you quoted do not address the topic under discussion. I suppose that you've written to these guys and said "Oi! Some crank on a science forum is saying that GR is wrong. Can you give me something that will prove that he is writing rubbish, or come over and argue it out with him on my behalf?" And the replies you have had have basically said "We're busy people getting paid to do real science and we don't have time to get involved in discussions on internet forums. If this guy you're arguing with has a valid point to make, let him publish it in a peer-reviewed journal and the scientific community will decide whether it has merit." Which is fair enough.

No, I've E-Mailed these guys and posted the whole OP as detailed by q-reeus himself! Is that OK?

Do you appreciate, though, that no number of endorsements or statements that "The guy you are arguing with is a probably wrong/a crackpot/a conspiracy theorist/etc." actually make a dent in the point being argued?

I appreciate that if anyone had any legitimate case overthrowing GR, they would not be here.

Science is not done by authority. You can get as many emails as you like from esteemed scientists who say "I think that guy is probably wrong, but I don't have the time or inclination to get into an argument about it on an internet forum." and it won't make a jot of difference. Probably Q-reeus is wrong. Possibly he's a conspiracy theorist. Maybe he's a crank. But no amount of ad hominem is going to address his argument. Only a discussion of the physics will do that.

These are busy people, researching there own work in the proper manner.
They literally have many cranks every day, claiming to invalidate GR,
And if you want to speak of adhoms, why not check near every post of q-reeus's, with his usual swipe at anyone who dares oppose his stance as trolls....mainly me of course. Or is that just another little fact that you have missed James?

Your experts are right, of course. It is up to Q-reeus to make his case convincingly. He won't be able to do it with mere words. If he's serious, he'll need to produce the relevant maths, and write it all up in a form that actual scientists will want to read. If he's really serious, he'll need to go about publishing it in the usual way in a peer-reviewed journal. Unless and until that happens, all we have here is some people tossing an idea back and forth on an internet discussion forum. Nobody's career will be made or broken from this. Nobody's life is on the line. It doesn't ultimately matter if somebody on the internet is wrong about something - that is to be expected.

You seem to want 2 Bob each way James.

Whatever happens, Q-reeus's idea will not be sunk by somebody's name-calling, even if that person happens to have several Nobel prizes.

Why not go back and check out the first instances of name calling, or don't you have the time?

I think you need to get over seeing challenges to "established" science as some kind of personal attack on you or your sense of what is right or in good taste.

You are apt at quoting and implementing rules for your cause or to placate what ever pressure is brought to bare. So again this was simply two totally untrue, unproven OP titles claiming Einstein and GR wrong, in the sciences forum...and then the numerous challenges by q-reeus as to who had the balls to take him on. Nice style you condone when it is expedient.

There have been countless challengers to Einstein and other tall poppies over the years. When somebody shouts "I have proved that Einstein was wrong!" the response of the scientific community's response is not, as cranks would have us believe "Blasphemy! Suppress that person!" but "Really? How interesting. Show us your proof then." Soon after that is where the overconfident crank usually fails to produce the goods, making lots of excuses as he fails to do what he claimed he could do. Meanwhile, the scientific community gets on with business as usual. Just occasionally, though, the response is "Ok. Here's my proof, written up with all the maths in an easily-understood and coherent form. Go check it for yourselves!" And so the winds of change begin to blow.

I'm on the record as saying that even a negative result would have been interesting and conducive to science.

I am paying careful attention to this thread, I assure you. Due to the numerous reports, it has attracted my particular attention. Also, I currently have some time to attend to this (though that will likely change in the very near future).
]/QUOTE]
Yet the baiting, trolling, goading, preaching and fake pretentious nonsense continues. And you just warned me about sniping to some that is outright lying in another thread?

Right. My advice would be to ignore unless you have something directly relevant to put in response.

That may make it easier on you and the mods with the amount of trolls and their complaints about me.

 

[Q-reeus]

No, I've E-Mailed these guys and posted the whole OP! Is that OK?...

Which makes it less excusable, though understandable given workloads and 'prior history with cranks' etc., to simply write-off with a generic blanket statement.
And one suspects 'the whole OP', like with earlier Kip Thorne emailing, never included a separate link to illustration - invisible to anyone not registered and logged in to SF.

 

[paddoboy]

Which makes it less excusable, though understandable given workloads and 'prior history with cranks' etc., to simply write-off with a generic blanket statement.

Bloody oath! Particularly when it is done and promoted on a science forum, that is more conducive to trolls and cranks then other forums with stricter guidelines.

