The Emergence of Crackpots from the SciForums Space-Time

Status
Not open for further replies.
Farsight said:
Sacred? That word doesn't belong in physics.
Click to expand...

If you don't like sacred then we can say fundamental... Whatever semantics you like, it is really ok with me.

simple. And I'm definitely not throwing out Special Relativity. I'm with Einstein. I understand it way past the postulates down to baseline reason. And if you'd ever actually read what I wrote, you'd realise it.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are. You have preformed a Lorentz Transform on a time coordinate and not a space coordinate. This is the definition of breaking Lorentz Invariance. The two frames you have described are not linked by a simple Lorentz Transformation, therefore, you have lost the idea that the laws of physics are the same in the two frames. This means you have broken Lorentz Invariance.

I understand it way past the postulates down to baseline reason. And if you'd ever actually read what I wrote, you'd realise it.
Click to expand...

But don't you see that what you write is completely irrelevant---you have already told me everything you have written is garbage. You have destroyed the manifest Lorentz Invariance of the theory. This is the heart of special relativity.

Not so. And you don't know the first thing about space and time. I can hop backwards a metre, so you can hop backwards a second? Spot the difference? Or maybe you'd prefer to change the subject.
Click to expand...

Then maybe you'd read my master's thesis? This is quickly disentegrating into a finger pointing contest, and I am happy to continue, because you prove my point with every post you make. You clearly don't understand special relativity beyond the fact that Einstein invented it. This much is painfully evident.

And if you will do me the honor of remembering, you suggested I was an advocate of Intelligent Design
Click to expand...

No, I just implied that your ideas carry the same scientific weight as intelligent design. Read it again.

But you don't read them. How do you know they're filled with things that are wrong?
Click to expand...

If they are filled with the same garbage that you have posted in this thread, then I don't need to read them.

Really, Farsight, what would change if I decided to read your ...Explained posts now. I would find the same objections, and you would refuse to hear them as all crackpots do.

If anyone is still following the thread, I hope they can see the point that I'm making unfolding here. Farsight refuses to acknowledge that he doesn't know what he's talking about, and MetaKron suddenly knows something about physics.
 
Farsight said:
And you don't know the first thing about space and time. I can hop backwards a metre, so you can hop backwards a second? Spot the difference?
Click to expand...

Would you like a math lesson as to why you're completely wrong about space and time being different?
 
My own view says that it is time that moves forward and not us going backwards.. correct me if i am wrong.. ^^
 
BenTheMan said:
If you don't like sacred then we can say fundamental... Whatever semantics you like, it is really ok with me.
Click to expand...

Oh, so you're a fundamentalist type. It all falls into place now.

Don't you love being a stereotype?
 
Last edited:
BenTheMan said:
Would you like a math lesson as to why you're completely wrong about space and time being different?
Click to expand...

LOL, just jump backwards a second you loon. What next? Are you going to offer maths lessons on time travel? LOL, listen to this voice of reason, calling me a crackpot.

Bah, all you can do is call people names. You don’t know the meaning of science, never mind semantics. Science involves thinking, being rational, examining ideas, and discussing them to move on to postulate, theory, experiment, proof. Openly. Honestly. With sincerity. Because that’s how physics ought to be. You wouldn’t know it if it jumped up and bit you on the ass. In your cloud-cuckoo world on the Lee Smolin thread, the best physicists aren’t physicists. They’re mathematicians.

But you’ve picked on the wrong guy this time bud. I’m streetwise. I'm fast. I’m strong. Literally. I’ve spent my last few weekends doing a patio, nobody beats me at arm wrestling, and I’ve never lost a fight. Oh, and I’m smart. You can see I’m smart. Ten times smarter than you are. You think you know it all about space and time? You don’t know the first thing about space and time. And I’ll prove it. I’ll wipe the floor with you. Here’s the ring:

RELATIVITY+.

Come on, step into my ring. Examine the ideas, look at their merits. Be rational. Then watch me knock you flat on sneering preening back. LOL, you won’t. Because despite all the intellectual arrogance, you’re afraid to. All you can do it hurl abuse and sacred incantations from the safety of your ivory tower.

