I quoted the AI quote that supposedly quotes Stephen Hawking that coincides with my own decades long remembering of what Hawking wrote! I even quoted my search words on the net that brought up that exact wording I use that is so much nonsense drivel to you guys! I don't need to go any further than I've gone in bowing down to such tyranny. Somehow, though I try not to be, I am beyond you guys and you can't stand it.
Spacetime By the Volume!
- Thread starter Atlan0001
- Start date
- Status
Uh Oh! Sorry, I can't help myself (this is the kind of thing, opening and expansion of universe coming from the interior of black holes, I see and describe and get so burned for as nothing but nonsense drivel...)! The only difference between them and me is that I call this "singularity"!
allthatsinteresting.com
The Secret To The Universe's Expansion May Be At The Center Of Black Holes
Dark energy, the mysterious force that propels the universe to expand, makes up about 68 percent of the universe, but for years no one knew where it came from.
allthatsinteresting.com
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
What about this article is relevant to the topic of the thread? Why should we read it? Summarize why you think it's germane.
Spacetime by the volume!!!!!! Whether EXPANSION or CONTRACTION of 4-dimensional spacetime by volume! Sheez! You seem to have no vision or sense at all! None whatsoever, not even for the title and many times described direction of this thread!
Here I confirm I am not alone in this (these possibilities of spacetime by the volume dimensionality) overall in and of universe, and you can see nothing . . . do nothing but attack, attack, attack!
This is a research that goes directly to the heart of the topic, the title too, and the contexts of some of my posts of this thread and others!
The Secret To The Universe's Expansion May Be At The Center Of Black Holes
Dark energy, the mysterious force that propels the universe to expand, makes up about 68 percent of the universe, but for years no one knew where it came from.
allthatsinteresting.com
And by the way, my thread in that other more widely read and more popular science site (I admit I'm not allowed to post to anymore for reasons already given here) has now surpassed 195,000 reads of that one thread alone and my posts therein. I'm not doing so bad for being nothing but a purveyor of word salad and nonsensical drivel, I'm told in no uncertain terms.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
That doesn't really mean much.
Volume defines the three dimensional space something takes up.
Yes, spacetime takes up volume.
Are you just discovering this now?
The only one doing any attacking here is you.
I asked you to describe what it is the article and how it is relevant to the thread. I get to do that.
How does it do that?
What is the article about, specifically in how it ties to the topic?
It wouldn't matter what I say to you, it wouldn't be good enough . . . wouldn't be clean or clear enough . . . wouldn't be up to your tight and narrow standards. That is already proven!
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Yes. You have been entirely correct about that so far.
Everything you have said so far hasn't been good enough or clear enough to live up to the standards of logic, rational thinking and communication.
But there's no reason why you can't work on that. You have nothing to lose and nowhere to go but up.
Atlan0001:
You might want to lose that superiority complex you have there. It doesn't appear to be warranted, based on your contributions to this forum so far.
More importantly, stop the insults. If you are unwilling to converse civilly with other members, steps will need to be taken.
You might want to lose that superiority complex you have there. It doesn't appear to be warranted, based on your contributions to this forum so far.
More importantly, stop the insults. If you are unwilling to converse civilly with other members, steps will need to be taken.
You're wanting very much to deal in a one way street only, sir.
Atlan0001:
While you might feel insulted when people call you on your nonsense, that's not actually an insult.
The insult lies more in you coming in here pretending you know physics and have some original contributions to make to it, when it is obvious that you don't have a clue what you're talking about and struggle even to compose a post with complete sentences.
Meanwhile, there are a few people here who do know some actual science. But, like the garden variety crank, you dismiss all of them as having too much "book learning" and not enough imagination, and imagine yourself to be smarter than all of them.
Or, at least, that's the persona you're portraying.
While you might feel insulted when people call you on your nonsense, that's not actually an insult.
The insult lies more in you coming in here pretending you know physics and have some original contributions to make to it, when it is obvious that you don't have a clue what you're talking about and struggle even to compose a post with complete sentences.