 

[paddoboy]

Some interesting alliances are showing up. The common ground being to attack me without any justification. Flattering to be given so much attention.

Wrong again my friend. If you are referring to Schmelzer and I, we have crossed swords many times. Or is this just another conspiracy that you dream up?

 

[paddoboy]

And one suspects 'the whole OP', like with earlier Kip Thorne emailing, never included a separate link to illustration - invisible to anyone not registered and logged in to SF.

More excuses? More conspiracies?
Your illustration was posted.

 

[Q-reeus]

More excuses? More conspiracies?
Your illustration was posted.

Sweet. Finally heeded admonition given earlier. So even less excuse for Bob Burman's response. Nicely on record here. I shudder not in anticipation of the next such email reply 'onslaught'.

 

[paddoboy]

Sweet. Finally heeded admonition given earlier. So even less excuse for Bob Burman's response. Nicely on record here. I shudder not in anticipation of the next such email reply 'onslaught'.

Your're still in a science forum my friend, pushing an unsupported hypothesis. Nothing more, nothing less, ho hum.

 

[The God]

Paddoboy,

A simple question for you.

Have you understood what Q-reeus' point is ?

PS: If you check, almost all your posts are taken off from the main thread by James R and dumped here. What does it signify ?

 

[paddoboy]

Paddoboy,

A simple question for you.

Have you understood what Q-reeus' point is ?

the god, an even simpler question for you. Do you understand that your's and other's flounderings and claims on a science forum, really and truly are not applicable to the scientific academia and learning institutions out there. As ego deflating as that is, that is the ultimate truth.

PS: If you check, almost all your posts are taken off from the main thread by James R and dumped here. What does it signify ?

Sure I recognise that fact, and just as James has stated, its because I along with a couple of trolls, have diverted somewhat from the actual subject content.
Perhaps though if you do some checking of your own, you will have noticed that James and other mods have moved whole threads and subject matter that you have started to not only "alternatives" but to pseudoscience, free thoughts and wait for it....even the cesspool!
What does that signify?

 

[expletives deleted]

paddoboy:

Let me straighten you out: Sir Roger Penrose was not one of the founding fathers of the BB. Perhaps George LaMaitre, Friedman, Gamow, De-Sitter, Hubble could be termed as founding Fathers, certainly not Sir Roger Penrose. From memory he did in the late sixties, work with Stephen Hawking with regards to Singularities, but the BB was already popular by then.
I stopped reading your post at that point.

Again you demonstrate clearly that subtle distinctions and comprehending parsing of text is not your strong (or even your mediocre) suit, paddoboy.

Note please that I said he was "one" of them because he helped "establish" the theory along with other mathematicians and mathematical physicists/theorists. I did not say he postulated it at the start of that Big Bang evolution from hypothesis to theory status.

Please therefore read, parse and comprehend posts and history properly next time, paddoboy. Thanks.

I'll 'see you' tomorrow (hopefully), paddoboy. Best.

Let's hope you learn something before then...on two counts....honesty and knowledge.

When you finish "rolling eyes", you might take your own advice on both counts, paddoboy.


Now please stop evading the point: Sir Roger had a change of heart about calling valid scientific and/or logical questions "nonsense", as I pointed out in my relevant post to you; he regretted the behavior of "experts" calling things and questions "nonsense" simply because they assume to know better even when the question/challenge highlights that the "expert(s) have no answer that makes any more sense than the question/challenge they labeled "nonsense" because of "kneejerking" without proper addressing of the point in question.

So paddoboy, now that you have no more deflecting tactics left to you, I ask you:

Have you read and understood the implications of that Sir Roger Penrose example for your own "expert" responses which you link here that call "nonsense" without proper addressing of the actual (and sometimes very subtle) points of difference raised in discussion?

Will you indicate whether or not that subtle point I made about the Penrose example got through to you yet? Or do you need a few days of reflection to forestall further evading and kneejerking etc from you on this point? Take as long as it takes, paddoboy. Thankyou.

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy:



Again you demonstrate clearly that subtle distinctions and comprehending parsing of text is not your strong (or even your mediocre) suit, paddoboy.

Note please that I said he was "one" of them because he helped "establish" the theory along with other mathematicians and mathematical physicists/theorists. I did not say he postulated it at the start of that Big Bang evolution from hypothesis to theory status. Read, parse and comprehend the history properly next time, paddoboy. Thanks.