Bah, you're just a chickenshit bully.
 
Farsight, this entire forum is a ghetto and even then it still has moderators who screw over any thread that starts on the usual sacred cows.
 
BenTheMan said:
Scientists don't start with a hypothesis, neglect all data to the contrary, and invoke some outside omniscient force to fill in all of the gaps. In this sense, ID is mysticism. There can be no tests of the premises ("die and ask God" doesn't count), and there can be no predictions. This means it is not science (as much as the president would like it to be).



I don't even know the point you're making here.
Click to expand...
the point is that science has been unable to create life from the elements, despite over 50 years of trying. this isn't mysticism it's cold hard facts.
 
the point is that science has been unable to create life from the elements, despite over 50 years of trying. this isn't mysticism it's cold hard facts.
Click to expand...

This is true. But it took Nature 3 billion years to do it---how long should we expect it to take? Is 50 years a reasonable amount of time?

Do you believe that there's no cure for cancer? We have been working on this problem for at least 50 years, and there is no cure yet.

These arguments don't even address the point that Intelligent Design can never even be proven, almost by definition. So you are throwing away a theory (Evolution) after a limited time scale, for a less rigorous theory which invokes a Designer that we can never know about or test.
 
Farsight said:
Bah, all you can do is call people names. You don’t know the meaning of science, never mind semantics. Science involves thinking, being rational, examining ideas, and discussing them to move on to postulate, theory, experiment, proof. Openly. Honestly. With sincerity. Because that’s how physics ought to be.
Click to expand...

I have been nothing but honest in this thread. I am honestly telling you that your ideas are wrong. Perhaps I should try to be nicer about it? I examined your ideas, or presumably the core that all of your ideas are based on. I found it to be inconsistent with SR. I told you and you refused to accept that fact based on some hopping argument. Instead of trying to understand MY argument, you attack my credentials. Physics ought to be free from crackpots like you.

Farsight said:
But you’ve picked on the wrong guy this time bud. I’m streetwise. I'm fast. I’m strong. Literally. I’ve spent my last few weekends doing a patio, nobody beats me at arm wrestling, and I’ve never lost a fight. Oh, and I’m smart. You can see I’m smart. Ten times smarter than you are. You think you know it all about space and time? You don’t know the first thing about space and time. And I’ll prove it. I’ll wipe the floor with you. Here’s the ring:
Click to expand...

And now aparently you want to get into the pissing contest that I'd tried so much to avoid. This is where the males walk around each other and beat their chests. I can't argue with you Farsight because there's nothing to argue with. There is no logic. There is no rigor. There is no common ground to start on. But against my better judgement (and commitments far more important that your backwards understanding of science), I will try to comment when I can.

Farsight---what will it change if I go to your forum and tell you the same things that I told you here? Will you magically become less adamant in your erroneous beliefs? Will you understand my arguments there as opposed to here?

Bah, you're just a chickenshit bully.
Click to expand...

And so it ends. If you think I am a bully you are wrong---I can only point out to you and to everybody where you are wrong, and it is up to you to either accept that I know what I am talking about, or judge that I don't. You can google my name (it's in my profile---I'm not posting anonymously like you) and see that I have studied physics for quite some time.
 
This is the point where the crackpot goes off on his own, among his crackpot friends, and talks about how he's sooo much smarter than some physicist on the internet. In Farsight's mind, I can assure you, he has won, and no amount of argument or logic can change that. It makes me cringe to think that people like him raise childeren and vote.
 
BenTheMan said:
This is true.
Click to expand...
glad you agree.
So you are throwing away a theory (Evolution) after a limited time scale, for a less rigorous theory which invokes a Designer that we can never know about or test.
Click to expand...
i'm not throwing away anything. i'm just making an observation.

like i stated in another thread, evolution, at least on a small scale, is a reality.

i've also been unable to determine why life hasn't been created, if it's a matter of technology, or semantics.

i believe that in order to qualify for "life" in this instance is the ability to reproduce itself.
 
BenTheMan said:
.... And if someone has a question, then I love to think about it and try to give an answer when possible. What I absolutely despise is when someone claims that all of modern science is wrong, with little or no understanding of the mathematical underpinnings.
Click to expand...