Meanwhile, there are a few people here who do know some actual science. But, like the garden variety crank, you dismiss all of them as having too much "book learning" and not enough imagination, and imagine yourself to be smarter than all of them.
Or, at least, that's the persona you're portraying.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
There is a big difference between attacking a person's arguments (which is what we are doing) and attacking a person (which is what you are doing).
You posted a link to an article, but said nothing about what relevance the article has to the thread topic.
It is, after all, mentioned in the rules:
"E8. When linking to other sites, include a description and/or meaningful link text"
I asked what relevance the article has. I get to do that.
Your response - rather than addressing what I said and what I asked for - was to attack my person:
"You seem to have no vision or sense at all! None whatsoever..."
Time and time again, in every thread, your words are challenged, but your responses do not address the argument, they always seem to attack the person. Attacking the person instead of the argument That is called an ad hom, and it is a logical fallacy. It is also an attempt to dodge the question.
You have done this so many times that we have little choice but to conclude - from the words you post here - that the reason you do not address challenges is because you do not have answers. And it follows that the reason you do not have answers is that you do not know very much about physics at all.
Your personal insults do not matter; they fall on deaf ears (except moderation, where, eventually, you will likely be infracted). What you are judged on is the logic and insight you provide, and the thoughtfulness and directness with which you address challenges to your arguments.
You are not providing much of either. When asked to clarify anything (for example, post 65, above) you dodge and weave and throw personal insults, but don't actually add substance to the topic. This is damages your credibility. Address the arguments when they are posed. Clarify when asked for clarification. Address the arguments, not the person.
Isaac Newton's "equality" translates to the balancing point, balancing weight, of nature(s).
Einstein's "rest" translates to the balancing point, balancing weight, of nature(s).
Hawking's "Grand Central Central Station of Universe" with its special clock in the middle out, the (seed) trunk of the tree out branching in rings and roots and other branching(s), translates to Newton's "equality" and Einstein's "rest" and the balancing point, the balancing weight, of nature(s). Nature(s), including time, and times (Hawking's clock). Including infinities, including infinities of 4-dimensional volumes of spacetime, canceling to '0', leaving some local relative finite but never, ever, disappearing.
And so forth and so on.
All word salad nonsense gibberish pseudoscience, of course (Newton's balancing) (Einstein's balancing) (Hawking's balancing) (....) (my balancing of nature(s). Including old things now to and as new things, Old World(s) now to and as New World(s), new things as old things, New World(s) then as Old World(s), "history always repeating in its large aspect though rarely seen to in its small detail(s)." The automatic conversions of nature(s) to many different worlds (the theory of "Many Worlds"). Nothing but word salad nonsense gibberish pseudoscientific metaphysics.
And, by the way, there is such a thing known as "clipped sentences" that many writers choose to, or for reasons are required to, write in! I both choose to these days at my age and have been many, many, many times required to in my life, write in (in something like shorthand) "clipped sentences." I like it, as I've discovered over time and many responses back, for being somewhat similar to poetry.
-------------------------------
"He is the best sailor who can sail within fewest points of the wind, and exact a motive power out of the greatest obstacles." -- Henry David Thoreau.
Einstein's "rest" translates to the balancing point, balancing weight, of nature(s).
Hawking's "Grand Central Central Station of Universe" with its special clock in the middle out, the (seed) trunk of the tree out branching in rings and roots and other branching(s), translates to Newton's "equality" and Einstein's "rest" and the balancing point, the balancing weight, of nature(s). Nature(s), including time, and times (Hawking's clock). Including infinities, including infinities of 4-dimensional volumes of spacetime, canceling to '0', leaving some local relative finite but never, ever, disappearing.
And so forth and so on.
All word salad nonsense gibberish pseudoscience, of course (Newton's balancing) (Einstein's balancing) (Hawking's balancing) (....) (my balancing of nature(s). Including old things now to and as new things, Old World(s) now to and as New World(s), new things as old things, New World(s) then as Old World(s), "history always repeating in its large aspect though rarely seen to in its small detail(s)." The automatic conversions of nature(s) to many different worlds (the theory of "Many Worlds"). Nothing but word salad nonsense gibberish pseudoscientific metaphysics.