I have and I do. You are wrong. He is not one of the Fáther's of the BB. Just as I explained....Please desist in trying to get out from under...please?
What you said

Sir Roger Penrose was one of the founding fathers establishing the Big Bang theory.

and you are wrong....period.

When you finish "rolling eyes", you might take your own advice on both counts, paddoboy.

I do and I have..... You are wrong as I have detailed, and I certainly and totally reject your excuse for noticing that the god had logged off.

I see that The God has logged out.

Worth noting also that when I did catch you out on your above little faux pas re Penrose, you needed to suddenly disappear for 24 hrs and research.
A shame you still got it wrong though.
Let me reiterate, Roger Penrose was not one of the founding Fathers of the BB, just as the evidence from the Hulse-Taylor binary Pulsar system was not explained by magnetic forces at all, but gravitational waves for which they received the Nobel Physics prize.
Remember my dear friend, being able to admit you are wrong, is the first sign of a man.....just as the great man Einstein did.

 

[James R]

paddoboy:

No, I've E-Mailed these guys and posted the whole OP as detailed by q-reeus himself! Is that OK?

You can email whomever you like with whatever you like. That's entirely up to you.

I appreciate that if anyone had any legitimate case overthrowing GR, they would not be here.

Maybe not. But you understand that this does not address any case that they choose to post here, legitimate or not. Don't you?

These are busy people, researching there own work in the proper manner.
They literally have many cranks every day, claiming to invalidate GR,

That's the point I made previously. I have not criticised the "experts" for not dropping everything and coming here to tackle Q-reeus (or whoever else) directly. They have better things to do with their time. I also think they are being very generous with their time in taking time to respond to your complaints to them about some debate you're engaged in on an internet forum. The take-away message is generally "Don't let the cranks get to you. They will be ignored unless they can come up with the goods." And that, of course, means actually being part of the scientific process, not standing outside it.

And if you want to speak of adhoms, why not check near every post of q-reeus's, with his usual swipe at anyone who dares oppose his stance as trolls....mainly me of course. Or is that just another little fact that you have missed James?

Instead of engaging with Q-reeus's ideas, you chose to attack his credibility on a personal level. Are you surprised that he asked you repeatedly to address his claims rather than attacking the man? Is that too much to ask?

You seem to want 2 Bob each way James.

If you think that then you haven't understood my position on this yet.

Why not go back and check out the first instances of name calling, or don't you have the time?

I don't have the time.

You can hit the "report" button on any post in which there is name calling and a moderator will take a look at the matter.

You are apt at quoting and implementing rules for your cause or to placate what ever pressure is brought to bare.

I don't know what you mean by that. Our posting guidelines here have not changed in several years, and you have been here the whole time.

What is this pressure you're referring to?

My aim here is to promote an on-topic discussion of the matters that have been raised, rather than the endless rounds of name-calling and finger pointing and "Miss! Miss! The God is being nasty to me! paddoboy is trolling my thread!" and so on. That's schoolyard nonsense and I'd like it to stop.

So again this was simply two totally untrue, unproven OP titles claiming Einstein and GR wrong, in the sciences forum...and then the numerous challenges by q-reeus as to who had the balls to take him on. Nice style you condone when it is expedient.

Of course Q-reeus is entitled to "take on" anybody who wants to argue his point with him. Provided this is done in the spirit of honest debate about the issues, that's why this forum exists. And, as I have stated, if Q-reeus claims that GR is wrong, the onus is entirely on him to make his case.

 

[expletives deleted]

paddoboy:

I have and I do. You are wrong. He is not one of the Fáther's of the BB. Just as I explained....Please desist in trying to get out from under...please?
What you said

and you are wrong....period.


I do and I have..... You are wrong as I have detailed, and I certainly and totally reject your excuse for noticing that the god had logged off.

Worth noting also that when I did catch you out on your above little faux pas re Penrose, you needed to suddenly disappear for 24 hrs and research.
A shame you still got it wrong though.
Let me reiterate, Roger Penrose was not one of the founding Fathers of the BB, just as the evidence from the Hulse-Taylor binary Pulsar system was not explained by magnetic forces at all, but gravitational waves for which they received the Nobel Physics prize.
Remember my dear friend, being able to admit you are wrong, is the first sign of a man.....just as the great man Einstein did.

Please resist the habit of attributing actions and motives based on your own uninformed and biased opinions and beliefs, paddoboy. I didn't need to research the Big Bang and Penrose aspects I pointed out for your information and understanding as to the implications for your own referrals to and replies from your preferred "experts". I already familiarized my self many years ago with the subject matter in question. That is why I raised the Penrose example of "expert" who previously used the "nonsense" label because he didn't want to face the implications or didn't have a sensible answer.