So how exactly this theory of space bending was established to be true ?
 
More insults, Ben?

No open rational debate on the nature of space and time? No sincere conversation about what a dimension is? Or why the lack of freedom of motion is the crucial difference between space and time? Or why you need to look beyond the axiomatic concepts time is a length and time flows to turn the postulates of Special Relativity into real understanding? And then really, really, understand why time travel is crackpot fantasy?

Just look at yourself. You talk of argument and logic. Yet there is none from you, just insults. You are a bully. And like all bullies, you're a coward to boot.

Go ahead and cringe. You'll really cringe come the day you find out I'm right.
 
BenTheMan said:
This is the point where the crackpot goes off on his own, among his crackpot friends, and talks about how he's sooo much smarter than some physicist on the internet. In Farsight's mind, I can assure you, he has won, and no amount of argument or logic can change that. It makes me cringe to think that people like him raise childeren and vote.
Click to expand...

Ben,

Your posts, from what I've seen, are generally well thought out, and on topic. That puts you in the minority on Sciforums. But let me say that I've enjoyed your thoughts and contributions. Please don't let the Baron Maxs' of the forum dampen your enthusiasm. (Nothing personal BM, but you seem to have the insatiable urge to interject yourself into every thread, regardless of whether or not you have a single shred of a clue what is being discussed.)

Unfortunately, this place has very weak moderation, which leads to 29 page threads with maybe 15% of the posts on topic and relevant. Despite this fact, some of us still come back here because occassionally a topic of interest pops up, and the members of the forum with genuine interest, and in some cases, professional experience/expertise in science contribute. Those handful of threads probably justify the existence of sciforums, depending on your POV. Most of the time this place is more like a bad yahoo chat room, but if you're patient, and use your filter, you can stumble onto some very interesting posts, and posters.

I would stay away from bringing your actual experience, and working knowledge of a topic into the ring. From my experience, and observations around here for the past four years, the everyday posters seem to have an especially zealous contempt for bringing professional context into a thread. It might be due to the relatively high rate of unemployment amongst members of this forum, but I can't say for sure what motivates someone to denigrate examples brought from the first-hand context. My particular area of expertise rarely comes up around here, but in the limited number of times it has, and I have weighed in with working knowledge of the topic, my contributions were disregarded as irrelevant because they couldn't be "googled", or referenced on Wikipedia(possibly the worst thing to happen to science, ever.)

Keep up the good posts!

15
 
i've also been unable to determine why life hasn't been created, if it's a matter of technology, or semantics.

i believe that in order to qualify for "life" in this instance is the ability to reproduce itself.
Click to expand...

If this is your only criteria for life, then there are several research programs with the aim of creating self-replicating nanostructures. The idea is to figure out the physics/chemistry whereby a molecule can assemble other molecules like itself from some pool of raw materials. I am not intimately familiar with this research, but I do not think it is too far away.

I think that we are BOUND to think that we were designed at some stage. I mean, what could be more well made than the human body? It's complicated. It feels love and hate and comes up with crackpot ideas. It MUST have been designed. My feeling on Intelligent Design is that it's a last resort. If, on the verge of extinction, the human race hasn't come up with anything better, I'd say "Fuck it, we were designed."

Just because we haven't made life in the lab just yet, don't worry:)
 
Farsight said:
The transverse metre rule doesn't get length contracted. Time and space are different. We have freedom of movement through space. Look. I can backwards by one metre. I can't do that with time. They are different. And if you think they're the same, go step back a second. ...
Click to expand...

And there is no natural/artificial phenomenon that proves that time is a dimension.
 
MetaKron said:
...

A much less fantastical interpretation of this postulate is that all observers will observe the same speed of light when they account for their own motion, the motion of the object that they are observing, and the motion of the frame that they and the object share. At most practical distances for observation the relativistic frame can be treated as if it is not there. In any case, the moving observer sees a different speed of light only if he fails to take his own motion into account, and failing to do that would not be very good science.
Click to expand...

Actually all those who say such things are doing nothing more than trying to show that they know more than others and in the process try to justify that they are not crackpots to spend years in universities not realizing such simple things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top