And, by the way, there is such a thing known as "clipped sentences" that many writers choose to, or for reasons are required to, write in! I both choose to these days at my age and have been many, many, many times required to in my life, write in (in something like shorthand) "clipped sentences." I like it, as I've discovered over time and many responses back, for being somewhat similar to poetry.
-------------------------------
"He is the best sailor who can sail within fewest points of the wind, and exact a motive power out of the greatest obstacles." -- Henry David Thoreau.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Online? In science discussion forums? While engaged with others?
Or do you mean when writing in their personal blogs?
And how is that working out for you here, on this discussion board, where you have chosen to come to discuss ideas?
Consider adapting your style to the venue you have chosen, so that a lot less time, effort and posts are wasted with users saying your posts are not complete sentences and therefore difficult to parse.
In case you think I'm just making this up to grind your gears, here is the guideline:
E14. The aim of writing anything is to communicate something to somebody else. Make your posts readable – use paragraphs, punctuation, correct capitalisation and correct spelling. Make your point clearly and succinctly.
Sciforums site rules
Sciforums - Rules, posting guidelines and advice to members (summary) Sciforums is an intelligent community that encourages learning and thoughtful discussion. We expect and welcome contributions that inform as well as stimulate discussion and debate. At its foundation, sciforums focused on...
www.sciforums.com
I'm not telling you you have to write a certain way, I'm simply pointing out that discussion is a two-way a street, and that, adapting your style to suit your audience will result in a lot fewer posts like "This is not a sentence; it's not parsable" and "Can you please clarify that word salad?", which will raise the overall quality of your favourite threads.
Contrarily, if you choose to write in ways that are difficult for others to follow, then you really have no business complaining when you are not understood, do you? Ball is in your court.
I've used this poem a few times before as a poetic illustration of cosmological physics, believe it or not. I've also used Lewis Carroll's 'Alice in Wonderland' / 'Through the Looking Glass', Arthur Canon Doyle's 'Sherlock Holmes: A Study in Scarlet' essay; Just one of the many illustrations, articles, quotes, and so on, that helped support in their ways my picture and modeling to so many reads elsewhere.:
'Antigonish', 1899CE, by William Hughes Mearns
Yesterday upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there!
He wasn't there again today,
I wish, I wish, he would go away!
When I came home last night at three,
The man was waiting for there for me!
But when I looked around the hall,
I couldn't see him there at all!
Go away, go away, don't you come back anymore!
Go away, go away, and please don't slam the door... (slam!)
Last night I saw upon the stair,
A little man who wasn't there!
He wasn't there again today,
Oh, how I wish he'd go away....
Illustrations come in many more forms, many more varieties, than just one!
'Antigonish', 1899CE, by William Hughes Mearns
Yesterday upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there!
He wasn't there again today,
I wish, I wish, he would go away!
When I came home last night at three,
The man was waiting for there for me!
But when I looked around the hall,
I couldn't see him there at all!
Go away, go away, don't you come back anymore!
Go away, go away, and please don't slam the door... (slam!)
Last night I saw upon the stair,
A little man who wasn't there!
He wasn't there again today,
Oh, how I wish he'd go away....
Illustrations come in many more forms, many more varieties, than just one!
Last edited:
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
This isn't going anywhere.
Just different spokes to the hub. You guys attack just about everything I present, in every form I present it, as word salad nonsensical drivel and pseudoscientific metaphysics.
I mention an unobserved and unobservable future history universe (an unobserved and unobservable volume of spacetime), as opposed to an observed and observable past history universe (observed and observable volume of spacetime), as existing concurrently and entangled with the observable, and you guys go nuts screaming that it is all nonsense rubbish . . . or come back with what does it have to do with anything!. Or say, "This isn't going anywhere."
I'm pressing the issue of instruction in the realism you attack as nonsense rubbish!
"Brevity may be the soul of wit but repetition is the heart of instruction." -- Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. (The heart of instruction! (Of teaching!))
- Status