Now that you know all that, paddoboy, I ask you again:

Have you understood the implications of that example for your own referrals and replies involving your preferred "experts" (whom may also be doing what Sir Roger described he and all Big Bang "experts" were doing for a long time before the question was taken seriously on its scientific and logical merits and properly considered as no longer "nonsense" question/challenge etc?)

Thanks.

ON EDIT:

Why have you not argued your counterpoints to my point about the huge Electro-Magnetic field energy flows and features associated with NSs and Magnetars and Bhs binary dynamics? Is it because you have no idea about how much more active and unbalanced E-M field energy interaction and losses is between those massive bodies in binaries whose orbital gravitational-inertial forces balance to produce the orbital system in the first place? Please don't "bomb" unargued and/or irrelevant links to appeals to authority which doesn't address that point. Thanks.

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy:
You can email whomever you like with whatever you like. That's entirely up to you.

That's not the point, is it James. That was not why the E-Mail thing was raised, was it James.
what you said.....

Again, the emails you quoted do not address the topic under discussion. I suppose that you've written to these guys and said "Oi! Some crank on a science forum is saying that GR is wrong. Can you give me something that will prove that he is writing rubbish, or come over and argue it out with him on my behalf?".

I replied that I posted the whole of the OP as done by q-reeus.
If you were genuine you would have replied...."ÖK, that's the correct way to go about it" or words to that effect.
And you wonder why the majority of posters that would normally be interested in subjects such as this are staying well clear?
You know the same member posters that often reflect on case of trolls/cranks and god botherers on this forum and the amount of rope they are given?
Don't worry about it James, I can see I would have as much success in pursuing this as I did in the lack of action taken against a troll a while back that accused me of faking an E-Mail. Nothing in other words.

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy:



Please resist the habit of attributing actions and motives based on your own uninformed and biased opinions and beliefs, paddoboy. I didn't need to research the Big Bang and Penrose aspects I pointed out for your information and understanding as to the implications for your own referrals to and replies from your preferred "experts".

Of course you did! And you were still wrong.....or actually just trying to get out from under the second time around. It's there for all to see....not opinion based, not belief based...actual word for word about you claiming Sir Roger Penrose was a founding Father of the BB theory.
Again, he wasn't.

Now that you know all that, paddoboy, I ask you again:
.

Ask whatever you like. You were wrong in claiming that .....

paddoboy:
Sir Roger Penrose was one of the founding fathers establishing the Big Bang theory.

When you are man enough or as q-reeus likes to put it, have the balls enough to admit you were wrong, then I'l look at your question/s
[although even on that score, if it is an answer you don't like, you'll just ignore it anyway...or start on some evangelistic preaching mission ]

 

[expletives deleted]

paddoboy:

Of course you did! And you were still wrong.....or actually just trying to get out from under the second time around. It's there for all to see....not opinion based, not belief based...actual word for word about you claiming Sir Roger Penrose was a founding Father of the BB theory.
Again, he wasn't.



Ask whatever you like. You were wrong in claiming that .....

When you are man enough or as q-reeus likes to put it, have the balls enough to admit you were wrong, then I'l look at your question/s
[although even on that score, if it is an answer you don't like, you'll just ignore it anyway...or start on some evangelistic preaching mission ]

Why do you evade answering the germain point re implications of Penrose example for your "expert" opinion as received by you? Have you understood that some "experts" default to calling "nonsense" to avoid having to address something properly (for whatever reasons of time constraint or disinclination to engage the person or even because of having no real answer that makes sense)?

Please don't evade using your personal biased assumptions and attributions, semantics and split hairs, paddoboy. The example is as described. The implications are there. So what have you learned from that example regarding "expert" opinion which does not actually address the subtle points directly and properly?

 

[paddoboy]

I don't have the time.

You can hit the "report" button on any post in which there is name calling and a moderator will take a look at the matter.

My aim here is to promote an on-topic discussion of the matters that have been raised, rather than the endless rounds of name-calling and finger pointing and "Miss! Miss! The God is being nasty to me! paddoboy is trolling my thread!" and so on. That's schoolyard nonsense and I'd like it to stop.

Why not now reveal to the forum how many "reports" you have from me about the god or anyone else, and then compare that with the reports from "known trolls" about me?
Or how many threads I have started about other people, or whinging about moderation, as compared to "known trolls" that have started threads about me, or mods that have happened to moderate their posts or threads. the score is 0 to how many James?